Talk:Baltic states/Baltic Republics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Were the Balkan Republics really treated as independent nations? I mean, Ukraine and Belorussia had seats in the UN, even when part of the USSR, but the Balkans didn't. -- Zoe

I think you mean Baltic ;) Thanx 68.39.174.150 03:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
No, that sentece means that de iure US and western Europe didn`t recognise those countries as part of USSR.

The term "Pribaltika" is still correct and valid Russian word (Прибалтика), regardless of Soviet period. 84.245.217.181 22:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Why does the image in this page represent the Baltic Sea? The Baltic Republics are not even visible in this map!

I think it is better to find and display some political map of the area.

Ptoniolo 11:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


POV

Thats an interesting article, seems to be some kind of POV fork for Baltic States. It should be merged with Baltic states where it can be mentioned that during the Soviet occupation the Baltic states were referred to as "Pribaltica" by Soviet folklore. otherwise the "Republics" were nothing more than administrative divisions of the unitarian, totalitarian USSR. --Termer 15:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It can also be preceived that article's scope is only thes Soviet era and it is about Region of USSR. Anyway it was already discussed on Talk:Baltic states, nothing was done in the end. ---- Xil...sist! 16:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I would see this as a geopolitical article with the Baltic states article focusing more on culture and common historical aspects. Prior to WWII, Finland was also counted as a "Baltic" state. Properly developed, I don' see any content forking.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vecrumba (talk • contribs)

According to Soviet law is yet another fantasy in the article. The USSR was not governed by the rule of law.--Termer 18:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but the USSR pretended it did. The Soviet constitution is quite a magnificent document. Alas, only make-believe when it came to practice. I do have to say I'm a bit unclear as to purpose... is this meant to be kind of a summary/parent to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, their respective "SSR" articles, and also the occupation articles? Should it be? As I indicated above, "Baltic states" needs the flexibility to also discuss Finland in a historical context, which wouldn't be appropriate for this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vecrumba (talk • contribs)
C'mon as any country USSR had laws, Termer, don't push POV where it is not needed. Merge the articles if you want to redirect links from articles on USSR to article about independent states ---- Xil...sist! 18:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

USSR pretended it did? Sure, but it doesn't mean that an encyclopedia should pretend. As any country USSR had laws. I can't believe this, in 10 years somebody might come up with ideas that Soviet Union used market economy. Once after 15 or so years of the Soviet collapse someone attempts to talks about soviet laws. Lets get this thing straight. Establishing the rule of law instead of the authoritarian, totalitarian regime was one of the major changes the post soviet societies had to go through. Thats a fact! calling this a POV pushing, I'm sorry, I can't take it seriously. --Termer 02:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Termer, the article is written in past tense and USSR had laws, one may question if any one acctuly followed these laws, however such writings did exit - there is a whole Category full of them. The article does not even imply that there was a rule of law, it merely says that there were laws that said something. I edited the article - there was no POV, but maybe anti-Soviet. Tagging an article that acctualy has no problem is a bad practice that you shouldn't adopt -- Xil...sist! 08:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinions. I'm sorry that I have to say this for so many times. The title of the article is not even based on and is not referring to any source. It is because it is based on someones personal opinion or POV. And please do not remove any tags on WP until the things have been sorted out. Thanks!--Termer 14:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
PS. the fact is the "Baltic Republics" [1] is used as a synonym for Baltic States in English language.--Termer 14:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The fact is that if you had read the your search results you had noticed that most of them refer to Soviet era. The things get sorted out by editing, when I edit an article and feel that I have removed everything that is POV I remove tag. You haven't specified any other concerns beside that the article mentions USSR law, if you won't come up with a sane argument in near future I will remove {{POV}} tag --~~~Xil...sist! 16:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean the Folk Tales from the Soviet Union: The Baltic Republics? Thats been my point all along. Referring to Baltic Republics as Soviet Republics only can be looked at as a "Folk Tale from the Soviet Union" . the one who talks about the Baltic Republics also in Soviet context is Kevin O'Connor. The first book By Gunnar Alexandersson talks about Baltic Republics in general like the other books. Thats also the fact nowadays, the Baltic Republics are the 3 republics: Republic of Estonia, Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania, member states of the EU. The Soviet POV might have some historic value to it but it doesn't justify naming an article accordingly and only referring to the era in the article. And please note, I do not wish to go over this for the third or forth time.Thanks--Termer 16:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
PS. If anybody wants to push the Soviet POV, then the article should be renamed the Soviet Socialist Baltic republics or anything like that and it should be noted in the article that these were not republics according to common understanding what a republic is all about but just administrative devisions of the unitarian state USSR.--Termer 17:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no POV in the article itself tagging it as biased is misleading. I think only {{pov-title}} should be used. As for title/merging - below ~~~Xil...sist! 17:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry to go over this for the forth time then: The term Baltic Republics referred to the three Soviet Republics of Estonian SSR, Latvia SSR, and Lithuanian SSR is a POV. The fact is: the term Baltic Republics refs to the Republic of Estonia, Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania and to the Estonian SSR, Latvian SSR, Lithuanian SSR during the Soviet era.--Termer 17:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That can be solved by dealing with the title too Xil...sist! 18:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The easiest would be just merging the article with Baltic states. having an article the Baltic soviet socialist republics would be still a pov title. The republics were just occupied Baltic republic/states/countries by the USSR according to the most sources other than Soviet and current Russian perhaps.--Termer 20:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not against the fact of continuity that occupational power might have had established some teritorial divison of the occupied territories. How about Baltic Republics (Cold War) ?--Xil...sist! 21:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

why don't we just call it Pribaltica :-D in case it is so important to have a separate article according to the eastern POV? Why exactly is it needed to have a separate article other than Baltic States, that were also "states" or "republics" of the USSR during the era, I fail to get it--Termer 21:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC) PS. Baltic Republics (Cold War) or anything like that would include the exile governments and diplomats of the republics housed in the US etc. and the soviet governments at the homelands, that seems like entirely new article--Termer 21:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Besides what is said below, here it would be posible to have in depth analysis of Soviet era. And note that this article reflects western viewpoint. The history section of Baltic states IMHO is sufficiently long and dosen't need such addition. Xil...sist! 22:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Merged versus not

I can only speak for myself, but keeping the articles separate and having some place to fold together Finland and Estonia for cultural purposes (in Baltic states) would be extraordinarily useful. It would also give all of us a (welcome) place to develop content away from the ceaseless WP:IDONTLIKEIT tagging. Just my perspective. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Myself, I would be for the merge. I personally often use "Baltic Republics (of the USSR)" when referring to the Baltic states in the historical context. Otherwise, I use "Baltic states". Nevertheless, in some Russian-language sources one still sees the term "Baltic Republics" being used to refer to the present-day states. Perhaps this is just a harmless old habit, or perhaps it is an intentional attempt at undermining the continuity with the pre-1940 states by stressing the continuity with the former SSRs. Who knows? (There are some Wikipedia editors out there who also seem to prefer this interpretation as well.) Anyhow, I think everything contained in this article could easily be summarised in a section of Baltic States. To the casual reader, this may well look like a WP:FORK (though not necessarily a POV fork!), as the essential difference between "Baltic states" and "Baltic republics" can be hard to spot for someone from an English-speaking country. As for making Baltic States include Finland, that would probably amount to WP:OR; instead, we could probably use good article on the Baltic Sea Region, — Zalktis 17:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Zalktis! Exactly my points!--Termer 17:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
PS. although Finland was referred to as a Baltic State up to the WWII. But that minor fact is already mentioned in the article Baltic States.--Termer 17:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There is an article on Baltic region. The Finland was discussed in pre-WWII perspective (please see discussion on Talk:Baltic states), I suggest you don't get too carried away with this, it seems that even then Finland wasn't always taken to be Baltic (as the Kalingrad isn't today), honestly I don't think it should be mentioned outside the section explaining use of the term. In its current state the article has a defined scope - it deals with a region within USSR, as such it is linked to from articles dealing with USSR, I don't see how redirecting all these sites to Baltic states could diminish Russian "habits". If you think this is too easy to confuse with Baltic states article should be renamed. --Xil...sist! 17:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

All good points. I'm not stuck on any particular solution, so to summarize:

  • we are thinking merge "Baltic Republics" into "Baltic states" because
    • "Baltic Republics" is primarily an SSR-ish term in usage
    • content of "Baltic Republics" easily containable in "Baltic states"
    • the result would be of a geopolitical tilt
    • Finland being/not being/sometimes yes/sometimes no a Baltic state is just too confusing other than mentioning the fact
  • we are therefore also thinking (I'm assuming I'm not the only one who would like to edit somewhere in constructive peace)
    • an article of a more cultural bent (Finno-Ugric + Baltic) encompassing the eastern Baltic
    • give it a more geographical name
      • I have seen "Baltic Europe" used
      • "Baltic Sea cultures"?
      • "Baltic Sea region" doesn't work because that's used by international associations and working groups to encompass everyone bordering on the Baltic sea
      • simply "Eastern Baltic"?

Too long a week to come up with some brilliant solution, I'm afraid! —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, leave alone the title, Baltic states is a popular term (Note: I'll be mostly refering to Baltic states now). We don't have to change well defined scope of an article just because one guy said something, it might be worth to research this Nordic Estonia idea and mention it in the article. I have folowing idea how it should look:
  • Baltic states are Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, everything else should be mentioned only in "Etymology and usage of the term" (except perhaps for Nazi-Soiet fact mentioning Finland as Baltic could be left in history section)
  • I think history section there is fine and does not need expansion, just a copyedit
  • Language and culture could be split in two sections, the Estonian difrences can be analysed there, certanly lead section is meant to summarise the article, not to introduce facts that are not found in rest of the article
  • That article needs politics section

Now it seems that most agree that the articles should be merged, also it seems that there acctualy was consensus for merge previously, but nothing was done, so let's merge them. If you agree with my idea about how Baltic states should look - large chunk of this can be used to form politics section, everything else can be added to language and culture, and the remainder could be compered to history of Baltic states, but I think it can very well be deleted Xil...sist! 23:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The things you Xil...sist! have suggested in the last post make sense to me. the Baltic Republics is going to be redirected to Baltic states, right? And politics section...I'd call it Political history where all the Pribaltica and it's etymology can be explained. Thanks--Termer 00:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I would remove links to this article from some pages. As for politics - I meant to include modern politics as well, I think that there won't be any problems if that section gains a bit of historical perspective Xil...sist! 00:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed on merge. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)