Talk:Pro Patria Union

Dispute

The assertion has been made that this party deserves an entry on List of fascist movements by country A-F; furthermore, the affiliation given is "far right", which isn't really a fascist movement per se but rather a contraindicated lump term for all kinds of movements, fascist and not. Making reference to the definition as given above, what's the historical case for their inclusion? --Stlemur 20:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This fascism tag is completely inappropriate, the party is a member of IDU and EPP and is thus conservative/christian democratic, with an emphasis on patriotism (or moderate nationalism). The party also supports EU membership, which is not a very common feature among fascists, is it? --Constanz - Talk 12:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The statement above is completely wrong. While Isamaliit is not faschist, it is clearly right-wing and nationalist by any European standards, whether NMS or "old Europe". There is nothing "patriotic" or "moderately" nationalist about Isamaaliit. That's easily checked when looking at the party program and statements. The party did support EU membership, but it is profoundly non-European in any meaningful sense of the word. 84.174.241.31 20:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The party did support EU membership, but it is profoundly non-European in any meaningful sense of the word. -- this proves that you are completely ignorant person to talk on the matter -- Pro Patria Union has always been pro-EU. Secondly, if nationalism is moderate or not is of course a up to one's POV and debatable, but your POV is here obviously unreliable. --Constanz - Talk 08:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

while most political scientists would call it nationalist and exclusionist (of non-ethnic Estonians) which scientists do you cite? The guys who call Belarus elections fair?--Constanz - Talk 08:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Cheap rhetoric, which shows Constanz is not interested in scholarly articles regarding Estonia, but in party-political propaganda. On an ethical level, I think most people who have a problem with Lukashenko would have a problem with Isamaliit as well. I guess I myself would mention, as political scientists agreeing with Isamaaliit being nationalist rather than conservative, most of the party researchers concerned with Estonia (and there is really a small number only; Taagepera, Pettai, Kreutzer come to mind, but anyone can list more). This is true, of course, only as regards the Isamaliit today, not about the one of the first Laar administration and the regaining of independence time. I also agree with the statement that Isamaliit is more or less "non-European" (which has nothing to do with the EU, as I read it; the EU and Europe are obviously not the same), although that is of course not NPOV (especially as some party leaders, such as Velliste or Tulviste or even Lukas, are clearly European in outlook and also not nationalist). Still, I would say that "right-wing" and certainly "nationalist" are NPOV, quantifiable characteristics, just like "fascist", and Isamaliit - although this is soon a historical matter only - is right-wing and certainly nationalist (but not, of course, fascist). Clossius 20:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This [i.e nationalism] is true, of course, only as regards the Isamaliit today, not about the one of the first Laar administration and the regaining of independence time. Now I really think you are missing some information. I doubt if any researcher would call Isamaaliit of 2005/2006 more nationalistic than that of the first Laar administration 1992-94. This was exactly the time when some controversial citizenship laws etc were passed and Russia accused the government of nationalism and so on. Pretty hard to comprehend, why you regarded Isamaaliit of April 2006 as a genuinely (radical) non-European nationalist party. You didn't specify anything, but accused me of

1. 'I said you are engaging in party-political propaganda, which you are'
2. your usual cheap rhetoric'
3. lobbyists like you'
4. cheap, unevidenced rhetorical tricks' (BTW - wasn't it Clossius, who refused to bring evidence- Weird...Constanz - Talk 07:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Clossus, thank you very much for your interest in Estonia (despite rather biased conclusion, though), I'd also suggest you read some good material available in German, namely: Boris Meissner, Die russische Politik gegenüber der baltischen Region als Prüfstein für das Verhältnis Russlands zu Europa -- in Die Aussenpolitik der baltischen Staaten und die internationalen Beziehungen im Ostseeraum, Hamburg:Bibliotheka Baltica, 1994, S.466-504. On your comments:

1.I am not Isamaaliit member nor have voted them. Thus, keep your party prejudices on me for yourself.

2.Your claim: 'Isamaliit is more or less "non-European", though some [?] leaders are pro-Europe -- this is of course purely your personal POV, as long as no source is given (I'm especially curious about those 'euroskeptic leaders' which you gave hints to)

3.Now Isamaliit is moderately pro-Europe but once they were [complete?] nationalists -- well, let us discuss then one of the most 'controversial' aspects of Laar's 1st governement, namely the laws on citizenship and acquring citizenship. To make it concise, I'm giving herr Meissner's conclusions (you might want to read the whole article):

Estonian 1992 Citizenship Law is one of the most liberals in the Europe [sic!]. It allows every inhabitant of Estonia, who is not Estonia's citizen, provided that they have lived there for 2 years, to acquire Estonian citizenship on the course of naturalisation. In addition to loyality oath, only some knowledge of estonian language is necessary. (for comparison, could someone point out, how easily do immigrants in Germany become its citizens? Or does Russia permit acquring Russia's citizenship without any knowledge of the state language?)

4.On an ethical level, I think most people who have a problem with Lukashenko would have a problem with Isamaliit as well. Well, it looks as if you are suggesting Isamaaliit leaders be expelled from the EU immideatly, as it was done with Lukashenko camarilla.

Also, it's a pity for me to become aware that my native land has been governed twice by a guy comparable to Belarus dictator, who has had several his political opponents murdered (to say nothing about the undemocraticnature of his regime)...--Constanz - Talk 15:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Constanz, why don't you listen for once to the arguments?

• Boris Meissner is dead (he was a conservative law professor, by the way, not a party researcher, and I've read most of his stuff on Estonia), so he was not really able to talk about Isamaliit after the 2nd Laar administration, which is the only matter under discussion here.
• ad 1.: well, you talk like that; I also never said you were a member. I just said you are engaging in party-political propaganda, which you are.
• ad 2.: I am actually referring to the party program and party statements, and I was saying that some key leaders personally do not support these right-wing, nationalist tendencies.
• ad 3.: this is sheer ignoring the argument: as is clear for everyone to read, nobody is talking about the 1st Laar admin., not even about the 2nd - the issue is solely the party programmatic development after that. (It's thus not necessary to engage in any discussion of your points on citizenship, although they are most debtable and also adorned with your typical array of unfriendly, condescending, "I-own-the-truth" rhetoric.)

I quote: This is true, of course, only as regards the Isamaliit today, not about the one of the first Laar administration and the regaining of independence time. how can one understand this, that Isamaaliit is now (in opposition) more nationalistic then before that in government? And its actual policies should then not be taken into account???--Constanz - Talk 07:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course, if this is the point of discussion, which it is. Parties have policies even if they are in the opposition. Isamaliit moved to the right during opposition - now that nobody doubts, ask even Laar or Lukas. Clossius 07:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• ad 4.: the most nonsensical statement. First of all, in one of your rhetorical flights, you introduced Lukashenko, and you accused all political scientists worldwide who might call Isamaliit right wing of then having sympathies with Lukashenko. What a bizarre, ridiculous maneuver! What I said is that, au contraire, most political scientists who would dislike L. would dislike I. as well. I never said they were the same, nor do I think so. And once again, you are introducing illegitimately Mart Laar as peaminister into the discussion, who was never once the issue here.

I quote:On an ethical level, most people who have a problem with Lukashenko would have a problem with Isamaliit as well. As far I know, I and an overwhelming majority of Estonians have no particular troubles with Ismaaliit, while we do not approve violent regime of Lukashenko. So far, EU officials have not had remarkable troubles with Isamaaliit, thus your statement is factually incorrect. And the comparison is inappropriate, for no serious scientist regards (unserious ones do) human rights questions etc in Estonia and Belarus at the same level. Estonia is considered a free country, and Lukashenko's Belarus not free. Period.--Constanz - Talk 07:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

"Period", aha. Nice level of discourse. I was not talking about Estonians, of course (I should have made that clear, perhaps), but about the international community who knows anything about the issues - but I think the overwhelming majority of Estonians does actually have some problems with Isamaaliit (if admittedly not the same kind they have with Lukashenko), which is why it has become a fringe party in Estonia, and one that now merges with a technocratic one (i.e. one with a very different ideology), just to survive by suicide. Clossius 07:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

and you accused all political scientists worldwide who might call Isamaliit right wing of then having sympathies with Lukashenko demagoguery par excellence.

Demagoguery? That is precisely what you said, as everyone can read above. Here is your quote:

while most political scientists would call it nationalist and exclusionist (of non-ethnic Estonians) which scientists do you cite? The guys who call Belarus elections fair?--Constanz - Talk 08:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Where did I oppose Ismaaliit being called right-wing? Who regards them leftists?? I claimed Isamaaliit is conservative/christian democratic, with an emphasis on patriotism (or moderate nationalism). Thus, once again, a question rises whether it wouldn't have been better if you hadn't begun disputing things here, for you do not talk of the things really concerned.--Constanz - Talk 07:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You mix this up, but I think not out of sheer stupidity, or language problems with English, or ignorance of Political Science standards, but I think on purpose and in order to obscure the issue. (Which is getting close to hooliganism - not quite yet, but close.) The entire "discussion" started when you you opposed with your usual cheap rhetoric the "right-wing" and "nationalist" labels for Isamaaliit by 84.174.241.31, which I think are entirely correct and fair, and also NPOV.

The discussion started, as an anonymous user objected to me calling Isamaaliit a conservative/christian democratic, with an emphasis on patriotism (or moderate nationalism). The article has all three ideologies, and I've not objected to having them there. So far, you have been fighting to reject 'moderate nationalism', however, no scientist has been referred by you, thus the alleged sudden extreme turn to the right by Isamaaliit remains an CLAIM UNPROVED. Instead of writing numerous paragraphs of text with disputable quality, you should have begun with citation and should have proved Isamaliit's alleged (extreme?) nationalist turn.--Constanz - Talk 08:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, why I was first referring to Lukasheno, was that guys who -as far as i know - seem to have tremendous problems with Isamaaliit's and Estonia's nationalism are the very scientists (of our great neighbour), who regard Belarus elections free and fair (remember SNG representatives there!). Thus, this has grounds. Unlike your comparison of Isamaliit (which has not been in power for 4 1/4 yrs) and dictator Lukasheno.--Constanz - Talk 08:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Just list two or three international (or internationally recognized) political scientists dealing with Estonian party politics who call Isamaliit today (get it? today, not 15 years ago!) "moderately nationalist"; where should the moderation come from? I think it's very good in principle that this discussion is here, so that POV lobbyists like you don't dominate the discourse and misinform international readers of the Wikipedia. Clossius 07:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Just list two or three international (or internationally recognized) political scientists dealing with Estonian party politics who call Isamaliit today (get it? today, not 15 years ago!) "moderately nationalist"; --- unfortunately you did not refer to any alternative opinions (yes, yes, don't mention any names, don't mention any of these alleged radical nationalist policies!). Thus, all of your claims remain at the level of I the prophet shall enlighten you (with the godly wisdom)!'--Constanz - Talk 08:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Finally, let me say that this is an encyclopedia. There is no privilege for citizens and "patriots" here when some country is involved, and if one feels too strongly attached to a subect, it is recommended that one recuses oneself. Maybe you should do that here. Please consider also that Estonia is a normal country by now; the super-patriotic need to be defensive about it is really over, and super-defensiveness actually doesn't reflect very well on the country (with which Isamaliit has, these days, very, very little to do anyway). It is much nicer and much more normal that some criticism is acceptable now, which most Estonians by now realize, and live, and all the better for the country.

I think I will leave this discussion here.Clossius 19:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you might have done it earlier.--Constanz - Talk 07:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually no, but now I really will. I'll unwatch it too; this is not worth my time anymore. The arguments are there, and everyone can read them; nobody will be detracted anymore by your cheap, unevidenced rhetorical tricks. Constanz, I am sure you actually want Estonia to look good. I hope you realize that by calling a right-wing, nationalistic party moderate, and by conducting a vendetta against normal political-scientific classement, what you accomplish is actually the opposite. My God, and you call yourself a Liberal. Clossius 07:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You call yourself a FDP supporter now - and continue hanging a picture of Nazi-forerunner Werner Sombart on your userpage. Liberalism surely is a broad term...Constanz - Talk 14:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

As broad as it is, it surely doesn't include you, the way you behave here. Sombart was no Nazi forerunner anyway. He was not a Liberal, true. Clossius 14:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Again you' decide, you esteem, you conclude - what kind of arbitrary do you think you are here? You have only written unfounded statements on Isamaaliit (WP:OR), and performed aggressive comments on me one of your rhetorical flights, by conducting a vendetta (!) against normal (!!) political-scientific classement, POV lobbyists like you.Constanz - Talk 05:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is absolutely hopeless to argue with you. Clossius 05:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope you realize that by calling a right-wing, nationalistic party moderate, and by conducting a vendetta against normal political-scientific classement, very interesting, who has called then Ismaaliit such a radical (and not moderate) nationalist party? May-be even close to Le Pen? hehe, normal political-scientific classement --- you are of course the only normal person here...

And as for my liberalism, that's reason I am not a supporter of Isamaaliit myself. Unlike you, i do not hide my political partisanship. I'm convinced though, that only German party that could have such arrogant 'knowers of the truth' among its ranks can be the Left Party.--Constanz - Talk 08:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

=Liberal Denmocratic Party

I don't have reference, but I followed closely the Estonia politics when this happened, and the Liberal Democratic Party was never part of the National Coalition Party 'Pro Patria'. It was in electoral alliance with the four constituent parties, but didn't join the unified party. Later it merged into the Reform Party.--213.243.158.185 14:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I looked it up, the Liberal faction in Riigikogu was formed on November 8, 1993. so far they were probably members of PP faction. But as for parties, I have to study it... --Constanz - Talk 14:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

English name

An explanation should be provided where and how the party has endorsed an English name that is not a literal translation of the Estonian name. Also, there's inconsistency in the English wiki, with a number of pages referring to Fatherland Union. We should decide which English name to use. Rain74 18:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

@Mirella Cece: has now renamed this page from "Pro Patria Union" to "Homeland Union". It does sound better, but I'd still like to see some sources that support this as an official translation. If not, perhaps we should stick with Estonian "Isamaaliit" instead of inventing new names. -- intgr [talk] 09:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Intgr:. A better translation may be "Fatherland Union". However, a question needs to be clarified: the literal translation, with a true sense, and that is correct, is "Fatherland Union" (or Homeland Union), as you can see on authoritative sources (here, here, here, etc.). At the same time, the party would prefer to be called, in English, instead of the translated name, with the Latin phrase "Pro Patria" (but not "Union Pro Patria", but only "Pro Patria": source: Economist: "Isamaaliit, which literally translates as Fatherland Union, though it prefers, oddly, to be known in English by the Latin Pro Patria"). The best thing is to make a normal translation, and not to follow the desires of a political party about how it wants to be called in foreign countries. In any case, the "Pro" has nothing to do with the translation (automatic translators commit various errors): "Pro Patria" is the name under which the party wishes to be called in foreign countries, but it does not represent any translation! But we must follow objective criteria, criteria that derive from political science, and not from the desires of a political party.--Mirella Cece (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mirella Cece: The "objective criteria" used by Wikipedia is reliable, published sources. It doesn't matter that "Pro Patria" is not actually a translation; if that's how sources refer to it then that's what Wikipedia should convey. The point of Wikipedia (and encyclopedias in general) is to summarize and aggregate published knowledge, not original research. -- intgr [talk] 23:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Intgr:. Original research? Did you read the sources I've shown? The most important sources about politics use the normal translation "Fatherland Union". I don't understand the reason so that we should use a different terminology, while authoritative sources refer to the correct translation. "Fatherland Union" is used by important sources of political science: it's not the result of a my invention or original research! --Mirella Cece (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mirella Cece: I am sorry, I only addressed a part of your comment, my bad. I was referring to the name "Homeland Union" and your defense on the basis of "it's not a normal translation" as original research. Do you agree with me that the move to "Homeland Union" was unwarranted? (In the future, please follow the requested moves process for renames that are potentially controversial)

It's hard to find solid published sources that would settle the question between "Pro Patria" and "Fatherland Union", certainly both versions are in widely use. 2 of the 3 sources you linked are good (let's ignore the historic one talking about 1920-1940), but there are also plenty of examples to the contrary. On the grounds that:

1. A Google test favors Pro Patria (23,200 results) over Fatherland Union (5710 results) — a difference of 4 times.
2. Pro Patria was the official English name of the party (and still is of the new union).

I'm not convinced; I'd say that "Pro Patria" is slightly more preferable. The burden is on you to come up with criteria that makes "Fatherland Union" and stand out, that is rooted in Wikipedia guidelines.

Also: are we only talking about the name of this particular article, or does all of this also apply to Homeland and Res Publica Union? -- intgr [talk] 20:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Intgr:Google test favors Pro Patria for a very simple reason: WP in English had been using the term "Pro patria" for lots of time and there are many websites that rely solely on WP. Also, which coould be the relevance of a certain number of sources? How many inappropriate sources are circulating on the internet? We have evaluate the sources that are authoritative, that are written by experts on the subject... the translation "Fatherland Union", in any case, it is absolutely correct, is supported by authoritative sources, which are written by people who deal with politics in the whole world (for example, in german, "Vaterlandsunion"); the point is, if anything, to choose between two alternatives, i.e. if we have to use a normal translation (as for all non-ethnic parties on WP), or if we have to satisfy the strangeness of a party that claims to be called with a name that is different from his real name. I do not understand why this party should be an exception compared to all the conventions of WP. The encyclopedic importance of this party comes from its activities in Estonia: it is right to refer to the name that this party uses in Estonia. We could reach a different consideration if the party had carried out his activities abroad, such as in "States without government" that, abroad, may be known by different names. Otherwise, it would be better to move to the original name; but it would be wrong, from the point of view of the political science, to use a name that is not connected to the actual activities of the party. (I think we have to apply this also to Homeland and Res Publica Union).--Mirella Cece (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've moved the article back to the original title until consensus has been formed. --Nug (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I've check the IRL website and "Pro Patria Union" is what they use to call themselves in english[1]. --Nug (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Nug: Did you read what Economist says? Did you read what @Rain74: said? I did say that "Pro Patria Union" is what they use to call themselves in english: and I contested the fact that WP shold not use this criterium. Mah... --Mirella Cece (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mirella Cece:

> Google test favors Pro Patria for a very simple reason: WP in English had been using the term "Pro patria" for lots of time and there are many websites that rely solely on WP

I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion. It may be true that Wikipedia helped popularize one translation over the other. But the fact is, it's more popular now — how is that a reason to prefer the less popular name?

> the translation "Fatherland Union", in any case, it is absolutely correct

There is no guideline saying that the titles of articles about foreign subjects should be literal translations. WP:COMMONNAME states: "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural"

> for example, in german, "Vaterlandsunion"

How is a news article in German relevant to a discussion about English usage?

> if anything, to choose between two alternatives, i.e. if we have to use a normal translation (as for all non-ethnic parties on WP), or if we have to satisfy the strangeness of a party that claims to be called with a name that is different from his real name

If the popularities were roughly equal, we could consider this to be a tiebreaker, but that seems not to be the case — see below.

> We have evaluate the sources that are authoritative, that are written by experts on the subject...

You seem to be cherry picking sources that support your point, without attempting a fair comparison between the two names. I am not convinced by that, I could also find just as many articles to support the "Pro Patria" name, too (1 2 3 4 5 6 7). If we went down this path, it would end up as a pissing contest between how much effort each of us bothers to spend to find sources, without arriving at an objective result.

Here's my attempt at a fair survey of authoritative, expert sources: Within the top 30 results on Google, the search for Pro Patria finds 8 books (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8) and the search for Fatherland Union finds 4 books (1 2 3 4 — the last uses both, quoting: "Pro Patria (Fatherland) Union")

A Google Books search for each gives 2090 vs 400 results.

I accept that this methodology is quite fuzzy; presented alone it would not carry much weight, but it's a data point that indicates "Fatherland Union" is not the preferred name in expert sources. In addition to the Google test and the fact that Pro Patria is the officially preferred name, I think it starts to paint a clear picture.

> but it would be wrong, from the point of view of the political science, to use a name that is not connected to the actual activities of the party

The Latin "pro patria" means for one's country, which seems in line with the activities of the party. Both "fatherland" and "pro patria" refer to patriotism. -- intgr [talk] 18:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

non-working link

www.isamaaliit.ee does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.62.140 (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)