Talk:Finnish Civil War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Finnish Civil War is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 26, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 7, 2006 Peer review Reviewed September 26, 2006 WikiProject A-class review Not approved October 3, 2006 Good article nominee Listed October 22, 2006 WikiProject A-class review Approved October 25, 2006 Peer review Reviewed November 24, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a WikiProject related to the nation of Finland. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has passed an A-Class review. This article has been selected for use on the War Portal. Associated task forces (nations and regions): German military history task force Nordic military history task force Russian and Soviet military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War I task force Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. (See comments) Russia Portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale.

This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated FA-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category History. It has been rated Mid-Importance on the importance scale.

Talk: Finnish Civil War/Archive 1

Contents 1 The Finnish Civil War in Literature 2 "Achieved sovereignty" 3 Voting percentages? 4 Reading help 5 Prose degradation 6 Peoples delegation or Peoples deputation? 7 Pooper scoopers? 8 Temporary cuts 9 Too bad 10 relationship 11 POV against Old Finns 12 Cleanup after main page 12.1 Changes made? 13 Use of the word "bourgeois" 14 Collaborative editing? Manifestly not the way. 15 "...the political system transferred to monarchy". Did it? 15.1 Did Friedrich Karl become king? 15.2 Did the election of October 1918 make Finland a monarchy? 15.3 Was the election of a king legitimate? 15.3.1 Possible changes 16 Draft changes 17 Towards final drafts 18 North Russia Campaign 19 The Reds being "Social Democrats"? 20 Odd "facts" about the pre-1917 Finnish parliament

[edit] The Finnish Civil War in Literature

Should we add a section on the description on the FCW in literature? Or should this be covered someplace else? Books like Hurskas kurjuus by Frans Eemil Sillanpää and Under the North Star by Väinö Linna have been crucial in forming an understanding of the war, maybe more than any work by professional historians. -- Petri Krohn 19:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea, but we should notice that Linna's role was important in OPENING the discussion in Finland toward a more neutral and history science based view. When his books were published there was a lot of missleading, politically coloured writing against them. But on the other side, after they became largely accepted, as often happens, Linna's text finally became the only "story", even the only "true history" and finally almost "a bible" that could not be critizised. Since 1990's some young historians and writers, not afraid of these "giants", have opened new discussions, which are fortunately now based on historical facts. I think that you can add the info in this article, unless it is now changed to aspects of legitimacy and legal aspects by an active user. It is certain that e.g. I have made misstakes in my writing, but still I think that at least the large view is near correct in this subject of multiple levels and views. If we start looking history only from the legal point of view e.g. also World War I and the revolt of Russia in March 1917 were "illegal", even if via them Finns got independence and large parts of Europe changed markedly. --Ilummeen 15:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Achieved sovereignty"

The lead stated that Finland "achieved sovereignty" on 6 December 1917. I changed this to "declared independence" because, as the article makes clear, it took quite some time before Finland became actually sovereign. Mikko H. 12:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:Ilummeen, that the FCW decreased rather than increased Finnish sovereignty. So, from the point of view of this article, Finland achieved sovereignty between December 1917 and January 1918. -- Petri Krohn 05:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voting percentages?

When mentioning the parliamentary elections of 1916 and 1917, should the voting percentages be discussed? In 1916 it was 55,5% and in 1917 69,2%. As a result some historians (at least Vihavainen) have argued that the parliament elected in 1917 better represented the Finnish people and thus undermines the socialist claims of the time that the dissolving of the old parliament was somehow 'anti-popular' move. Mikko H. 12:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is already too long and in some respects too detailed. In the English article the main thing is to show the large view, so those voting-% and even the number of seats are unnecessary. It's clear that during the power struggle between the left and right there were several political claims and accusations against each other; the right claimed that the left made a coup d'etat by the Power act, and the left that the right made a "counter-coup d'etat" with the Provisional government in August 1917. The left claimed that the formation of private civil guards during summer 1917 was a militant act against the parliament with socialist majority (the left forming the worker guards). In late autumn the right claimed that the red guards were a militant act against the parliament with bourgeois majority, the civil guards as it's army, etc., etc....., the major factor being that the Finns were unable to make compromises in 1917-1918. --Ilummeen 06:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reading help

how do you pronounce Pehr Evind Svinhufvud, audio would be sweet but just phonetic spelling would work SpeakThings:Mellerbeck 04:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My Swedish is really bad, but I quess: Per (or a with dots Pär) Evin Svinhuvuud, in Finnish you mainly pronounce the letters as typed (i is i not ei or ai), but in Swedish -er may be -är. Somebody with better knowl. might help you. --Ilummeen 05:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Or if you're English try Pear ( as in the fruit) Svin Hoof-Vood the last syllable to rhyme with wood.;) Jatrius (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prose degradation

I thought I'd check the text over before it goes onto the main page. All featured articles are apt to deteriorate slightly over time, but I feel slightly dismayed at the amount of degradation to the prose since the article became featured not so long ago. A few errors of English are understandable, but many of the changes to the language have not just degraded the prose but reduced the clarity. I find I can't simply go through and copy-edit because I am not clear what meaning is intended at many points by the changes. I should say that I don't care a jot about who were conservatives, agrarians, or whatever, but too often what has been removed from sentences is the syntactical logic of parallelism and matching parts. For example, I think we can say "social democrats and conservatives" or "Social Democrats and Conservatives" (the former referring to general groups, the second to named political groups), but we cannot say "Social Democrats and conservatives".

Anyway, I've decided to compare how some passages and sentences looked on November 29 and how they look now. I hope colleagues Ilummeen and Pudeo may be able to comment. I hope to copy-edit the parts I'm concerned about according to their suggestions:

Then: The war was fought from 27 January 1918 to 15 May 1918, between the forces of Finland's Social Democrats led by the Red Peoples Delegation of Finland, commonly called the "Reds" (punaiset), and the forces of the conservative Senate, commonly called the "Whites" (valkoiset).

Now: The war was fought from 27 January to 15 May, 1918, between the forces called the "Reds" (punaiset) led by the People's Deputation of Finland under the control of the Finnish Social Democrats, and the forces called the "Whites" (valkoiset), led by the Senate of Vaasa representing the Senate of Finland formed by the bourgeois parties.

• The balance of the sentence has been interfered with here and the parts no longer match: we've got "under the control of" on the one hand and "representing" on the other. We have the A led by the B under the control of the C; against the A led by the B representing the C formed by the D. The result is impenetrable prose. Could someone explain what is meant by all these extra terms with which the construction is now overloaded?

Then: The Reds were supported by Bolshevist Russia, while the Whites received military assistance from the German Empire and Swedish volunteers.

Now: The Red Finland forces were supported by Bolshevist Russia, and the White Finland forces by the German Empire and Swedish volunteers.

• What was intended by the change here? If "military assistance" is omitted, the German Empire and Swedish volunteers can no longer be combined in this way, because the implication must then be "political support". The support of Swedish volunteers could hardly be mentioned in the same breath as the support of the German Empire, unless we are to read "Sweden" there.

Then: The Social Democrats on the left and Conservatives on the right competed for the leadership of the Finnish state.

Now The Social Democrats on the left and conservatives on the right competed for the leadership of the Finnish state; the leading political position shifted from the socialists to the conservatives and bourgeois in 1917.

• I've raised the question of capital letters already. What is meant by "the leading political position"? If merely "leadership" is meant, we should say that. "from the socialists to the conservatives and bourgeois" unbalances a sentence which began with two elements and now ends with three. Are these "conservatives and bourgeois" political groups or groups of groups? And are they mutually exclusive or do they overlap?

Then: An atmosphere of political violence and fear grew among the Finns. Fighting broke out in late January 1918 after the Conservative senate named the White Guards as the official army of Finland and the Red Guards rose against them.

Now: An atmosphere of political violence and fear grew among the Finns; turmoil of the general strike in November 1917 led, as a major political turning point, to a military escalation. Finland achieved formal sovereignty on 6 December 1917, but the civil war broke out in late January 1918; the bourgeois Senate named the White Guards as the official army of Finland and the Red Guards rose against them.

• I find this almost impossible to understand now. What is it trying to say? The language is strange. Why "turmoil"? The word should have a definite article at least and start a new sentence. We need to separate political turning points from military escalations and not force a sentence to say too many things at once. The general strike, it seems to me, has been mentioned elsewhere and doesn't have to be intruded into this sentence. The sentence gives the impression that military action broke out sooner than it did. Is this bourgeois senate the same as the conservative senate? I'd like to cut all this new stuff back out, but would any important information be lost?

Then: The legacy of the war was that the hegemony of Russia was diminished in Finland and the political system transferred to monarchy.

Now: The legacy of the turmoil was that the hegemony of Russia was diminished while the hegemony of Germany increased in Finland, and the political system transferred to monarchy.

• Why "turmoil" now? "Turmoil" really doesn't work here; it is not a structured enough state of affairs to produce a legacy; the legacy was produced not only by turmoil but by the war as a whole, including deliberate acts of government and diplomacy.

Then: After the defeat of the German Empire in World War I, Finland became an independent democratic republic.

Now After the defeat of the German Empire in World War I, Finland became a fully independent democratic republic, orientated to West Europe.

• By adding such clunky qualifiers, the whole sentence becomes unnecessarily complex for me as a reader. What is the significance of "fully" here? (You're either independent or you are not.) What does "oriented" mean in this context? What was "West Europe"? (Is "western Europe" intended?) Did it include Germany? Does this mean "democratic Europe"? What is gained here except fuzziness?

Then: The left comprised mainly Social Democrats, covering a wide spectrum from moderate to revolutionary socialists; on the right, the Conservatives were even more diverse, with far rightist and moderate groups, an economic conservative party, a Swedish party, a moderate ("centrist") agrarian party, and some radical activist elements included.

Now: Social Democrats covered a wide spectrum from moderate to revolutionary socialists. The right was more diverse, formed by cadre parties with the heritage of the class system and the first period of Russification. The members of the Old Finns party and the Swedish People's Party (representing the Swedish-speaking minority), were rightist or moderate conservatives. The parties of the right included some radical activist elements which gained increasing relevance, with the radical socialists, as the ensuing power struggle between the two sides contributed to a breakdown in Finnish society during 1917-1918.

• If they include a "wide spectrum" of opinion, how can the right be "more diverse"? (the problem arises because "even" has been cut.). What does the following mean: "formed by cadre parties with the heritage of the class system..."? I don't think English speakers will recognise the term "cadre parties". What does "with the heritage" mean? ("political descendents of"?}. "The members of Old Finns party... Who are these all of a sudden? That whole sentence really says nothing understandable to me in this context. "with the radical socialists": what's this sub-clause about? "gained increasing relevance"? Is this saying that both the radical activist elements and the radical socialists came to the fore during the ensuing power struggles? If so, "activists" needs to be explained: in English, that term, without a capital letter, is vague enough to apply to workers for both left and right. The passage seems to have turned into an opaque shambles. No mention of the bourgeois parties here; or are these cadre ones the bourgeois ones?

Then: In theory, the Senate’s cabinet consisted of a broad coalition, containing six Social Democrats and six Conservatives; in practice, with the main political groups unwilling to compromise and the most experienced politicians remaining outside, the cabinet proved unable to solve any major local Finnish problems.

Now: In theory, the cabinet consisted of a broad, and in Finnish conditions historical coalition but in practice, with the main political groups unwilling to compromise and the most experienced politicians remaining outside, the members of the Senate proved to be "scapegoats" and unable to solve any major Finnish problems.

• What does this piece of not-English mean: "in Finnish conditions historical coalition but in practice..."? What is meant by "Finnish conditions"? As opposed to what conditions? Is the intended meaning "unprecedented in Finnish history"? You can't prove to be a "scapegoat"; you are used as a "scapegoat". The last part combines two uncombinable elements.

Then: Both the Finnish Conservatives and the Russian Provisional Government opposed the "Power Act" because it reduced their political power.

Now: The Agrarian Union and part of the bourgeois politicians most eager for Finnish sovereignty, including many activists, supported the socialist's act; but both the Finnish conservatives and the Russian Provisional Government opposed the "Power Act" because it reduced their political power.

• The added part here is incomprehensible to someone unfamiliar with the minutiae of Finnish political history. "part of the bourgeois politicians"? Does this mean "Some of"? The word "bourgeois" confuses me again here. Which socialist are we talking about here (I've forgotten who the leader was at this point) Or does this refer to the socialists in plural? The conservatives haven't been named here, for once.

Then: In order to force political concessions, the Social Democrats called for a general strike on 14-19 November. At this moment, Lenin and the Bolsheviks, under threat in St Petersburg, urged the Social Democrats to seize power in Finland; but the majority of Social Democrats were moderate and preferred parliamentary methods, prompting Lenin to label them “reluctant revolutionaries”. When the general strike appeared to be successful, the “Workers’ Revolutionary Council” voted by a narrow majority to seize power on November 16 at 5 a.m. The supreme revolutionary “Executive Committee”, however, was unable to recruit enough members to carry out the plan and had to call the proposed revolution off at 7 p.m. the same day. The incident, "the shortest revolution", effectively split the Social Democrats in two, a majority supporting parliamentary means and a minority demanding revolution. The repercussions of the event had a lasting effect on the future of the movement, with several powerful leaders now staking positions within the party.[19]

The Finnish Parliament supported the Social Democratic proposals for an eight-hour working day and universal suffrage in local elections on 16 November 1917. During the strike, however, radical elements of the Workers’ Security Guards executed several political opponents in the main cities of southern Finland; and the first armed clashes between Protection Guards and Workers’ Guards broke out, with thirty-four reported casualties. The Finnish Civil War would probably have started at that point had there been enough weapons in the country to arm the two armies; instead there began a race for weapons and a final escalation towards war.[20]

Now Instead the Social Democrats aimed at asking for an independence manifest for Finland from the Bolsheviks, but the uncertain situation in Petrograd prevented the plan. In fact, Lenin's demands and pressure on the Finns was an empty gesture as he had to ask for help to St. Petersburg from the reliable Russian troops located in Finland. The socialists decided to call for a general strike on 14-19 November 1917 due to the loss of parliamentary power in the October elections; the moderate socialists aiming at forcing political concessions, while the radical minority urged for seizing power. The strike was a success with 84 000 workers joining it and giving socialists a comprehensive control over major industrial centres in the country. Finally, the “Workers’ Revolutionary Council” voted by a narrow majority to seize power on 16 November at 5 a.m. However, the supreme revolutionary “Executive Committee” was unable to recruit enough qualified leaders to carry out the plan, and had to call the proposed revolution off at 7 p.m. the same day. The incident, "the shortest revolution", effectively split the Social Democrats in two, a majority supporting parliamentary means and a minority demanding revolution. The repercussions of the event had a lasting effect on the future of the movement, with some powerful leaders now staking positions within the party, and the party leadership losing part of its authority and ability to control the labor movement since the turmoil of the strike.

The new Finnish Parliament, partially as a consequence of the pressure of the general strike, ratified on 16 November the laws of an eight-hour working day and universal suffrage in local elections, but due to the increasing split between the Finns, a purely bourgeois cabinet was appointed on 27 November 1917. ...

• What's an "independence manifest"? Was Lenin asking these troops to help him or the Finnish bolsheviks? Why did he ask for help to St Petersburg? (Was he not there already?) Why "reliable troops"? Were there "unreliable troops" in Finland? ("demands and presssures was" is wrong English.) The earlier version made a clear link between the strike and Stalin's urging: that made sense, but now the order of events is unclear to me. "The repercussions of the event had a lasting effect on the future of the movement, with some powerful leaders now staking positions within the party, and the party leadership losing part of its authority and ability to control the labor movement since the turmoil of the strike.." As far as I can see, this makes a horrible mess of what was precise before, the addition being entirely redundant as well as in bad English.

The modifying clause that follows "but" in the last paragraph above seems to me nothing to do with what came before. I am having to guess the connection. What is the link between this "bourgeois cabinet" and these laws? Did politicians rebel against the laws?

Then: The Social Democrats had supported independence since spring 1917, but now they could not use it for the direct political benefit of their party and had to adjust to Conservative dominance in the country.

Now: The Social Democrats had supported independence since spring 1917, but now they could not use it for the direct political benefit of their party and had to adjust to conservative and bourgeois dominance in the country.

• "Bourgeois" dominance is added, as if to distinguish ot from conservative dominance. But we've never yet been told what the difference was and so we are in the dark about this addition.

Then: As a result, the Finns came away with Lenin’s concession of sovereignty on December 31.

Now As a result, the delegation of the Senate, led by P.E. Svinhufvud, in Petrograd came away with Lenin’s concession of sovereignty on 31 December, 1917.

• Is this change because Finns don't believe these people deserved the name Finns? It's certainly a mighty uglier sentence now. The article mustn't suddenly call this city Petrograd unless it intends to do so throughout.

Then: The Conservatives and their activists feared that the groups of radical workers seen during the strike would threaten the security of the former estates, so they resolved to use any means necessary, including armed force, to defend themselves.

Now: The conservatives and the activists realized that the groups of radical workers seen during the strike really threatened the dominance and security of the former estates, so they resolved to use any means necessary, including armed force, to defend themselves.

• "The conservatives and the activists..." makes no sense on its own unless the "activists" are defined. In English, the word "activist" means nothing on its own unless we know what cause they are activists for. If "activist" had a capital A, we might assume it was a political group. But if, like "conservative" and "bourgeois" it remains a general term for a group of groups, then it gives no political information. I remember raising this before, and must have misunderstood what was intended.

Then: At the same time, the conservative Senate and the Parliament decided on 12 January 1918 to create a strong police authority, an initiative which the Worker's Security Guards saw as a step towards legalizing the White Guards.

Now: At the same time, the Svinhufvud's Senate and the Parliament decided on 12 January 1918 to create a strong police authority, an initiative which the Worker's Security Guards saw as a step towards legalizing the White Guards.

• We can't say "the Svinhufvud's Senate", which is non-English. We could say "Svinhufhud's Senate" or "the Svinhufvud Senate".

Then: A section of the Conservatives had always been against democracy; others had approved parliamentarianism at first but after the crisis of 1917 and the outbreak of war had concluded that empowering the common people would not work.

Now A section of the conservatives had always been against democracy; others had approved parliamentarianism at first but after the crisis of 1917 and the outbreak of war they concluded that power of the common people should be reduced.

• I wonder why the sentence has been turned from a good one into a clunky one (I see no difference in meaning). If this is to stand we need a comma after "at first" (because a comma should precede restatement of a subject and is omitted for a compound predicate—a principle little grasped on Wikipedia), and we need an article before "power".

Then: The German government promptly decided to teach Russia a lesson and, after inviting “requests for help” from the smaller countries west of Russia as an excuse for aggression, attacked Russia on 18 February. Finland had duly asked for help on 14 February.

Now The German government promptly decided to teach Russia a lesson and, after inviting “requests for help” from the smaller countries west of Russia as an excuse for aggression, attacked Russia on 18 February. Representatives of the Vaasa Senate in Berlin asked for help, according to the advice by the German leaders, on 14 February. The Finns agreed to pay all costs of the German expedition coming to Finland.[42]

• Is this another issue of not wanting Finland to seem responsible for anything done in its name during the war? I think the result is clunky, but can be made smoother even with this extra information, by changing the order so that the cart doesn't come before the horse (the "had" form would be hard to make elegant over two sentences).

Then: A major consequence of the 1918 conflict was the break up of the Finnish worker movement into three parts: moderate Social Democrats, left-wing socialists in Finland, and communists acting in Soviet-Russia with the support of the Bolsheviks.[49]

Now A major consequence of the 1918 conflict was the break up of the Finnish labor movement into three parts: moderate Social Democrats, led by Väinö Tanner, and left-wing socialists in Finland; and communists acting in Soviet-Russia with the support of the Bolsheviks.

• See how small changes can wreck a sentence? Why is this one group suddenly required to have a leader's name? It should be none or all, for balance.

Then: On 9 October the monarchist Senate chose a German prince, Friedrich Karl, brother-in-law of German Emperor William II, to be the King of Finland—and Finland became a monarchist state.

Now: Finally, the monarchist Senate and the incompletely represented parliament, under the pressure by Germany, chose a German prince, Friedrich Karl, brother-in-law of German Emperor William II, to be the King of Finland on 9 October 1918—and Finland became a monarchist state.

• The sentence has been murdered by commas. Could we say "the unrepresentative parliament"? We also require "under pressure from Germany". Does the movement of the date mean that he became king on that day rather than that they chose him on that day?

New: He was supported by a defender of the Finnish republic Santeri Alkio, the leader of the Agrarian Union; and there were politicians among the moderate Finnish conservatives too, such as Lauri Ingman, who in the end backed up the democratic means.

• What does "who in the end backed up the democratic means" mean? Does it mean, "who in the end backed democratic decisions"? Or perhaps "who supported a return to full democracy"? It's difficult to tell.

New: Kajava faced the horrors of the Battle of Tampere at the age of nine years as "crippled fledgings of the destroyed nests of his hometown, wearing the coats of their dead fathers".

• It's a shame to see this uncited addition to a well-referenced featured article. It's very problematic as it stands because the reader can't even tell whether this is a quotation from Kajava or from something written about him (if this was by him, why does it say "his" hometown, instead of "my")?

Well, I have asked too many questions for anyone to reasonably answer. I will try to copyedit as much of this as I can tomorrow because I think it would be a shame to go on the front page with too much of the above in place.

qp10qp 00:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

These were mostly added because of the recent "NPOV-problems", Talk:Finnish Civil War#Political bias as they were brought up by user Kelstonian. See also the edit notes, should help. I can't comment more on the questions, but generally seems the changes had some idea, but of course you should atleast fix the grammar and language. --Pudeo (Talk) 00:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think the edits have brought anything of value to the article. In most cases I would revert to the older version. I also propose a systematic use of "Conservative", with a capital C. -- Petri Krohn 01:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I support the systematic use of the word "non-socialist" as opposed to "Conservative". In my experience the word "Conservative" is normally used in English to refer to some specific conservative party, so it can be misleading. I also believe that the word "non-socialist" better highlights the dividing line, which left liberals and social reformist agrarians on the same side as conservatives. --Jouten 15:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am going to try to turn the additions into better English wherever I can. But if I do not understand them, I will have to take them out. People may appraise them on this talk page, and if I make a mistake, they can try again themselves, hopefully taking my comments into account. qp10qp 02:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

When the article was edited by RelHistBuff last autumn he decided to change non-socialist term that I had mainly used to Conservatives. Later I have gone through the most relevant history books written in Finnish (listed in the Bibliography of this article also) and found that 90-95 % of them use term bourgoise and only few non-socialist, I quess mainly because the latter is considered non-NPOV. In the latest, and very higly valued publications of Ph.D Vesa Vares dealing with 1917-1918 the term conservative (small c !) is mainly used. Vares is the main historian today studying conservatism in Finland. Term bourgeoise is NPOV and a general expression for the right (non-socialist), conservatives were perhaps more on right of them and those closer to the political center were called liberals. For English reader's this is of course difficult as their are used to a simple Conservative-Democrat or Conserv.-Labour division and thus cannot see the multiple levels of Finnish freedom and democracy. The major fight for power was between socialists and conservatives. I'm truly negatively surprised that qp10qp wakes up now for the changes that I had to make due to to the politically biased right-wing user Kelstonian already in January 2007. You joined the discussion with Kelstonian in the disc. page and saw clearly what he was aiming at. I was left almost alone defending the original form of the FA-article with my bad English. The only thing that I thought was a proper change by Kelstonian was small c instead of C in conservatives as there truly was no conserv. party in Finland 1917-1918. It's obvious that you knew already in January that e.g. Social democrat vs. conservative was a wrong expression, why did you not react when I decided to to change all Conservatives to conservatives in Jan ??!!. It's most redicilous that now all these changes are made in haste a night before the art. is on the front page. It is certain that there will be now more misstakes even in the hist. facts. Still you had the time in January, all of February and most of March to correct my many misstakes in English. My honest goal is to make a NPOV-article, but I'm not a professional historian, so I'm uncertain of myself and therefore I made all those changes to avoid "socialist non-NPOV" that I was accused by Kelstonian. These experiences of Wikipedia have been most frustrating to me; first attacks by politicians and then by editors. Im really hurt for words shame and murder of the txt used by qp10qp. I have decided to stop all writing here; freedom of Wiki may be nice but disasterous if responsibility is not involved in the work. I'm truly afraid how the artcile looks tomorrow 26th March. --Ilummeen 17:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Re Vesa Vares, a spot of googling revealed a couple of instances in which he has used the term "non-socialist" when writing about the Civil War era:

"Activism, Normalization or Noli Me Tangere? The view of the Finnish non-socialist circles on the political role of Russia in 1917-1922" [1]

"...declaration of independence 4.12.1917, accepted by the non-Socialist majority of the Parliament on 6.12.1917." [2] (PDF)

As such, I'm not sure he can be cited in favour of using the word "conservative".

Also, it's entirely true that in Finnish-language writing the term "porvarillinen" ("bourgeois") dominates. The issue, however, is whether the best translation for that term is "conservative" or "non-socialist". I'd argue for the latter, since liberal and centrist parties certainly are counted as "bourgeois". --Jouten 21:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks qp10qp for the edist. If there is something factual and relevant now missing from this article, it could be moved to Finnish Socialist Workers' Republic, that article needs expanding. -- Petri Krohn 19:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Ilummeen, a colleague I revere as the exceptional brain behind this outstanding article, I admit that I should have kept my eye on this article all along and I apologise for not doing so. On the other hand, there is no need to overreact since my edits today are a combination of restoring text to that which won it FA status and working into the text the information added since then where I feel it doesn't blur the clarity of the writing. When I said that a sentence had been murdered by commas, this was just a figure of speech and not a reference to the whole text. The expression "it would be a shame" is quite a mild idiom in English and is not intended other than mildly.

I too have checked out some sources to find out about the names of the groups and parties, and usage varies. But what I must make clear is that the use of terms such as "conservative, bourgeois and activist" without capitals invites the readers to interpret them simply as generalised groups and not as political groups—which is fine in some places but not in others. My reading tells me that "bourgeois" is never used with a capital in this context and refers to a broad range of groups which may or may not overlap or subsume others. Some books, however, use both a capital C and a small c for conservatives. At present, the article follows this principle, with bourgeois as a general term and conservative either as a specific political group with a capital or a political tendency without. I would ask Finnish editors to realise that the general readership of this page is not going to be interested in tiny nuances of Finnish groupings, particularly when they are so difficult to understand; what an encyclopedia needs is language which generalises as accurately as possible. We can all understand the difference between right and left and what moderates and conservatives are; too much detail beyond that and the article will become obscure.

By the way, on the question of non-socialist versus conservative, I have made no comment or edit, because I know nothing about that. My edits today preserved the use of the words conservative and bourgeois, despite my concerns in the above list of remarks, and so that should not be much of an issue either. It depresses me though that after so much close reading of this article, I still don't really know what the latter term means precisely.

The Finnish language dictionary "Suomen kielen perussanakirja" (2004) by Haarala et al. defines the term "bourgeois" ("porvarillinen" in Finnish) as "right-wing or centrist". A bourgeois person ("porvari") is described as a "member or supporter of a right-wing or centrist party, a non-socialist". That's the current definition of what the term means in political contexts. --Jouten 22:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's very interesting; many thanks. The word, being French, is usually vague in English, and it would be perfectly possible to be socialist and bourgeois or liberal and bourgeois (think Tony Blair). I will use this information to add a phrase of clarification to the article, because many English-speaking readers would never think of reading the generalised term "bourgeois" as "right wing or centrist". qp10qp 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, it's perfectly possible to be liberal and bourgeois (according to the Finnish political meaning). The liberals in the Young Finnish Party for example were certainly considered to be bourgeois. The historical political divide, which was brought to focus in the Finnish Civil War, was between parties that had their roots in the labour movement on the left and parties ranging from liberal to conservative in the bourgeois camp. --Jouten 10:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I note that Ilummeen's edit summary insisted on the word "Manifest", but I must tell him that such a word does not exist in English except as an adjective or a list of customs goods, and so I feel I was justified in cutting it from the article. Perhaps (I can't find this in the dictionary) the word has a special meaning in relation to this subject, but the general reader can't be expected to know that. All specialist words on Wikipedia should be explained in articles or they will be meaningless, as this one was to me. qp10qp 21:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

On the precise point, Ilummeen says this in his edit summary: "Plans of application of a Manifest for independency by the socialists in November is a historical fact that cannot be missed in txt!"

I am taking this seriously, because I trust Ilummeen entirely on this and only cut the sentence because it wasn't clear, not on grounds of accuracy. If it's important, we must find a way to say it.

"Instead the Social Democrats aimed at asking for an independence manifest for Finland from the Bolsheviks, but the uncertain situation in Petrograd prevented the plan."

Does it mean something like: "Instead, the Social Democrats intended to ask the Bolsheviks for a written commitment to Finnish independence"?

qp10qp 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suspect he meant to use the word "manifesto". --Jouten 10:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Aha! (May I say your comments and edits are exceptionally helpful.) I have found a book on Google Books (Hentilea et al) which uses that word: "As their counter-proposal, the Social Democrats put forward a manifesto entitled “We demand” which among other things asked for Finland's freedom to be safeguarded by an agreement with Russia." Put like that, "manifesto" makes sense (I had dismissed the possibility of "manifesto" because you don't plan to ask for a manifesto from someone else, as the article had suggested).

Does that then refer to this part in the article: "The Senate, led by Pehr Evind Svinhufvud, proposed Finland's declaration of independence, which the Parliament adopted on 6 December 1917.[22] Though the Social Democrats voted against the Svinhufvud proposal, they decided to present an alternative declaration of independence containing no substantial differences."

If so, then it will be extremely easy to dovetail the detail about the manifesto into the article. But the way things stood before, as may be seen from the extract I quoted in my list of objections higher up, left it unclear what this "manifest" related to or what moment in the sequence of events it occurred.

Unfortunately, no other book that I can access through Google uses the expression "manifesto" in this context or goes into any detail about precisely where this fitted, so I'd be grateful for any clarification before making a restorative edit based on Hentilea. qp10qp 15:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The material is now back in place with a coherent wording. qp10qp 21:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peoples delegation or Peoples deputation?

The name used in Finnish is fi:Suomen kansanvaltuuskunta. I cannot find any reference to support the form "Peoples deputation". Generally valtuuskunta is translated as delegation, see for example Sweden Finnish Delegation. Dictionary.com translates delegation as valtuuskunta and deputation as lähetystö. Therefore it seems natural to use the phrase Peoples Delegation of Finland. -- Petri Krohn 19:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have put the word back in in response to Ilummeen's edit summary. I don't think it matters since both words mean exactly the same thing in English. qp10qp 21:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No they don't! One has powers given to negotiate freely and the other can negotiate only on a previously established policy, from which they cannot deviate without reference to the body that has sent them.Jatrius (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pooper scoopers?

Someone's been playing silly buggers with this one.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thunderthief (talk • contribs) 16:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Temporary cuts

Just to explain some temporary cuts I made yesterday (I want to put the following back in as soon as possible):

...according to the advice by the German leaders, The Finns agreed to pay all costs of the German expedition coming to Finland.^[1]

• "according to the advice by the German leaders". Doesn't make sense on its own. Will check (this book is on Google Books).

I've checked this on Google Books and added the info to the notes, in a different wording, with ref. qp10qp 16:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Kajava, as one of the "crippled fledgings of the destroyed nests of his hometown, wearing the coats of their dead fathers".

• Need a citation for this quote and clarification on whether Kajava himself said it or a commentator.

Sweden promoted its foreign political interests during the war both by volunteers serving the White Finland and by sending a Swedish military expedition to the Åland Islands in the southwestern archipelago of Finland in the Baltic Sea, on February 15 1918. The stated purpose of the latter was to protect the local Swedish speaking population, but in fact Sweden had geopolitical interests in the island. A German Naval squadron landed in Åland on March 5 and the Swedish troops were forced to leave the area by May 1918.^[2]

• This interrupted narrative flow at that point. I am trying to work out how to restore the information in a more dovetailed way. (Will do tomorrow.)

qp10qp 16:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've now readded this information in a way that I hope fits into the narrative flow. qp10qp 16:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too bad

I was interested in reading this only to see it was vandalized. Maybe front page items should be locked for the duration they are on the front page Black arrow 17:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%. This should be a standard practice for FA of the day. For now, how about blocking this one loser who keeps doing this? Slithymatt 17:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh, just look at the edit history.. Is this some record? :-) I've been keeping my eye on this article for some time now, and it has been quite bad. IMO, some more protection could be added, if 90% of the edits by IPs are vandalism. We've had few good edits by new users though. Edit: yesterday's FA had even far more vandalism.. What hurts more, some new users not being able to edit, or them seeing "Wikipedia's best work"-article being full of some nonsense and profanity?--Pudeo (Talk) 17:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree absolutely, this page has been vandalised too many times. But it is not as if it is constructive vandalism, such as a mistake, but rather it is quite offensive. Talk 22:03 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I just counted that I reverted vandalism on this article 30 times.. --Pudeo (Talk) 11:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You're a true vandal warrior, and you did an outstanding job! (My page was loading too slowly for me to step in quickly.) Was it worth it? Yes, very much so, in my opinion. Despite all the vandalism, many little edits (someone saw that St Petersburg and Petrograd were both used and made the name consistent, for example) revealed that people were actually reading the whole article in detail, and so it probably had more reads that day than it will have in the rest of its life. I am pleased that no one found anything much wrong with the article (someone put up the day before's front page article for FAR!). qp10qp 21:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] relationship

i don't think you can describe Russia as being the 'mother' country of Finland. Finland was an archduchy held by the current czar, but was not incorporated onto Russia.

daiyoungerDaiyounger 21:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is against historical facts, see e.g. books by professor Osmo Jussila. --84.231.163.231 04:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I too wanted to read this article, but it was vandalized as I was reading. Please return the original content as of 22:45.

[edit] POV against Old Finns

It is a POV-claim against the Old Finnish party if you write that it was the only one, on the right, being conservative. Young Finns included both conservatives and liberals, but the most conservative of all these was the Swedish party. The members of it formed the most powerfull part of the nobles and bourgois during the class system since the Swedish period; their power was "inhereted", which makes you usually very conservative. Part of the members of the Old Finns had risen to their status from the middle class (e.g. via university studies) and had thus "earned" they place in the society. This makes you more open to modernization of the society. It was the members of the Swedish party that were the most eager for a two-camera parliament, restrictions to voting rights and a strong monarch in Finland after the Civil war 1918. The Old Finnish Party included some moderate, realistic men such as Lauri Ingman, who saw clearly the optimal path that Finland should take after the war. To check read e.g. Nygård & Kallio: Rajamaa pp560-561; in Suomen historian pikkujättiläinen wsoy 2003 and Vesa Vares Kuninkaantekijät wsoy 1998, pp85-105. --84.231.163.231 04:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Re anti-Old Finn POV: Certainly the Old Finns supported many social reforms, which can be verified by e.g. reading their 1906 party program, and just as surely the Young Finnish Party and the Swedish People's Party also had significant conservative elements within them. Still, we're trying to place the parties within the Finnish political field, not compare them to ideologically pure conservatism and liberalism, and I think it's generally accepted that the Finnish Party was the most conservative of the major parties. I'm not sure why you assume this to be a negative assessment of their policies. Presumably the value one finds in conservatism depends greatly on what political ideology one happens to support.

It's true that the Swedish People's Party was reliably on the conservative side on constitutional questions in 1917-1918 - a far cry from its support for the Mechelin Senate, which gave Finland the most liberal election law of the time - but making too far-reaching deductions about the party's general line based on that should be avoided, I think. The party's desire to appeal to Swedish-speaking Finns in general meant that it had to accomodate a wide range of political thought. This in turn led to moderation - at least most of the time, on most issues, with the post-Civil War monarchist question being a notable exception.

Re your question "(What the heck is a moderate liberal ?. Try to avoid POV with parties of the right, please.)": I don't quite understand the point behind your question. Do you mean to suggest that all liberals of the time were moderate or that no liberal could have been moderate? Surely some liberals of the time were more willing to compromise than others and everyone didn't go equally far in their liberal ideals. I'm not sure what POV you think was being pushed, but the original comparison was between moderate political actors, some of whom were conservative, and radical political actors. My intention was not to describe conservatives as inherently non-moderate. In any case, I don't have a problem with your edit of my sentence.

However, while it's wonderful that many contributors to this talk page and the article seem to have internalized that the Young Finnish Party had a liberal wing and a conservative wing, I fear that in focusing on that internal dispute the article loses sight of the party's general line, which indeed was quite liberal by the standards of the time. --Jouten 13:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a question of somebody's political ideology. The major factor is that, in the historical (not political) point of view the period of 1900-1918 can well be seen as a modernization crisis of Finland. In that perspective one can compare the power political status, heritage and goals of different political factions. There the Swedish party had major problems compared to others, e.g. they were the ones to loose more political power than the others in the comparison class system vs. parliamentary democracy. It is often forgotten, due to political factors, that the change from the class system to parliamentarism in late 1905 and 1906 was not voluntery or based on the will of those who had the major power during the class system in Finland. The change was caused by the short breakdown of Russia due to the Japanise war. The date 14 April 1905 is too often forgotten in this respect. What happened on 14th Apr. proved that parliamentarism would not have proceeded in Finland just within Finns. It was truly unfortunate for the later development that the Russian general strike was needed to force Finns to "democratic road". It is certain that it had a major negative effect on unity of the Finnish nation and made part of the Finnish people wait for another "miracle" from outside Finland during the second period of oppression 1907-1916, either from Russia or from Germany. --84.231.163.231 15:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that change was made possible by the events in Russia. All major political parties in Finland supported the end of Russification policies and the turmoil in Russia gave the so-called constitutionalists, the Swedish Party among them, the opening they wanted and needed. Far from being pushed around by strikes, they supported the Finnish general strike as a means to put pressure on the Emperor. It worked. They got in power and passed the most liberal election law in the world. Would they have gone so far had they really wanted to maintain the Diet of the Estates and merely been pushed into action by outside events? I doubt it.

Alas, debate on what happened in 1905 and why is somewhat beside the point of the article, so I'll stop here. --Jouten 14:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As typical for political debate of these matters you refer mainly to relations between autonomous Finland and Russia; almost every Finn opposed the acts of the Russian tsar pressuring Finland. But the modernization process that was going on in both countries (or Finland was in fact one governmental area of Russia) is another thing, and thus the return of the broad autonomy and achieving universal suffrage were not combined to each other in world of the most conservative factions in Finland. --84.231.163.231 05:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup after main page

[edit] Changes made?

While the article was on the main page, some minor changes to the layout of the page made it impossible to compare the old and newer versions side-by-side. I have reintroduced the newlines that were removed. A comparison on the pre-main page version and my restored version is now possible and available here. -- Petri Krohn 04:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the word "bourgeois"

This grates. The word "bourgeois" just doesn't have the meaning in English that its literal translation has in Finnish in political contexts. Linking to the Wikipedia article on the word doesn't help to clarify its meaning, because the Wikipedia article doesn't carry the meaning in which it's used here. (Also, describing something as "conservative and bourgeois" is a bit redundant, like talking about someone owning "cats and pets".)

My suggestions:

• "the forces of the conservative and bourgeois Senate" = "the forces of the non-socialist, conservative-led Senate"

• "the leadership of the Finnish state, which shifted from the socialists to the conservatives and bourgeois in 1917" = "the leadership of the Finnish state, which shifted from the socialists to the conservatives and other non-socialists in 1917"

• "Fighting broke out in late January 1918 after the conservative and bourgeois senate" = "Fighting broke out in late January 1918 after the Senate" (It has already been described as non-socialist and conservative-led.)

• "The Tsar's power was transferred to the Russian Duma and Provisional Government, which at this time were bourgeois" = "The Tsar's power was transferred to the Russian Duma and Provisional Government, which at this time were non-socialist"

• "His Senate cabinet comprised six Social Democrats and six bourgeois politicians." = "His Senate cabinet comprised six Social Democrats and six non-socialist politicians."

• "The Agrarian Union and some rightist activists and bourgeois politicians" = "The Agrarian Union and some rightist activists and other non-socialist politicians"

• "and had to adjust to conservative and bourgeois dominance in the country." = "and had to adjust to right-wing dominance in the country."

• "A new bourgeois senate, with a monarchist majority, was formed by J.K. Paasikivi." = "A new non-socialist Senate, with a monarchist majority, was formed by J.K. Paasikivi."

• "Together with other moderate bourgeois politicians and moderate socialists," = "Together with other moderate non-socialist politicians and moderate socialists,"

How about it? --Jouten 10:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's still too complicated for an English reader: p1 right-wing Senate (or "Senate formed by the right"), p2 which shifted from the left to the right, p3 OK, p4 had a non-socialist majority (Duma + Prov. gov.), p5 six socialists and six non-socialists, p6 OK , p7 had to adj. to dominance of the right, p8 a new conservative (as they were mainly monarchists), p9 tog. with other moderate politicians of the right and left.

--128.214.43.66 11:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This is still problematic, change; p4 had a right-wing majority, p5 six representatives from the left and six from the right, p6 some rightist activists, the agrarian union and other non-socialists. English readers have critized the term non-socialist as a strange impression, some editors of Wiki, too --84.231.163.231 13:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jouten. Although I am responsible for combining bourgeois and conservative in places, this was only because they had been linked in a more complicated way and sometimes we heard only about the bourgeois and sometimes only about the conservatives, leaving the classifications of groupings inconsistent and difficult to grasp; but I was unhappy about the term bourgeois all along, which has the disadvantage of being meaningless or confusing to the English-speaking reader in this context, since we do not use it as a political term. (As far as I recall, the term was hardly used in the FAC version, and so the issue wasn't a problem then.) On the other hand, some Finnish editors may feel that nuances of grouping s will be lost by using the term non-socialists.

One thing I would say: I have been poking around on Google Books, and none of the books available there about this period attempt the range of nuanced distinctions that our article does. They tend to content themselves with terms such as right, left, socialist, and non-socialist—I assume they take that approach to avoid confusing the reader, so maybe we should follow suit. qp10qp 14:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestions, people. To recap the current state of affairs:

1. "the forces of the right-wing Senate"

2. "the leadership of the Finnish state, which shifted from the left to the right in 1917"

3. "Fighting broke out in late January 1918 after the Senate"

4. "The Tsar's power was transferred to the Russian Duma and Provisional Government, which at this time had a right-wing majority"

5. "His Senate cabinet comprised six representatives from the left and six from the right"

6. "The Agrarian Union, some rightist activists, and other non-socialists"

7. "and had to adjust to the right's dominance"

8. "A new conservative Senate, with a monarchist majority, was formed by J.K. Paasikivi."

9. "Together with other moderate politicians of the right and left"

In #1 I'm still attached to my "non-socialist, conservative-led." It highlights the line of division in the political field and gives a more specific idea of what type of right-wingers we're talking about.

In #6 #5, I would talk about "six representatives from the Social Democrats and six from non-socialist parties". Firstly, they represented parties, not "the left" or "the right". Secondly, why be vague ("the left") when you can be specific ("the Social Democrats")? --Jouten 18:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Both #1 and #5 (not 6!) are quite OK, anyway better than before. qp10qp has red Hentilae in English (is it Hentilae, Jussila, Nevakivi 200- ??), which term do they use of the right in English; non-socialist, bourgeois, conservative or what ?. Left and right are the most neutral terms, non-socialist vs socialists bothers me as it wraps things around socialism too much. First of all -isms were and are only masks and "make-up" that cover the true motives of human beings and secondly the "life" and work" of the Finnish right was not determined by socialists or being against them. Sorry for the manifesto thing, but Eino Ketola's PhD thesis is a reliable and a good study, the problem with reading "general histories" (Hentilae et al. ?) is that they cannot go so deep and this is an important detail concerning the motives for independence of Finland. In the bibliography I found Alapuro's book that shows how nationally orientated the Finnish common people actually were at that time, which takes us back to -isms; there was a lot of propaganda among socialists for internationalism, but in the true world they were "home-sick boys". The last point: even if you change the bourgeois term now, the terms conservative vs. liberals should be used in chap. Brothers in arms and Bitter legacy to feature the different factions of the right and their attitudes to parliamentarism (Brot.arms; The conservatives planned a monarch. form of governm....etc.)(Bitter lega. The conservatives and liberals disagreed strongly on the best system of....). --128.214.43.66 03:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"From Grand Duchy to a Modern State" by Hentilä, Jussila, and Nevakivi uses "bourgeois", but mostly it just talks about "Reds" and "Whites". They also use "non-socialist" when talking about later events. (Page 164: "J.E. Sunila's government of the four non-socialist parties fell...")

"Finland in the Twentieth Century" by David Kirby uses "non-socialist". (Page 43: "By this time, the political initiative had passed decisively from the socialists to the non-socialist parties...") On the other hand, "A Concise History of Finland" by the same author uses "bourgeois". Go figure.

If there are no objections, I'll make the edits a bit later today. --Jouten 12:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we have to make our own solutions, since the books are contradictory, even in the use of capitals.

Pekka Kalevi Hämäläinen in In Time of Storm: Revolution, Civil War, and the Ethnolinguistic Issue in Finland talks of the labour movement and bourgeois parties in general but of the Social Democrats and the Agrarian Union in particular. He uses a capital S for Socialists but a small n and s for non-socialists. And parliament with a small p. He talks of "the Svinhufvud senate", which seems a useful term. David Kirby in A Concise History of Finland talks of the July 1917 government as socialists, with a small s, with a growing band of activist sympathisers. Also of non-socialists (small n/s). He talks of the major winners in the October parliament being the agrarians, with a small a. He also uses "bourgeois" in a general way, for example in the term "bourgeois bloc". He doesn't use capitals for the red or white guards. He uses the term "conservative" with a small c. In fact, he only really uses capitals for the Social Democratic Party. He also speaks of the "Vaasa government". Hentilä et al use the horrible term "Social-Democratic-Liberal coalition", with capitals. For summer 1917, "the Tokoi Senate", and a socialist majority in the parliament. They also talk of the Agrarian Union, Social Democrats, Socialists, bourgeois representatives/bourgeois groups. For November 1917 they refer to five bourgeois groups and the Svinfuhvud Senate. And then the Finnish bourgeois senate

Where looking all this up got me, I don't know. One thing did stand out: the term "conservative" was not used as frequently as in our article, and never with a capital C. My own suggestion is that we might reasonably be less specific in places. I think we should use "non-socialists" when being very general about those who opposed the socialists. We need to be careful of using the term "right" because clearly some of the non-socialists were in the centre. I think we should reduce the use of the word "conservative", and then only use it with a small c and reduce or extinguish the word bourgeois, which is awkward in English, as has been discussed. (Why then do books written in English dabble with that term? I wonder if it has been adopted uncritically from the Marxist and Communist rhetoric of the time? Did anyone actually call themselves "bourgeois", given the pejorative tinge to that word?) Most of Jouten's changes I agree with broadly, but I don't think this is the final solution. We must go on talking about this, finding cleaner solutions all the time. qp10qp 13:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Translators of Finnish history books of 1917-1918 has been badly informed of the terms and/or they do not know about them themselves, e.g. in Jutikkala &Pirinen: History of Finland: one edition uses mainly bourgeois and another use non-socialists !!. I do not know if Vesa Vares book Kuninkaantekijät 1998 is been translated in English but in Finnish language he use almost only conservatives and liberals on the "non-socialist" side and normal socialists or social democrats on the leftt. --91.152.1.20 16:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

To 128.214.43.66, could we discuss the manifesto passage in the thread below? I feel instinctively that the present version in the article is still not quite right. But I am not well-informed enough to be sure. Hentilä et al may be a general book but it is specific in saying that the manifesto was entitled Me vaadimme (We demand) and that it was not discussed in the Eduskunta because in the speaker’s opinion it didn't meet the formal requirements of a proposal for legislation. If that is true then it would clarify the relevant passage. In my opinion, we need to compare and contrast this with what Ketola said and work out a definitive wording for the passage. qp10qp 13:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collaborative editing? Manifestly not the way.

Some of the edits around the "manifesto" passage have been very difficult to respond to because in my opinion not all editors are following best practice. I would suggest that, per best practice, editors should raise issues first on the talk page and give other editors a chance to comment. Edit summaries aren't really the place to debate differences over information. I also feel that we need a collaboration here between editors who are closely familiar with the history and editors who can ensure clear English: we are fortunate in having both available; the best place for them work together, surely, is the talk page.

As a case study, let me lay bare the recent history of the "manifesto" passage, which keeps getting re-edited. I first raised the problem on this talk page with:

What's an "independence manifest"? (as it was spelled at the time)

After nobody responded directly to that, I removed the passage from the article, but with the intention of looking into it further. The passage, along with the word "manifest" and some other unclear English was then reverted back into the article, with the following in the edit summary: "Plans of application of a Manifest for independency by the socialists in November is a historical fact that cannot be missed in txt !."

In my opinion, that should have been broached on the talk page. But anyway, I then said something like the following on the talk page, and I append here also the replies which followed:

I note that edit summary insisted on the word "Manifest", but such a word does not exist in English except as an adjective or a list of customs goods, and so I feel I was justified in cutting it from the article. Perhaps (I can't find this in the dictionary) the word has a special meaning in relation to this subject, but the general reader can't be expected to know that. All specialist words on Wikipedia should be explained in articles or they will be meaningless, as this one was to me. qp10qp 21:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

On the precise point, the edit summary says: "Plans of application of a Manifest for independency by the socialists in November is a historical fact that cannot be missed in txt!"

I am taking this seriously, because I trust Ilummeen entirely on this and only cut the sentence because it wasn't clear, not on grounds of accuracy. If it's important, we must find a way to say it.

"Instead the Social Democrats aimed at asking for an independence manifest for Finland from the Bolsheviks, but the uncertain situation in Petrograd prevented the plan."

Does it mean something like: "Instead, the Social Democrats intended to ask the Bolsheviks for a written commitment to Finnish independence"?

qp10qp 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suspect he meant to use the word "manifesto". --Jouten 10:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Aha! (May I say your comments and edits are exceptionally helpful.) I have found a book on Google Books (Hentilä et al) which uses that word: "As their counter-proposal, the Social Democrats put forward a manifesto entitled “We demand” which among other things asked for Finland's freedom to be safeguarded by an agreement with Russia." Put like that, "manifesto" makes sense (I had dismissed the possibility of "manifesto" because you don't plan to ask for a manifesto from someone else, as the article had suggested).

Does that then refer to this part in the article: "The Senate, led by Pehr Evind Svinhufvud, proposed Finland's declaration of independence, which the Parliament adopted on 6 December 1917.[22] Though the Social Democrats voted against the Svinhufvud proposal, they decided to present an alternative declaration of independence containing no substantial differences."

If so, then it will be extremely easy to dovetail the detail about the manifesto into the article. But the way things stood before, as may be seen from the extract I quoted in my list of objections higher up, left it unclear what this "manifest" related to or what moment in the sequence of events it occurred.

Unfortunately, no other book that I can access through Google uses the expression "manifesto" in this context or goes into any detail about precisely where this fitted, so I'd be grateful for any clarification before making a restorative edit based on Hentilä. qp10qp 15:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• In the meantime, the following edit was made by 84.231.163.231, with no edit summary:

The socialists planned to appeal a manifesto for sovereignty of Finland from the Bolseviks on 10 November, but the uncertain situation in Petrograd prevented the plan. In order to force concessions in domestic policy, the Social Democrats presented first an uncompromising political programme called We demand on 1 November, and after it failed they iniated a general strike on 14–19 November 1917.

• I then edited that addition to make the English clear, assuming from the Hentilä book (see quote above) that "We demand" and the manifesto were one and the same:

On 1 October, the Social Democrats put forward a manifesto entitled “We demand”, which among other things demanded that Finland's sovereignty be safeguarded by an agreement with Russia; but the uncertain situation in Petrograd stalled the plan, after which they initiated a general strike on 14–19 November 1917.

• And I informed editors on the talk page of what I'd done:

The material is now back in place with a coherent wording. qp10qp 21:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• 84.231.163.231 then edited the passage and added the edit summary: "We demand progr. and the plan for ind.manifesto were two separate matters, the manifesto was never finally written, (according to E.Ketola's PhD thesis in 1980*s).

On 1 October, the Social Democrats put forward a political program called “We demand” in order to push political concessions in domestic policy. On 10 November they planned to ask an acceptance of Finland's sovereignty from the Bolseviks, but the uncertain situation in Petrograd stalled the plan. After the uncompromising "We demand" program had failed the socialists initiated a general strike on 14–19 November 1917.

• Here E.Ketola's 1980s reference was used as justification to alter the information which I had already presented on the talk page, referenced to the Hentilä book of 1999. I am not saying that Ketola was wrong (I don't know) but a dispute like that should have been addressed on the talk page. In any case, Wikipedia policy is that conflicting opinions must be presented in the article rather than exclude each other.

• Next came another change, from user 128.214.43.66, with the edit summary: "It may even that Wiik or Kuusinen had written the manifesto in the final form but no delegation was sent to Petrograd as the leadership there was on the "edge of a knife"."

On 1 November, the Social Democrats put forward a political program called “We demand” in order to push political concessions in domestic policy. They planned also to ask an acceptance of Finland's sovereignty from the Bolseviks in form of a manifesto on 10 November, but the uncertain situation in Petrograd stalled the plan.

• Once again, I feel issues like that should be discussed on the talk page before edits are made. And once again, unclear English was undermining the intention of the edits. I was about to make edits to clarify the English again, but fortunately Jouten (who always seems to follow correct practice by commenting and presenting suggestions on the talk page) had the same idea. His edit was as follows:

On 1 November, the Social Democrats put forward a political program called “We demand” in order to push for political concessions in domestic policy. They planned also to ask for acceptance of Finland's sovereignty from the Bolsheviks in the form of a manifesto on 10 November, but the uncertain situation in Petrograd stalled the plan. After the uncompromising "We demand" program had failed, the socialists initiated a general strike on 14–19 November 1917.

• The passage is now in tolerable English, though you don't ask for acceptance in the form of a manifesto (you could ask for a manifesto to be accepted): we need to discuss that wording. Is the passage now broadly accurate? I don't know. We need to discuss that too.

• I hope it is clear from these examples that this method of editing is unsatisfactory for a featured article. We should discuss issues and wording on the talk page and make sure that everyone knows what is going on. Otherwise, there is sure to come a day when most of us are busy and bad prose or inaccuracy will creep into the article without being noticed.

qp10qp 15:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "...the political system transferred to monarchy". Did it?

A few days ago, user:vuo altered this part of the article to read: "and monarchy was briefly considered, but never actualized" (with the edit summary "Väinö I never ruled").

I changed it back (though I kept his word "briefly") and invited him to the raise the matter on talk, as I felt he had a point. Since he hasn't done so, I'd better raise it myself.

It's worth setting out other mentions of the matter in the article first:

On 9 October, under pressure from Germany, the monarchist Senate and an unrepresentative parliament chose a German prince, Friedrich Karl, brother-in-law of German Emperor William II, to be the King of Finland—and Finland became a monarchist state.

and

German troops left Helsinki on 16 December, and Prince Friedrich Karl gave up his crown on 20 December. Finland reverted from a monarchy to an independent democratic republic on the model of the western democracies. The conservatives and liberals disagreed strongly on the best system of government for Finland to adopt: the former demanded monarchy and restricted parliamentarianism; the latter demanded a Finnish republic with full-scale democracy and social reforms.

As usual the sources do not completely agree, but I feel there is a majority (at least among the ones on Google Books to which I am limited) that support Vuo's position.

The three main questions, it seems to me, are: did Friedrich Karl ever become king? Did his election, even if he never became king, effectively make Finland a monarchy anyway? And was his election legitimate?

I've elaborated on this below, but in summary, I would answer, "No", "No, because the constitution remained the same", and "It depends on whether you consider the rump Senate legitimate". I think the article needs some work on this issue.

The article says: "On 9 October, under pressure from Germany, the monarchist Senate and an unrepresentative parliament chose a German prince, Friedrich Karl, brother-in-law of German Emperor William II, to be the King of Finland—and Finland became a monarchist state."

1. Finnish monarchists were eager to pick a German prince as the new king. Picking a Scandinavian noble or a Finn didn't carry the same foreign policy benefits, they thought, as a German prince. Germany supported the idea once it was put to them, but the sentence gives the impression that Germany pressured the Finnish monarchists to this end.

2. The constitution didn't change and the head of state didn't change, so I'm not sure if it can be said that this election made Finland any more of a monarchist state than it already was.

Here's how I would put it: "On 9 October, supported by Germany, the monarchist Senate and the rump Parliament chose a German prince, Friedrich Karl, brother-in-law of German Emperor William II, to become the King of Finland under the old constitution of 1772."

The article says: "German troops left Helsinki on 16 December, and Prince Friedrich Karl gave up his crown on 20 December. Finland reverted from a monarchy to an independent democratic republic on the model of the western democracies."

1. Friedrich Karl was never crowned, so he couldn't give up his crown.

2. Finland did not revert to a republican form of government, since it didn't have one prior to Friedrich Karl's election. None of this maneuvering changed the Finnish constitution and Finland did not become a republic till 1919-07-17.

Here's how I would put it: "German troops left Helsinki on 16 December, and Prince Friedrich Karl gave up his claim to the crown on 20 December. The cause of monarchism in Finland collapsed and in 1919 a new republican constitution was passed." --Jouten 12:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Your points and suggestions seem smart to me. The major point emerging from what you and other editors say is that Finland didn't become anything new under Paasikivi and the rump or revert to anything after his government fell. We can make sure that the article merely describes what went on and makes no definitive assertion about the status of Finland at the time. The readers can then make up their minds.qp10qp 20:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did Friedrich Karl become king?

David Kirby, on page 163 of A Concise History of Finland says: ”The defeat of Germany at the end of 1918 brought to an abrupt end any plans to install as king of Finland Prince Friedrich Karl of Hesse, accorded this honour by a pro-German government and a slender monarchist majority in the rump Eduskunta".

And on page 164: ”the defeat of Germany and Friedrich Karl’s polite refusal of the Finnish crown in November 1918 ensured that Finland would be a republic, not a monarchy".

Jonathan George Petropoulos says on page 188 of Royals and the Reich: The Princes Von Hessen in Nazi Germany: "On 9 October 1918 Parliament elected Prince Friedrich Karl von Hessen as king. But when Germany capitulated shortly after this, the prince decided not to accept the throne that was offered him. When this happened it seemed that monarchy was no longer a possible form of government".

Fred Singleton on page 111 of A Short History of Finland says: "Before any practical steps could be taken to introduce a monarchy, Germany had been defeated and the Prince of Hesse made it known that he could not accept the proffered crown."

Emil Joseph Kirchner on page 331 of Liberal Parites in Western Europe says that the German defeat "scuppered plans to appoint a German king of Finland".

If Friedrich Karl refused the crown (as opposed to abdicating) this suggests that he never became king. On the other hand, Hentilä et al say that "in early September the prince gave his consent to a delegation of monarchists from Finland".

In that case, one could I suppose assume that the election required no acceptance and made Friedrich Karl de facto king of Finland, whether he liked it or not.

So, what is the most accurate version?

The former. Hannu Salokorpi's "Pietarin tie - Suomalainen puolue ja suomettarelainen politiikka helmikuun manifestista 1899 Tarton rauhaan 1920" (1988) deals with the topic extensively. It makes it quite clear that Friedrich Karl was never crowned king nor was he given the powers. Svinhufvud remained the head of state until Mannerheim became Regent.

The book mentions one unofficial delegation of monarchists (Nevanlinna, Talas, Frey, and von Bonsdorff) which visited the Friedrich Karl in September. Ernst Nevanlinna reported on the trip to the Finnish Party parliamentary group on 1918-09-26. Apparently Friedrich Karl wished that the form of government would be changed to monarchy before his election - the book doesn't explicitly say that this wish was expressed to the delegation - so that was tried again, but there still weren't enough votes to accomplish it. The election was conducted on 1918-10-09. Friedrich Karl never accepted his position - the book has an amusing, several pages long account of how he would have been crowned had he not called it off. --Jouten 10:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if he would have worn ridiculous regalia! qp10qp 20:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did the election of October 1918 make Finland a monarchy?

It could be argued, whether Karl Friedrich became king or not, that the government and parliament had effectively declared a monarchy by then, and so technically Finland was a monarchy with a vacant throne.

I am not sure what to think about that because it seems that not only had constitutional objections been raised against the move to monarchy but that those objections remained in force on October 9.

Hentilä et al say on page 124: "The Paasikivi Senate introduced a proposal for a monarchical form of government in the Eduskunta in early June 1918. The Eduskunta accepted it but the republicans were able to use the 'qualified minority' provisions to prevent the measure being declared “urgent” and thus being enacted in the lifetime of a single parliament. On August 7 the bill was voted to 'rest till after the next election'."

In that case, I am not sure how the tight votes in favour of the election, and the election itself, could have amounted to more than an agreement to offer the crown, rather than to an imediate institution of of monarchical government, the decision on which had been postponed to the next parliament for constitutional reasons. On the other hand, the monarchists had in August come up with "a new strategy. Since the constitution of 1772 was seen to be still in force, the Diet was obliged to find a new monarch following the demise of the royal line. On 9 August the Eduskunta voted by 58 to 44 to authorise the Senate to take appropriate action". (Hentilä et al, p 124.)

But, in my opinion, that decision amounted to an assertion that Finland had been a monarchy all along, whereas the declaration of independence in late 1917 had been specifically republican and had been recognised as such by France, Britain, and Russia.

[edit] Was the election of a king legitimate?

Apart from the question of the "qualified minority" postponement, there are broader questions of the election's legitimacy, since the parliament in October 1918 did not represent all the people of Finland. Technically, the parliament was the same one elected in autumn 1917, but without the Social Democrats, it was no longer democratically representative of the whole nation. The voting figures of 58 to 44 above show how small the parliament had become compared to the one elected in 1919, which had 200 seats.

In 1919, a constitution was drafted and processed through a number of stages before being instituted, but it does not appear that a similar legitimising process was gone through in 1918, and it is not clear to me that a new monarchical constitution had been legitimately put in place. Kirchner suggests that Paasikivi and co were acting opportunistically after the civil war, in order to force in structures of their own liking while they had the numerical advantage in parliament; and Hentilä et al suggest that one reason they wanted a monarchy was to make sure that no socialist president could be appointed in the future.

The aforementioned "Pietarin tie" by Salokorpi says that the Parliament asked for a statement on the legal basis of the election from Professor Robert Hermansson, a leading expert on the constitution. Hermansson wrote that the election could be carried out based on section 38 of the 1772 constitution as long as the Parliament acknowledges that said constitution is in force. So the strictly legal basis was there.

That leaves the little matter of popular legitimacy. The monarchists worried about it, too, and there was talk of having a referendum. The example of Norway, where the monarchists had won in a referendum, was mentioned. They never went that route, though, probably because they feared they would lose. The republicans demanded parliamentary elections, knowing that if the Social Democrats entered the Parliament again, republican forces would in all likelihood gain a majority. --Jouten 10:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

For me, from what you have said, this is starting to boil down to the fact that Friedrich Karl seems never to have become king, in which case the legitimacy question becomes less significant. I presume that if he'd been crowned, he would have been head of state, and therefore even harder to assess constitutionally. qp10qp 20:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible changes

On the basis of the above points, should we change the article text? I would suggest that we adopt the term "rump parliament", which I have seen used in most books, to apply to the post-civil-war parliament, and also that we refer to the Paasikivi Senate. Those little changes would keep the question of legitimacy at the forefront of the readers' minds. At the moment the article, though it mentions the exclusion of Social Democrats, gives the impression that the parliamentary decisions of 1918 were carried out just as legitimately as the ones before the civil war and that its unrepresentative decisions were sufficient in themselves to transfer the country's political system to monarchy. We need to offset that impression, I believe.

qp10qp 18:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The test is simple: did "Väinö I" or Friedrich Karl ever exercise his power? Also, on the second point, the bill is not merely postponed: it's not considered a law before a new parliament accepts it. --Vuo 22:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure: I meant that the consideration of the bill was postponed.

I see that you have changed the wording at the first instance to: "The legacy of the conflict was that the hegemony of Russia was diminished in Finland, and that monarchistic constitution was drafted, but it never entered into force." This, for me, isn't good English, and it now leaves a contradiction with the two parts of the article where it says that monarchy did enter into force. There's no urgency at the moment, and so I won't rush to change what you've written. I am hoping that editors can discuss the issue here for a moment without swapping edits in the article. And then we can make definitive edits in prose of a quality suitable for a featured article. qp10qp 14:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This disc. is dispersed to many chapters so I make my point here. According to Vesa Vares (Kuninkaantekijät 1998 e.g. pp87-94), who's study can be considered to be the latest interpretation, the question of monarchy vs. republic was both juridical and power political, (political i.e. the final decition was made by those who had the political power). After the Civil War, in filling the power vacuum and fight for power, caused originally by the collapse of Nicholas II and Russia, the both sides of the divided political right used all political and juridical means to reach the leadership (and interpreted laws for their own favour). Juridically monarchists were probably more right, but as they were politically defeated due to the collapse of Germany, Finland became in the end a republic and in the wise afterwards (politically) everybody is for the republic and the "democratic forces" had it complitely right. Therefore the answer for this FA-art. also is partially a matter of opinion. The MAJOR CLAIM of the monarchists was that Finland's form of government had never changed from monarchy to republic. On 6 December 1917 Finland declared itself independent as a republic, but according to the only constitution that Finland had; 1772 laws from the Swedish period, the form of government could be changed by a majority of 2/3, and in 6.12.1917 the voting result was only 100 for and 88 against, and in fact, paradoxially, the socialists were the major group against the Svinhufvud's proposal. The monarchists claimed that independence was ok, but not the new form of government (as the former supported their power but the latter diminished their leadership). They asked the opinion of some top Finnish lawyers and they obviously supported the monarchistic view. So the monarchist's idea was that the only "job" during 1918 was just to find a new king for the country after Nicholas II of Russia; and of course they had the political power to do this with the majority in the rump parliament. The voting that postponed something in August 1918 dealt only the new proposal of monarchistic form of govern. of Finland given by the Paasikivi senate in May 1918 (or was it June 1918). The new one would have been a more democratic than the old very autocratic "1772 monarchy". Actually the monarchists tried to "sell" the the new law to the republicans by saing it would be more democratic. But in fact the monarchists gave the supporters of republic just two choices that were finally monarchistic; they could choose between the new law by Paasikivi or the old one from 1772, but if they did not accept that of Paasikivi, things would go along the "1772 monarchy". So in the end on 9 Oct. 1918 Finland had a new king and Finland continued as a monarchy; since the Swedish period without any "cuts" of it, from the point of view of the monarchists. Of course those for the Finnish republic opposed all this, but they did not have enough political power, and in the end most of the Young Finns that had opposed monarchy at first turned to support it (e.g. according to K.J. Ståhlberg the monarchists made a coup d'etat). The republicans argued from their point of view that the effect of the law from 1772 had ceased to exist by the breakdown of the Russian Empire. But if we are honest it may be that the monarchists had it right juridically "according to the law", but politically they lost via the defeat of the Germans (Vares emphesizes the monarchists were not defeated juridically, but they just lost the political battle). If Germany would have been the winner of the WWI the monarchists, with their political majority, would have made sure that the parliament could not have been able to change everything, if new parliamental elections would have brought majority for those for the Finnish republic. That would have obviously been very easy having the constitution of 1772 "on". Another question is whether Finland had a king or not as Friedrich Carl was not officially crowned (cause Germany lost the war), but that is obviously a smaller question here. So if we base our opinion on juridical factors and the power political situation in late 1918, Finland truly was a monarchy for a short period (??). --62.248.150.92 17:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That's very intriguing and fascinating. Many thanks, particularly for the point that the Dec 1917 vote was considered not bindingly republican. My mind is working now on a wording which can take all possibilities into consideration, in accordance with Wikipedia policy that where opinions differ, they should be represented alongside each other in the article, leaving the final decision to the readers. This shouldn't be too difficult and would add another note of quality to the article's comprehensiveness. Jouten has made some excellent suggestions too. I hope we can wait a few days before acting on this discussion. Jouten's suggested edits might make good drafts to use as a basis for changes. qp10qp 19:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Draft changes

In italics are the present wordings of the three passages that deal with the monarchy issue. I have added Jouten's suggestions and my own:

The legacy of the conflict was that the hegemony of Russia was diminished in Finland, and that the former monarchistic constitution was introduced, but the prospective king never reigned due to the defeat of the German Empire in World War I. After the war Finland emerged as an independent democratic republic.

Lead sections are always difficult. I'm not sure if the "hegemony of Russia" bit is needed here (was it not ended rather than diminished, and before the war rather than by it?) Also, since the monarchist phase was so short, I wouldn't call it a legacy. What about (this is pretty rough): "The Paasiviki Senate and rump parliament attempted to make Finland a monarchy in 1918, but the defeat of Germany led to the fall of the monarchists, and a new parliament introduced a republican constitution in 1919." qp10qp 22:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

On 9 October, under pressure from Germany, the monarchist Senate and the rump parliament chose a German prince, Friedrich Karl, brother-in-law of German Emperor William II, to be the King of Finland—and Finland approached the status of a monarchistic state.

Jouten: "On 9 October, supported by Germany, the monarchist Senate thiand the rump Parliament chose a German prince, Friedrich Karl, brother-in-law of German Emperor William II, to become the King of Finland under the old constitution of 1772."

I largely agree with Jouten's suggestion, though I would leave out mention of the old constitution and add a note about it instead. My reason is that I don't believe in adding information to the main text of articles that might raise more questions than it answers. I would say "elected", since they had chosen him earlier. At the end, I would add, "though he was never crowned", or something like that. qp10qp 22:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

German troops left Helsinki on 16 December, and Prince Friedrich Karl, who had not yet been crowned officially, left his post on 20 December. Finland reverted from a monarchistic protectorate of the German Empire to an independent democratic republic on the model of the western democracies.

Jouten: "German troops left Helsinki on 16 December, and Prince Friedrich Karl gave up his claim to the crown on 20 December. The cause of monarchism in Finland collapsed and in 1919 a new republican constitution was passed."

I like Jouten's version of this one very much, because it states simply what happened without making any attempt to define the consititional situation under the Paasiviki government. And it avoids subordinate clauses. qp10qp 22:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Otherwise everything is properly formulated (the planned txt also), but the Lead section is a major problem now being too long and too detailed. The question on monarchy vs. republic is just one issue of what happened in 1917-1918 and it should not get more room than the other issues in the Lead. There is e.g. no mention of exact names of senates even in more important factors, but now Paasikivi senate and rump p. might be "named" (rump should be mentioned in the Bitter Legacy sect.); "the conservative senate attempted to make Finl....." (rump not ment. there) is a better formulation in the lead. Still a much more important problem in the Lead is now that the effect of Russia and Germany on Finland is too mildly written. It should be more clearly emph. that Finland simply changed from the hegemony of Russia to German hegemony partially due to the Civil War and that the result of the WWI decided the faith of the Finns too. Definitely the hegemony of Russia in part reduced due to the Civil War (what if the Reds had won the war ?). On the other side, as the article deals with the whole period of 1917-1918 it is more proper to write: "The legacy of the crises during 1917-1918 was that the hegemony of Russia decreased [(effect of a major power on a minor country in its neighbourhood never ends complitely)], and that the hegemony of Germany markedly increased in Finland. The defeat of Germany in WWI.....". Well, I quess I'll have to make all these changes later..... --62.248.150.92 05:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Or, better still, wait for a few days until we have drafted some agreed wordings here. I agree with you about the hegemony bit: you're right, and "legacy" makes sense when applied to the whole period of turmoil rather than just the war. Maybe you could write out some suggested wordings on this talk page? I agree that it would be a good idea to say more about the 1918 parliament than just the monarchy issue, but also that we need to keep the lead short. Leads are so tough because we need something pithy, but pithiness sometimes simplifies things too much. Perhaps there are other parts of the lead we could shorten in compensation. qp10qp 15:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to increase the wording with the parliament(s) (or senate names etc.), quite opposite (no mention of Paasikivi); because the most important issue is the war and its background, in a as short and "tight" lead as possible. For Bitter Legacy sect. on monarchism: "Finland approached the status of a monarchistic state on 9 October 1917 as the conservative Senate and the rump Parliament elected a German prince, Friedrich Karl, brother-in-law of German Emperor William II, to become the King of Finland under the monarchistic constitution from the Swedish period 1772." The Lead needs a much tighter txt of monarchism than was proposed above. For the Lead concerning the hegemonies: "The legacy of the crisis during 1917-1918 and the Civil War was that the hegemony of Russia decreased in Finland and the country transferred to the power sphere of the German Empire. After the defeat of Germany in WWI Finland emerged as an independent, democratic republic. --84.231.163.231 16:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And for Compromise sect.: "Finland became an independent democratic republic as the German troops left Helsinki on 16 December and Prince Friedrich Karl gave up his claim to the crown on 20 December. The short phase of the Finnish monarchism ceased and a new republican constitution was passed on 17 July 1919." --84.231.163.231 17:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I like Qp10qp's suggestions. (Minor nitpick: I would use the spelling "Parliament", with an uppercase 'P'.)

Right now the article, when talking about the Friedrich Karl saga, describes the constitution of 1772 as "former" and being "introduced" and says that Finland "reverted" to a "democratic republic" afterward. But the same constitution was in place from independence till the new republican constitution was passed in the summer of 1919. (Incidentally, if I simply had to pick some demarcation line in Finland's form of government during that period, I'd go with electing a Regent in the Spring of 1918, as Svinhufvud actually took the job.) --Jouten 20:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we are getting somewhere. (I would have used a capital p in the article, for consistency, though I never use one normally (nor for senate, king, etc. since I tend to follow CMS). Jouten, I understand your point about the democracy. That's why I strongly favour wordings that don't attempt to define the constitution in 1918, since it seems to me that it was in a state of transition. I will see tomorrow if I can think of ways of dovetailing User:84.231.163.231's suggestions into the other drafts above, so that we have wordings we can more or less agree on. qp10qp 20:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The major thing to understand here is that it truly was a state of transition and filling up a power vacuum since March revolt 1917 in Russia, lasting as long as WWI was on. The situation in Finland (and in Europe) began to stabilize only due to the end of the war, and the result of the war decided the faith of the Finns too. The difficulty here (and Jouten seems to forget it) is that it is a political matter of opinion whether the old constitution ceased to exist on 15 March 1917 and finally 6. December 1917 or not, and whether Finland became a republic or not on 6.12.17. During the turmoil of 1917-1918 the legal matters and law were put under the carpet or used just for political means. E.g. 6.12.17 the conservatives supported independence, and republic "illegally" against the old constitution, later their opposed republic and supported the old constitution on "legal" ie. power political reasons; and in a way the socialists did the opposite with the republic. I emphasise that the lead must be short and tight and the monarchy is not the main question of the article. I would add the monarchy txt in the lead as follows: "The legacy of the crisis during 1917-1918 and the Civil War was that the hegemony of Russia diminished in Finland and the country transferred to the power sphere of the German Empire. Consequently, the conservative senate attempted to establish a Finnish monarchy ruled by a German king. After the defeat of Germany in WWI Finland emerged as an independent, democratic republic.". The FINNISH monarchy is something else than just the old constitution and the Swedish period. As I wrote earlier we will make corrections if the quality of the article is decreased by just staring to less important matters as monarchism vs. republic.... --84.231.163.231 04:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I can appreciate that opinions differ on the role of the constitution of 1772 in 1917-1919. However, currently the article takes one side in the dispute. A way around this would be to merely describe what happened. There seems to be an agreement on the facts: who was elected to what and when, and who actually held power. The article can describe those things without making judgments about what the form of government was at times when the matter was under dispute. If judgments simply have to be included, they should be attributed to the sides that held them. ("Republicans claimed X, but monarchists maintained that Y. Noted historian Z says that they're both full of Ä.")

Re your proposal, I wouldn't call any of the things you list as the Civil War's legacy. Germany's influence and the monarchist endeavours were both passing phases, and the war didn't cause Finland to become a republic. I also wouldn't say that the hegemony of Russia merely "diminished". It would be difficult to argue that Russia was the hegemon in Finland in 1919, never mind before Germany's defeat. Finally, the relationship between German influence and monarchist endeavors is somewhat subtle. Clearly there's a connection, but I would remove the word "consequently" so as not to give off the impression that the king was being installed at Germany's behest.

My rewrite of your suggestion would look something like this: "Russia's influence in Finland diminished and Germany's briefly increased. The Senate attempted to install a German prince as a king, but after Germany's defeat in WWI, Finland emerged as an independent republic." (But the version Qp10qp suggested earlier would work, too.) --Jouten 22:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict with Jouten. I find I have come to similar conclusions. Here's my reply to User:84.231.163.231's suggestions:

Your points are taken. I agree that the monarchy isn't the main thing, and I think we can get that aspect right fairly easily. I have no quarrels with your suggestion for the lead—which seems to cover everything without overemphasising details—except on word choice. Why "diminished"? That would seem to suggest that the hegemony of Russia still prevailed, but in lesser form; and I thought it had ended. Also, the word "legacy" tends to imply a longer term effect than described here.

What about: "In the aftermath of the 1917-18 crisis and the Civil War, Finland passed from Russian hegemony to the German sphere of influence. The conservative senate attempted to establish a Finnish monarchy ruled by a German king, but after the defeat of Germany in World War I, Finland emerged as an independent, democratic republic."

? qp10qp 23:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you see an edit conflict here that's your opinion, I do not see it, I see clearly quite other things.... . The most important matter is to avoid POV in this nice article. The suggestions of qp10qp in the Lead are quite nice, but the proposals that I made in this disc. earlier for the txts concerning monarchy etc. in Bitter Legacy and Compromise are not satisfactory. We have to formulate them again to reach for NPOV. In addition, just found that some relevant txt has strangely disappeared from the Lead; perhaps due to vandalism, I do not know, they have to be added again. I'll come back a bit later with the new proposals for the txts. But now we have Easter and we cherish the memory of the ten love ones past away. --84.231.163.231 07:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

By edit conflict, I just meant that I tried to post at the same moment as Jouten, and an "Edit Conflict" message popped up. :). qp10qp 12:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Towards final drafts

Here is that draft of mine for the lead, which User:84.231.163.231 seems content with and which is quite close to Jouten's suggestion. How close is it to a final draft?

"In the aftermath of the 1917-18 crisis and the Civil War, Finland passed from Russian hegemony to the German sphere of influence. The conservative senate attempted to establish a Finnish monarchy ruled by a German king, but after the defeat of Germany in World War I, Finland emerged as an independent, democratic republic."

For "Bitter legacy":

User:84.231.163.231: "Finland approached the status of a monarchistic state on 9 October 1917 as the conservative Senate and the rump Parliament elected a German prince, Friedrich Karl, brother-in-law of German Emperor William II, to become the King of Finland under the monarchistic constitution from the Swedish period 1772."

Jouten: "On 9 October, supported by Germany, the monarchist Senate and the rump Parliament chose a German prince, Friedrich Karl, brother-in-law of German Emperor William II, to become the King of Finland under the old constitution of 1772."

• I suggest combining these versions and my own ideas to make:

"On 9 October, supported by Germany, the conservative Senate and the rump Parliament chose a German prince, Friedrich Karl, brother-in-law of German Emperor William II, to become the King of Finland."

And I would add a note about the constitution to the footnotes (footnotes are an excellent place to deal with difficult peripheral material, I think).

For the "Compromise" section:

User:84.231.163.231: "Finland became an independent democratic republic as the German troops left Helsinki on 16 December and Prince Friedrich Karl gave up his claim to the crown on 20 December. The short phase of the Finnish monarchism ceased and a new republican constitution was passed on 17 July 1919."

Jouten: "German troops left Helsinki on 16 December, and Prince Friedrich Karl gave up his claim to the crown on 20 December. The cause of monarchism in Finland collapsed and in 1919 a new republican constitution was passed."

I suggest combining those like this:

"German troops left Helsinki on 16 December, and Prince Friedrich Karl gave up his claim to the crown on 20 December. The cause of monarchism in Finland collapsed, and a new republican constitution was passed on 17 July 1919."

I think we are now approaching clean-prose, encyclopedic, neutral wordings which avoid going into more detail than the reader requires.

qp10qp 13:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We made the following changes

Lead: OK as formulated earlier

"In the aftermath of the 1917-18 crisis and the Civil War was that Finland passed from Russian hegemony to the German sphere of influence. The conservative senate attempted to establish a Finnish monarchy ruled by a German king, but after the defeat of Germany in World War I, Finland emerged as an independent, democratic republic."

Bitter Legacy: the new changes marked as bold.

The Civil War was a catastrophe for the Finnish nation. Almost 37,000 people perished, 5,900 of whom (16% of the total) were between 14 and 20 years old. A notable feature of the war was that only about 10,000 of these casualties occurred on the battlefields; most of the deaths resulted from the terror campaigns and from the appalling conditions in the prison camps. In addition, the war left about 20,000 children orphaned. A large number of Red Finland supporters fled to Russia at the end of the war and during the period that followed. The war created a legacy of bitterness, fear, hatred, and desire for revenge, and deepened the divisions within Finnish society.

The conservatives and liberals disagreed strongly on the best form of government for Finland to adopt: the former demanded monarchy and restricted parliamentarianism; the latter demanded a Finnish republic with full-scale democracy and social reforms. As a back-up in the political battle the conservatives utilized the monarchistic constitution of the year 1772 from the Swedish period, and those supporting republic the declaration of independence of 6 December 1917 that had defined Finland as a republic.

A new conservative Senate, with a monarchist majority, was formed by J.K. Paasikivi. All but one of the representatives of the Social Democrats were excluded from the parliament due to being imprisoned. A major consequence of the 1918 conflict was the breakup of the Finnish worker movement into three parts: moderate Social Democrats, left-wing socialists in Finland, and communists acting in Soviet Russia with the support of the Bolsheviks

In foreign policy, White Finland looked to Germany and its military might for support, and at the end of May the Senate asked the Germans to remain in the country. The agreements signed with Germany on 7 March 1918 in return for military support had bound Finland politically, economically, and militarily to the German Empire. The Germans proposed a further military pact in summer 1918 as a part of their plan to secure raw materials for German industry from eastern Europe and tighten their control over Russia. General Mannerheim resigned his post on 25 May after disagreements with the Senate about German hegemony over the country and about his planned attack on Petrograd to repulse the Bolsheviks, which the Germans opposed under the peace treaty signed with Lenin at Brest-Litovsk.

With their political majority in the Senate and in the rump parliament the monarchists elected on 9 October Friedrich Karl, brother-in-law of German Emperor William II, to be the King of Finland—and Finland approached the status of a monarchistic state.

'Bold text'

Compromise:

"Finland became an independent nation as German troops left Helsinki on 16 December, and Prince Friedrich Karl gave up his claim to the crown on 20 December. The cause of monarchism in Finland collapsed, and a new republican constitution was passed on 17 July 1919."

It is essential to mention the word independence in order to understand the running the gauntlet of the Finns in 1917-1918. This is emphazised e.g. by professor Osmo Jussila (one author of Hentilae, Nevakivi, Jussila) a major author of the period. Notice that USA and United Kingdom recognized independence of Finl. in 1919. --84.231.163.231 15:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Bold text

I have added the first one to the lead, as we seemed agreed on it. I hope no-one messes about with it now, because it fits well.

We can continue to chew over the other two passages, if necessary. There's no rush, and hopefully we will arrive at wordings that should remain in the article for a long time. qp10qp 13:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North Russia Campaign

It seems that we have overlooked something. There is interesting information in fi:Pohjois-Venäjän interventio about the cooperation of Finnish Red Guards and the Allied interventionists agaist the Whites. -- Petri Krohn 18:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. There is more to this: British crews scuttled six submarines off Helsinki on 4 April 1918 and evacuated by land to to Murmansk. [3] -- Petri Krohn 11:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I created the article British submarine flotilla in the Baltic. -- Petri Krohn 17:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Reds being "Social Democrats"?

The reds in Finland are not to be regarded as social democrats, rather as communists. This is NOT an attack on the reds though I completley dissagree with their ideals. The reds wanted to have russia above them and russia at the time had started to evolve under lenin to Soviet though it wasn't recognized as Soviet untill 1922 Lenin did the octoer revolution in october 1917. So the reds wanted soviet, not a strong government and a large social welfare system, and even if most of them did in a belif that thats what they would get they didn't fight for THAT. I also want to add that to fins the Finnish civil war is regarded as the Finnish War of Libertey. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.232.19.254 (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

There is a note to show other names for the war. qp10qp 15:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

On the other point, I've removed the word "Red" from one place, but I don't think "red" and "communist" originally meant the same thing in this context. The article says, "The most radical Workers' Security Guards from Helsinki, Kotka and Turku changed their names to Red Guards and convinced those leaders of the Social Democrats who wavered between peace and war to support revolution. The Workers' Guards were officially renamed the Red Guards at the end of the same month, under the command of Ali Aaltonen, a former Russian army officer, who had been appointed in December." I think that shows the way the name for the "Red Guards" came about and that the Social Democrats weren't Bolsheviks. qp10qp 16:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odd "facts" about the pre-1917 Finnish parliament

There are a couple of oddities on this page. First, it is said that "A major reason for the Civil War was the undemocratic class system of the estates, originating in the Swedish regime of the 17th century, which effectively divided the Finnish people into two groups, separated economically, socially and politically." (Background). Then it is said that "Autonomous status was returned to the Finns in March 1917, and a more modern parliamentary structure was formed, with a left and a right wing." (February Revolution)

These factoids are contradictory to other parts of the same article, e.g. "the system of estates was abolished in the parliamentary reform of 1906, which introduced universal suffrage." (Background), and "The Social Democratic Party had gained an absolute majority in the Parliament of Finland as a result of the general elections of 1916." (February Revolution).

In fact, the Finnish parliamentary system has been fairly stable from 1907 to 1990's (constitutional reforms reducing the powers of the president). The party system has had a few upheavals, but the first of these (split of the Social Democrat party to SDP and communists and split of the Finnish Parties to National Coalition and Progressive parties) happened only after the Finnish Civil War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifroggie (talk • contribs) 14:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)