A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 2, 2012 and February 2, 2013. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Estonian War Museum's website says that there were 85 000 soldiers on the Estonian side: http://www.laidoner.ee/index.php/lang/eng/article/estonian-war-of-independence
I need help! I'm currently preparing a set of maps for the Polish-Bolshevik War of 1919-1920, with the sites of the major battles and the frontlines marked. I would also like to include not only the frontlines of the Russo-Polish war, but also the frontlines of the Latvian and Estonian wars with Bolshevist Russia. Could anyone post a link to a map or description of the frontlines?
The maps I'm working on:
-- Halibu tt 13:48, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
The previous version depicted the Baltic German Landeswehr in June 1919 as the armed force of United Baltic Duchy. This is misleading, because in 1919 German Kaiser Wilhelm and his vassal princes had certainly no role in any political plans of Baltic Germans or anyone else. What general Goltz certainly wanted was to control Latvia through the puppet government of Latvia. And the assumption that he also wanted to conquer the entire Estonia is more a speculation than a fact. Warbola 05:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
"decided to push their defense lines across the border into Russia." sounds like a pro-Estonian way of saying advanced into Russia. Isnt any military attack that then fortifies itself considered "moving defense lines?" A clearer way to say it would be: Having expelled the Estonian Bolsheviks, the Estonian nationalist army then advanced into Russia. Rakovsky 09:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
That's true, second variant is more neutral. This phrase "push their defense lines across the border into Russia" shows the attitude of "Estomian historiography" towards the facts. Victor V V ( talk) 16:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
You're wrong, Victor, there's no special attitude towards the facts. Just stating the obvious point: Estonian army moved across the border of Russia to strengthen the defence. It was not an attempt to attack or conquer Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.176.181 ( talk) 12:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The info box oversimplifies what was a very complicated political situation. As well as fighting the Bolsheviks, Estonians fought Germans of 2 kinds - Reich-Germans and Baltic Germans whose ambitions were not always the same. Then there were the White Russians, with whom the Estonians did not always have good relations. On should not forget cooperation with Latvian Nationalists, and finally the Western Allies (Britain and France) had influential views of their own. Squeezing this kaleidoscope into two protagonists who sound like "us" and "them" does not do the situation justice. 62.65.192.23 12:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
An encyclopedia should be a compendium of knowledge, not the imprinting of video-game mentality onto historical situations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.192.20 ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Darfur conflict Has an infobox suitable also for this war. -- Artman40 13:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Please provide the evidence that ELW is the prevailing name for the conflict in English historiography and has the significant usage there. -- Irpen 06:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Since no answer is given for long enough, I am adding a POV-title tag. -- Irpen 20:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Where is the POV-title tag on the American War of Independence? The article is called "American Revolutionary War" and has the following footnote:
British writers generally favor "American War of Independence" or "War of American Independence". In the United States, the war is generally called the "Revolutionary War," "War for Independence," or simply "the Revolution."
Try to be objective but try to understand where the search for objectivity turns into obsession. At the end of the day none of us can be fully objective, its something we have to live with. Wait 100 years and see them laugh at what today's editors agree is "objective". Ehaver 20 December 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.192.22 ( talk • contribs) 20:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
While there is no denying that the title is blatantly biassed and does not conform to our policies of neutrality, I take issue with the practice of deleting redirects that lead to this page. -- Ghirla -трёп- 12:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The title itself isn't POV - it was used even in Soviet books, e.g the War of “Liberation” , that is, in quotation marks. The title had been so widely used, that the Soviets just tried to reduce it to so-called Liberation War etc. But was still used. As for alleged anti-Soviet bias... compare different cases by the same comrades: [1], [2], [3]. As we all know, every war, that the USSR waged, was a just war, as comrade Stalin put it. It's a pity, though, that such clear soviet POV warriors have found a place to pursue their propaganda here in wikipedia. Constanz - Talk 08:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. - GTBacchus( talk) 04:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Estonian Liberation War → Estonian War of Independence — To reflect common English usage, based on the discussion above & the sources below. Evv 12:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Google Print test
Google Scholar test
Amazon.com test
Best regards, Evv 21:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
To all who participated in earlier discussion re War of Liberation vs. War of Independence. I have my own theory about how this might initially have come about. Estonians and Finns who speak English as an acquired language might simply not have the experience to realize that what Estonians call the "Vabadussõda" - the War of Freedom - is with great consistency called a war of independence in English scholarly and military circles. It is the "going concept" among anglos, if you will. "Vabadus" is freedom in general in Estonian, it sounds nice and lyrical. It is sometimes much less frequently called the iseseisvussõda as well, or at least to say so would be very well comprehended by Estonians - iseseisvus means to stand alone and sovereign, to not be dependent. I figure what may have happened is that a native Estonian most likely started out by writing War of Liberation, not realizing that this has another important connotation in English. Estonians would understand if it were translated back from War of Liberation to Estonian, which would make it a "vabastamissõda", which is a war of liberating or of being liberated. The Brits and Canadians and a host of others helped liberate Nazi-occupied France in WWII. Many Kuwaitis would feel, I suggest, that Americans helped liberate them from Saddam Hussein in the First Gulf War. In Iraq, on the other hand, there are probably quite a few locals who don't regard the incursion of coalition forces to topple Saddam as a war of liberation, despite insistences that emanate from the White House. In the case of Estonia, it was indeed a war of emancipation, but essentially a war of self-emancipation. Though Brits were involved, it was not a British but an Estonian operation. Consequently, you'd end up with empty hands if you sought an outside force that liberated the Estonians. The Estonians independently attained their independence and it would have been in error and confusing to leave the unusual and unstandard title of "War of Liberation" above the article in question. The editors got it right in changing it. One final argument: all the Western scholars with proper command of English who have written on the topic (e.g. Toivo U. Raun, author of the authoritative "Estonian and the Estonians" as well as Romuland J. Misiunas and Rein Taagepera in their benchmark work "The Baltic States: Years of Dependence") have used the term "War of Independence". They realized that use of a standard term would make what took place in Estonia universally understandable, and would also help avoid the polemics that finally brought about the very justifiable change in this case from the rather unfortunate "Estonian War of Liberation" to the proper and adequate "Estonian War of Independence". Sean Maleter 18:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this inclusion of the Estonian War of Independence article under a Russian History project an example of standard Wikipedia practice? Are Denmark and Norway and Crete and Poland in WWII parts of e.g. a German History project? Is the US a subset of a British history project? Thanks Sean Maleter 18:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
So, which flag should be used for representing Landeswehr? As has been noted - United Baltic Duchy flag is misleading, besides UBD itself was an unrecognized state which practically ceased its existance after German surrender. Having them under Wiemar German flag could also be somewhat misleading because the Freikorps were not the official German army, and did not always take orders from Berlin. I will put them under Weimar German flag now, but another idea would be to have them flagless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.121.195 ( talk) 04:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Uups, just noticed the discussion here. I didn't get it, what's wrong with the duchy flag since the guys were fighting for it, I mean for the Duchy? Anyway, the Weimar German flag would be totally out of context. If anything it should be the Duchy flag unless there is a good reason why not? The Duchy never existed in the reality anyway, it wasn't more than an attempt that lasted well into this conflict. so why not to let the guys have their flag at least since they didn't get anything and lost everything after this war. I'm referring to the land reform.-- Termer 10:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
One very motivated IP editor, 206.186.8.130, recently replaced whole "Prelude to Peace" section with his own variant, which consists of carefully picked sentences from analysis of Royal Navy's operations in Baltics. Although all this seems to be basically correct, I have a feeling that this source has a bit too narrow view to Estonian War of Independence and focuses too much to Britain's politics and actions, leaving out many important events for Estonia, so I'd revert this section fully to it's previous version, maybe using one or two bits from this current version, but I can already see where it could lead us. So, instead of edit warring, your ideas (and no soapboxing, please)? Ptrt ( talk) 17:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, did I get it right: emotional opinionated claims such as allegedly fearing the loss of independence would be that you'd call, Exactly the type of analysis all East European articles should be based upon?? Well, I'm sorry but I don't share your opinion and think that articles should cite facts more and opinions less. In case you'd like to keep this opinionated claim in the article, please cite in the text that it comes from a MA degree student school paper. Thanks!--
Termer (
talk) 19:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
PS. and is it just me or...? if the claim made any sense it would be OK I guess but I'm just not getting it how come the Estonians were afraid of loosing the independence but were not afraid to disarm and intern the Russian White Army who allegedly threatened the independence? Or am I missing something?--
Termer (
talk) 19:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
It looks like you commented on me instead of the content in the beginning of your post. Regarding the brave or afraid Estonians, I don't think this should be a part of the discussion here or the article. And no, the ref doc is very clear, it's a paper from NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL.-- Termer ( talk) 22:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
In this [4] page, it is mentioned that Estonian Army lost 6127 soldiers during the war as dead. ( Metsamees ( talk) 22:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Ingrian National People’s Committee and German Ober Ost are mentioned as belligerents, are they being given undue weight given that they are not even mentioned in the main text? I'm not aware of the extent of the role of the Ingrian National People’s Committee, but the German Ober Ost were involved for only one single day as far as I know, so inclusion into the infobox seems to give them more weight than due. -- Martintg ( talk) 19:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
So what is the business with Pavel Bermondt-Avalov? In current form he doesnt really make much sense in infobox as I dont think he officially represented Niedra's government. If Estonian armoured trains action at Riga against his forces is importnant enough then we should add West Russian Volunteer Army to combatants, and if it isn't then we should just remove Bermondt.-- Staberinde ( talk) 19:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, first The Ingrian battalion, correct me if I'm wrong but it didn't exist as an independent entity, it was still under the command of the Estonian Army, meaning Laidoner?..meaning it wasn't a separate belligerent in the conflict? Unlike Avolov whose goal was to become the next Russian tsar and commanded his private army compiled with White-Russian/German troops independently. I don't mind adding the Ingrian battalion into the infobox but once it happens why stop there? Should the similar units within the Estonian Army, the Baltic-German, Swedish, Finnish and Danish units and their commanders also be listed in the infobx? Because it doesn't make sense to add just one 'ethnic unit' since there were more of those.-- Termer ( talk) 03:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I've been watching this back and forth... Perhaps a checklist to work through who appears in the box?
BELLIGERENT #1 | ATTRIBUTE |
---|---|
"side" | [which] |
flag | [icon] |
commander | [who] |
commander mentioned in article? | [Y/N], N = content to-do |
forces mentioned in article? | [Y/N], N = content to-do |
"officially organized" forces? | [Y/N] admittedly a bit tricky, "officially" can be "unofficially official", i.e., under whose aegis |
merit Infobox inclusion* | [Y/N] and why, see comments below |
BELLIGERENT #2 | ATTRIBUTE |
"side" | |
flag | |
commander | |
commander mentioned in article? | |
forces mentioned in article? | |
"officially organized" forces? | |
merit Infobox inclusion* | |
BELLIGERENT #...n | ATTRIBUTE |
"side" | |
flag | |
commander | |
commander mentioned in article? | |
forces mentioned in article? | |
"officially organized" forces? | |
merit Infobox inclusion* |
* At a minimum for "merit Infobox inclusion", the 3 items above it need to be a "YES" and there needs to be a commander. If all those conditions are met, then we can decide if that also means the belligerent is significant enough to appear in the Infobox.
Does this make sense? Does it help? Does it need any other attributes? We could then keep the checklist around for future use/discussion and as reference for anyone new coming along. It might look like using up a lot of space, but in the end it might take less space adn effort if it focuses the discussion and flags work that needs to be done to the article.
VЄСRUМВА
♪ 13:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
As we are already talking about infobox, I would say that the way currently strengths of forces are represented doesn't really give accurate picture for someone who doesn't know quite a bit about this war already without reading article.-- Staberinde ( talk) 17:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
How exactly we got baltic germans from 9500 to 52,000? Also actually it currently reads 80,000+25,650+2000+1490+200/160,000/52,000. And I think that North Latvian Brigade was bigger than 1400, and wasn't Finnish force more closer to 4000? I personally really feel that it would be better to give figures about forces involved just in text of article.-- Staberinde ( talk) 20:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
[od] Template:Infobox_military_conflict suggests to list a maximum of three or four major combatants in the infobox, and if there are more, list them in the text. -- Martintg ( talk) 20:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC) PS, I might also suggest getting input from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history if all else fails. -- Martintg ( talk) 00:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
(od) As an example, the infobox at Yugoslav Front (World War II) is rather detailed. On the other hand that one is in fact a POV tool, where chetniks are grouped just as Axis forces (like e.g. NDH, correctly placed there). It is not truth, it is half-truth, and presenting them only as Axis troops is clearly WP:UNDUE. Hence, conflict infoboxes are a useful gadget, but can be misused. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
-- Jaan Pärn ( talk) 15:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, making Baltic nobility the third belligerent is a bit too far out. There were members of Baltic Nobility in the ranks of the Estonian Army and not everyone was a noble in the Baltische Landeswehr, which by itself if anything should be the third belligerent.-- Termer ( talk) 06:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The strength section is about total manpower during the conflict, not about volatility of strengths on the front any given time.-- Termer ( talk) 05:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a glaring error in "References" to the article, pos 4: the years should be 1918--40 (not 1941...). Cf. the vol. 11 of the referred encyclopedia. With best wishes Heido Ots —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.145.76 ( talk) 20:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
While Britain provided naval support at the direction of the Estonian high command, the bulk of the conflict was on land between Estonia and the Bolsheviks and the German Landeswehr. There were more Finnish, Latvian and Russian volunteers than Brits in the campaign, they are mentioned in the infobox but we don't include them as formal combatants, the same with Britain. Note that the peace treaty was signed between Estonia and Bolshevik Russia, there was no British signature so Britain wasn't a formal combatant. -- Nug ( talk) 21:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 2, 2012 and February 2, 2013. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Estonian War Museum's website says that there were 85 000 soldiers on the Estonian side: http://www.laidoner.ee/index.php/lang/eng/article/estonian-war-of-independence
I need help! I'm currently preparing a set of maps for the Polish-Bolshevik War of 1919-1920, with the sites of the major battles and the frontlines marked. I would also like to include not only the frontlines of the Russo-Polish war, but also the frontlines of the Latvian and Estonian wars with Bolshevist Russia. Could anyone post a link to a map or description of the frontlines?
The maps I'm working on:
-- Halibu tt 13:48, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
The previous version depicted the Baltic German Landeswehr in June 1919 as the armed force of United Baltic Duchy. This is misleading, because in 1919 German Kaiser Wilhelm and his vassal princes had certainly no role in any political plans of Baltic Germans or anyone else. What general Goltz certainly wanted was to control Latvia through the puppet government of Latvia. And the assumption that he also wanted to conquer the entire Estonia is more a speculation than a fact. Warbola 05:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
"decided to push their defense lines across the border into Russia." sounds like a pro-Estonian way of saying advanced into Russia. Isnt any military attack that then fortifies itself considered "moving defense lines?" A clearer way to say it would be: Having expelled the Estonian Bolsheviks, the Estonian nationalist army then advanced into Russia. Rakovsky 09:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
That's true, second variant is more neutral. This phrase "push their defense lines across the border into Russia" shows the attitude of "Estomian historiography" towards the facts. Victor V V ( talk) 16:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
You're wrong, Victor, there's no special attitude towards the facts. Just stating the obvious point: Estonian army moved across the border of Russia to strengthen the defence. It was not an attempt to attack or conquer Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.176.181 ( talk) 12:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The info box oversimplifies what was a very complicated political situation. As well as fighting the Bolsheviks, Estonians fought Germans of 2 kinds - Reich-Germans and Baltic Germans whose ambitions were not always the same. Then there were the White Russians, with whom the Estonians did not always have good relations. On should not forget cooperation with Latvian Nationalists, and finally the Western Allies (Britain and France) had influential views of their own. Squeezing this kaleidoscope into two protagonists who sound like "us" and "them" does not do the situation justice. 62.65.192.23 12:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
An encyclopedia should be a compendium of knowledge, not the imprinting of video-game mentality onto historical situations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.192.20 ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Darfur conflict Has an infobox suitable also for this war. -- Artman40 13:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Please provide the evidence that ELW is the prevailing name for the conflict in English historiography and has the significant usage there. -- Irpen 06:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Since no answer is given for long enough, I am adding a POV-title tag. -- Irpen 20:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Where is the POV-title tag on the American War of Independence? The article is called "American Revolutionary War" and has the following footnote:
British writers generally favor "American War of Independence" or "War of American Independence". In the United States, the war is generally called the "Revolutionary War," "War for Independence," or simply "the Revolution."
Try to be objective but try to understand where the search for objectivity turns into obsession. At the end of the day none of us can be fully objective, its something we have to live with. Wait 100 years and see them laugh at what today's editors agree is "objective". Ehaver 20 December 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.192.22 ( talk • contribs) 20:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
While there is no denying that the title is blatantly biassed and does not conform to our policies of neutrality, I take issue with the practice of deleting redirects that lead to this page. -- Ghirla -трёп- 12:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The title itself isn't POV - it was used even in Soviet books, e.g the War of “Liberation” , that is, in quotation marks. The title had been so widely used, that the Soviets just tried to reduce it to so-called Liberation War etc. But was still used. As for alleged anti-Soviet bias... compare different cases by the same comrades: [1], [2], [3]. As we all know, every war, that the USSR waged, was a just war, as comrade Stalin put it. It's a pity, though, that such clear soviet POV warriors have found a place to pursue their propaganda here in wikipedia. Constanz - Talk 08:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. - GTBacchus( talk) 04:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Estonian Liberation War → Estonian War of Independence — To reflect common English usage, based on the discussion above & the sources below. Evv 12:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Google Print test
Google Scholar test
Amazon.com test
Best regards, Evv 21:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
To all who participated in earlier discussion re War of Liberation vs. War of Independence. I have my own theory about how this might initially have come about. Estonians and Finns who speak English as an acquired language might simply not have the experience to realize that what Estonians call the "Vabadussõda" - the War of Freedom - is with great consistency called a war of independence in English scholarly and military circles. It is the "going concept" among anglos, if you will. "Vabadus" is freedom in general in Estonian, it sounds nice and lyrical. It is sometimes much less frequently called the iseseisvussõda as well, or at least to say so would be very well comprehended by Estonians - iseseisvus means to stand alone and sovereign, to not be dependent. I figure what may have happened is that a native Estonian most likely started out by writing War of Liberation, not realizing that this has another important connotation in English. Estonians would understand if it were translated back from War of Liberation to Estonian, which would make it a "vabastamissõda", which is a war of liberating or of being liberated. The Brits and Canadians and a host of others helped liberate Nazi-occupied France in WWII. Many Kuwaitis would feel, I suggest, that Americans helped liberate them from Saddam Hussein in the First Gulf War. In Iraq, on the other hand, there are probably quite a few locals who don't regard the incursion of coalition forces to topple Saddam as a war of liberation, despite insistences that emanate from the White House. In the case of Estonia, it was indeed a war of emancipation, but essentially a war of self-emancipation. Though Brits were involved, it was not a British but an Estonian operation. Consequently, you'd end up with empty hands if you sought an outside force that liberated the Estonians. The Estonians independently attained their independence and it would have been in error and confusing to leave the unusual and unstandard title of "War of Liberation" above the article in question. The editors got it right in changing it. One final argument: all the Western scholars with proper command of English who have written on the topic (e.g. Toivo U. Raun, author of the authoritative "Estonian and the Estonians" as well as Romuland J. Misiunas and Rein Taagepera in their benchmark work "The Baltic States: Years of Dependence") have used the term "War of Independence". They realized that use of a standard term would make what took place in Estonia universally understandable, and would also help avoid the polemics that finally brought about the very justifiable change in this case from the rather unfortunate "Estonian War of Liberation" to the proper and adequate "Estonian War of Independence". Sean Maleter 18:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this inclusion of the Estonian War of Independence article under a Russian History project an example of standard Wikipedia practice? Are Denmark and Norway and Crete and Poland in WWII parts of e.g. a German History project? Is the US a subset of a British history project? Thanks Sean Maleter 18:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
So, which flag should be used for representing Landeswehr? As has been noted - United Baltic Duchy flag is misleading, besides UBD itself was an unrecognized state which practically ceased its existance after German surrender. Having them under Wiemar German flag could also be somewhat misleading because the Freikorps were not the official German army, and did not always take orders from Berlin. I will put them under Weimar German flag now, but another idea would be to have them flagless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.121.195 ( talk) 04:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Uups, just noticed the discussion here. I didn't get it, what's wrong with the duchy flag since the guys were fighting for it, I mean for the Duchy? Anyway, the Weimar German flag would be totally out of context. If anything it should be the Duchy flag unless there is a good reason why not? The Duchy never existed in the reality anyway, it wasn't more than an attempt that lasted well into this conflict. so why not to let the guys have their flag at least since they didn't get anything and lost everything after this war. I'm referring to the land reform.-- Termer 10:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
One very motivated IP editor, 206.186.8.130, recently replaced whole "Prelude to Peace" section with his own variant, which consists of carefully picked sentences from analysis of Royal Navy's operations in Baltics. Although all this seems to be basically correct, I have a feeling that this source has a bit too narrow view to Estonian War of Independence and focuses too much to Britain's politics and actions, leaving out many important events for Estonia, so I'd revert this section fully to it's previous version, maybe using one or two bits from this current version, but I can already see where it could lead us. So, instead of edit warring, your ideas (and no soapboxing, please)? Ptrt ( talk) 17:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, did I get it right: emotional opinionated claims such as allegedly fearing the loss of independence would be that you'd call, Exactly the type of analysis all East European articles should be based upon?? Well, I'm sorry but I don't share your opinion and think that articles should cite facts more and opinions less. In case you'd like to keep this opinionated claim in the article, please cite in the text that it comes from a MA degree student school paper. Thanks!--
Termer (
talk) 19:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
PS. and is it just me or...? if the claim made any sense it would be OK I guess but I'm just not getting it how come the Estonians were afraid of loosing the independence but were not afraid to disarm and intern the Russian White Army who allegedly threatened the independence? Or am I missing something?--
Termer (
talk) 19:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
It looks like you commented on me instead of the content in the beginning of your post. Regarding the brave or afraid Estonians, I don't think this should be a part of the discussion here or the article. And no, the ref doc is very clear, it's a paper from NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL.-- Termer ( talk) 22:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
In this [4] page, it is mentioned that Estonian Army lost 6127 soldiers during the war as dead. ( Metsamees ( talk) 22:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Ingrian National People’s Committee and German Ober Ost are mentioned as belligerents, are they being given undue weight given that they are not even mentioned in the main text? I'm not aware of the extent of the role of the Ingrian National People’s Committee, but the German Ober Ost were involved for only one single day as far as I know, so inclusion into the infobox seems to give them more weight than due. -- Martintg ( talk) 19:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
So what is the business with Pavel Bermondt-Avalov? In current form he doesnt really make much sense in infobox as I dont think he officially represented Niedra's government. If Estonian armoured trains action at Riga against his forces is importnant enough then we should add West Russian Volunteer Army to combatants, and if it isn't then we should just remove Bermondt.-- Staberinde ( talk) 19:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, first The Ingrian battalion, correct me if I'm wrong but it didn't exist as an independent entity, it was still under the command of the Estonian Army, meaning Laidoner?..meaning it wasn't a separate belligerent in the conflict? Unlike Avolov whose goal was to become the next Russian tsar and commanded his private army compiled with White-Russian/German troops independently. I don't mind adding the Ingrian battalion into the infobox but once it happens why stop there? Should the similar units within the Estonian Army, the Baltic-German, Swedish, Finnish and Danish units and their commanders also be listed in the infobx? Because it doesn't make sense to add just one 'ethnic unit' since there were more of those.-- Termer ( talk) 03:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I've been watching this back and forth... Perhaps a checklist to work through who appears in the box?
BELLIGERENT #1 | ATTRIBUTE |
---|---|
"side" | [which] |
flag | [icon] |
commander | [who] |
commander mentioned in article? | [Y/N], N = content to-do |
forces mentioned in article? | [Y/N], N = content to-do |
"officially organized" forces? | [Y/N] admittedly a bit tricky, "officially" can be "unofficially official", i.e., under whose aegis |
merit Infobox inclusion* | [Y/N] and why, see comments below |
BELLIGERENT #2 | ATTRIBUTE |
"side" | |
flag | |
commander | |
commander mentioned in article? | |
forces mentioned in article? | |
"officially organized" forces? | |
merit Infobox inclusion* | |
BELLIGERENT #...n | ATTRIBUTE |
"side" | |
flag | |
commander | |
commander mentioned in article? | |
forces mentioned in article? | |
"officially organized" forces? | |
merit Infobox inclusion* |
* At a minimum for "merit Infobox inclusion", the 3 items above it need to be a "YES" and there needs to be a commander. If all those conditions are met, then we can decide if that also means the belligerent is significant enough to appear in the Infobox.
Does this make sense? Does it help? Does it need any other attributes? We could then keep the checklist around for future use/discussion and as reference for anyone new coming along. It might look like using up a lot of space, but in the end it might take less space adn effort if it focuses the discussion and flags work that needs to be done to the article.
VЄСRUМВА
♪ 13:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
As we are already talking about infobox, I would say that the way currently strengths of forces are represented doesn't really give accurate picture for someone who doesn't know quite a bit about this war already without reading article.-- Staberinde ( talk) 17:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
How exactly we got baltic germans from 9500 to 52,000? Also actually it currently reads 80,000+25,650+2000+1490+200/160,000/52,000. And I think that North Latvian Brigade was bigger than 1400, and wasn't Finnish force more closer to 4000? I personally really feel that it would be better to give figures about forces involved just in text of article.-- Staberinde ( talk) 20:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
[od] Template:Infobox_military_conflict suggests to list a maximum of three or four major combatants in the infobox, and if there are more, list them in the text. -- Martintg ( talk) 20:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC) PS, I might also suggest getting input from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history if all else fails. -- Martintg ( talk) 00:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
(od) As an example, the infobox at Yugoslav Front (World War II) is rather detailed. On the other hand that one is in fact a POV tool, where chetniks are grouped just as Axis forces (like e.g. NDH, correctly placed there). It is not truth, it is half-truth, and presenting them only as Axis troops is clearly WP:UNDUE. Hence, conflict infoboxes are a useful gadget, but can be misused. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
-- Jaan Pärn ( talk) 15:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, making Baltic nobility the third belligerent is a bit too far out. There were members of Baltic Nobility in the ranks of the Estonian Army and not everyone was a noble in the Baltische Landeswehr, which by itself if anything should be the third belligerent.-- Termer ( talk) 06:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The strength section is about total manpower during the conflict, not about volatility of strengths on the front any given time.-- Termer ( talk) 05:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a glaring error in "References" to the article, pos 4: the years should be 1918--40 (not 1941...). Cf. the vol. 11 of the referred encyclopedia. With best wishes Heido Ots —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.145.76 ( talk) 20:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
While Britain provided naval support at the direction of the Estonian high command, the bulk of the conflict was on land between Estonia and the Bolsheviks and the German Landeswehr. There were more Finnish, Latvian and Russian volunteers than Brits in the campaign, they are mentioned in the infobox but we don't include them as formal combatants, the same with Britain. Note that the peace treaty was signed between Estonia and Bolshevik Russia, there was no British signature so Britain wasn't a formal combatant. -- Nug ( talk) 21:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)