Talk:Kingdom of Finland (1742)

WikiProject Former Countries?

Hi, I think marking this article to be a part of the "WikiProject Former Countries" project is a misunderstanding. --Drieakko 20:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the misleading tag. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice that the tag for WikiProject Former countries has been removed from this page. Any article dealing with the subject of a historic state, regardless of what stage of establishment it may have been in falls under the scope of the project and the set of provisions contained in the project. The tag is not a misunderstanding nor misleading. Please feel free to visit or join the project. -- Domino theory 11:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Finland was no state at the time, so it may not be within that project. The article only deals with a propagandist incident in the 1740s. Nothing came out of the plans of the time. --Drieakko 13:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What is within the scope of WPFC is not a matter of your personal opinion. Any questions regarding the project should be directed to the project talk page. Removing the tag after receiving information on why it was added can not be regarded as an act in good faith, please refrain from it. -- Domino theory 19:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Claims of foul play on the part of Russia

Drieakko, I urge you to remove anti-Russian slant from the article. There are many claims to the effect that evil Russians duped Finnish simpletons, that they wanted to set up a puppet state in Sweden, etc. We need reliable sources to buttress these claims. Do the authors of the Suomen historia know what the puppet state is? Elizabeth wanted to have a friendly regime in Sweden, run by a relative of her heir; she did not want more pointless wars with Sweden. As far as I can see, she wanted Sweden as an ally, not a "puppet state". When France and Sweden engineered the coup d'etat in Russia and brought Elizabeth to the Russian throne, did they "decide" to make Russia a "puppet state" of France and Sweden? I dare say it's oversimplification. It's not obvious that the term is applicable to the mid-18th century politics at all. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no anti-Russian propaganda, although some parts may be formulated differently. I need to check the details again and I'll get back to this.

As for the propaganda, Elizabeth was not born yesterday and used what it took to get the war managed favourably. When the Russian counter-offensive started, there were Finnish leaflets distributed in which, in her name, Finland was promised to be made into an independent country if Finns surrendered. This was soon forgotten as it turned out that resistance was negligible anyway and that she got access to directly interfere with the Swedish politics. That was just normal propaganda, nothing specific there, even though the events of 1809 might indicate that the plan of a buffer area really existed in the Russian court. In 1743, Russia also sent troops to Stockholm after the war to see that things went as planned. When someone uses military force to establish a "friendly regime" of her own choosing, that can be regarded as a "puppet state" (what else could be its definition?). Even if the term "puppet state" carries political undertones, Wikipedia is nevertheless broadly using the term and labelling plenty of past countries with it. --Drieakko 10:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Fixed RFCxxx template, changed section param to match section name. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This article by its nature falls into the scope of the WikiProject Former countries. Since this is the case the project tag has been added to the talk page. Following this the tag has on two occasions been removed from this page. The last deletion happened after explicitly having been given a brief with information regarding the scope of the WikiProject.

What is within the scope of the project is determined by the project and not by personal opinion. Adding a tag for a WikiProject to a talk page should be uncontroversial, yet in this case it seems not to be. Removing information from a talk page put there by another user when there is ongoing discussion is not a good thing. Deleting information after having been expressly told that it is not there by mistake, can not be understood as acting in good faith. It is difficult to conclude that this would be anything other than an act of vandalism to the talk page.

The purpose of calling for this RfC is to try to resolve this question without having to suffer further reverts to the talk page or to the article, given the fact that it has already occurred and that the main principal behind it is simultaneously the creator and outstandingly most frequent editor to the article. -- Domino theory 19:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a single history book would refer to the events of 1742 that they had resulted in a "former country". Labeling this article with such a flag would be greatly misleading to Wikipedia readers and give wrong impression what happened back then. If you insist on adding this article to the WPFC project, please rename the project appropriately to allow broader coverage of topics. Another option is that this article will be renamed to prevent any misunderstandings. --Drieakko 19:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to the RfC

I'm previously completely uninvolved in this discussion. My impression from what is currently in the article is that the declaration of the Kingdom of Finland did not actually result in a state being formed. Therefore it is not strictly speaking a "former country". Having said that, I'm saddened that it is seen as a problem having the article added to the Former Countries WikiProject. WikiProjects are there to help articles out. Even if it doesn't really fit in the project, why worry? Why not welcome the chance to get more attention paid to the article? The main thing the article seems to need is a greater variety of sources. If you can get to the stage where you can compare interpretations by different historians then that will head off all accusations of POV from whatever direction. HTH. Itsmejudith 21:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As another hitherto uninvolved editor responding to the RFC, I tend to disagree on the face of it that this article fits into the self-described scope of the Wikiproject since, as noted, this Kingdom of Finland never actually existed as a state. I'd be prepared to change my mind if I saw that the editors involved in the Wikiproject feel that this article is in-scope (so far, I see that none have joined the discussion on the project's talk page), but until then I endorse the removal of the box. Sarcasticidealist 08:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am here as a representative of the WikiProject and as one of the founders I am trying to clarify how the project works and what falls into it's scope. The project concerns itself with all historical political entities, not merely established sovereign states. This is an article of an historic attempt to create a state, or even an historically proposed state, and as such it falls into the scope of the project. Does it matter how far the process of establishing a state actually went? No, from the perspective of whether the article falls into the scope of the project it does not. Already the fact that Finland was under Russian military occupation at the time would be enough to place it in the scope of the project.

I am trying not to polarize the issue, but I have this far perceived a reluctance from the creator of the article to allow any type of edits that deviate from his or her own perspective of how the article should be presented. This to the point of having edits even on the talk page reverted. If this would be the case it is obviously an unreasonable position. -- Domino theory 14:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose since you're involved with the Wikiproject and none of the rest of us are, we can take you at your word. It would really be helpful, though, if any other members of the Wikiproject offered their agreement with your interpretation, either here or on the project's talk page. Sarcasticidealist 18:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that inclusion in the WikiProject is appropriate, well within what anybody would consider the scope of the project. Any problems which exist here have more to do with the name of he article than anything else. It is time for all of you to shift your focus. Gene Nygaard 13:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think this article is within the scope of wikiproject former countries, which deals with ephemeral, abortive and still-born states, of which the 1742 Kingdom of Finland is arguably one. (btw, doesn't WikiProject Ephemeral, Abortive and Still-born Countries sound much cooler? :)--victor falk 06:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, victor, that Wikiproject would probably be illegal in Ireland.

Seriously, though, I quite honestly fail to see why this is such a big issue. Does the failed Finnish Kingdom really count as a former state? Probably not, no. But it would seem to me that, if the WikiProject, which has experience with and knowledge on failed states, wants to concentrate some amount of attention on it, why not let them? If you're really worried about people misconstruing it, add {{talk header}} to remind people that talk pages are not for encyclopedic content. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 12:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

opposition from Frederick of Hesse

in 1741..., Frederick of Hesse opposed the Gottorp family seek the infopiece about opposition Moreover, from another source, the deceased aunt, the Queen Ulrika Eleonora, is said to have hated her nephew the Duke (who predeceased her). 88.195.248.164 (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)