Talk:1924 Estonian coup attempt/Archives/2014/May

Uprising

Scholars describe these events as an uprising. See, for example:

http://www.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/087/909.htm Liebman A., Kangelaslik lehekülg eesti tőőlisk-lassi ajaloos (40 aastat 1. detsembri relvastatud ulestousus)?, «Eesti kommunist», 1964, № 11. RZimmerwald (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"Eesti kommunist", Estonian for Estonian communist, is not a scholarly source; it's a Soviet propaganda source. It can not be used as a reliable source regarding facts; only of Soviet version at the time of its publication. By the way, non-neutrality is utterly obvious from the title of this article; translated, it means A heroic page in the history of Estonian working class. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The only problem with the "heroic page" was that the "uprising" conducted by the Soviet Union in Estonia in 1924 wasn't supported by the working class unlike it was hoped, and that was the reason it failed. --Termer (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

To insult sources as "propaganda" is a violation of scholarly integrity. Scholars do not ignore sources just because they've been published in a certain country at a certain time. All English-langauge work on Russia, for example, derives information from sources published in Russia. On the July Uprising in Russia during 1917, an American scholar almost exclusively uses sources from Russia. If scholars consider sources published in Moscow between 1917-91 to be reliable, then these sources can be used on Wikipedia. The input of scholars carries more weight than what any of you have to say. RZimmerwald (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Due to the way Soviets subjugated history to political expediency, Soviet-controlled assertions of Soviet-interested history can not in general be considered reliable sources about the history in question unless they can be backed up. Check out Soviet historiography, which discusses this problem in a bit more depth. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 01:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to expressly approve Termer's handling of the "uprising" issue in this article. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 01:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That's simply called following the WP:NPOV that requires all possible viewpoints to be listed within an article. And even though calling the event uprising is a bit outdated, last mentioned in Soviet history books published before the Glasnost era in Soviet Union and therefore may fall under categories WP:Fringe and WP:UNDUE, -I'm sure the future generations reading WP are going to appreciate finding it out from the article how once existed Soviet POV interpreted historical events according to the Communist ideology.--Termer (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently even many ECP members failed to support the coup and stayed home, so to call it an "uprising" is really a falsehood. Martintg (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Abe Liebman was not a "fringe" author as is suggested by a user above. He was a mainstream historian from Estonia and was clearly a specialist on the history of the country. His opinion that the events of December 1924 in Tallinn constituted an armed uprising holds just as much validity as anyone else's. Liebman's work has been cited in other in English-language accounts of the country. If scholars find it suitable to rely on scholarship of the Soviet period, then so can amateur, wannabe historians on an online encyclopedia. RZimmerwald (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

""Uprising" implies popular support, there was none. Only several dozen communists had an active role, and the attempt was crushed spontaneously by the military, police and civilians before 9am that morning. Martintg (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Attempted

Is the word attempted necessary for the title? If not, a shorter title may be better: coup of 1924 in Estonia, 1924 coup in Estonia, Estonian coup of 1924... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It is called so by the majority of sources since it was an attempted coup, not a coup that had any major consequences other than the Communist Party with it's 300 members were banned in Estonia. An attempted communist coup in Estonia in 1924, attempted communist coup d'etat in Tallinn on December 1, 1924, ATTEMPTED COMMUNIST COUP OF 1924, attempted coup by the Communist Party in December 1924, attempted a coup on 1 December 1924, 1 December 1924, when an estimated three hundred communists attempted a coup d'etat etc.--Termer (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The coup was not successful, it was crushed in a matter of hours, hence "attempted". Martintg (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Comintern connection

The Comintern connection is not an unintuitive piece that would require an inline reference; it's widely mentioned in various sources discussing the coup attempt. For example, consider Estonian MFA's official fact sheet, or Paavo Loosberg's lecture on the topic, or even onwar.com's brief summary. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The source in the article did talk about the Comintern involvement, it was falsely claimed that it didn't. And not like it's against common knowledge, the the purpose of Comintern was to organize the Word revolution.--Termer (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Estonian coup d'état attempt??

Just wondering from where this came from? The majority of published sources call it Communist coup d'etat of 1924, related returns at google books are about 177 [1]. There are only 2 books that call it "Estonian coup" [2] and no wonder becouse it only makes sense in the context For the Comintern and for Stalin, the failure of the Estonian coup in 1924 --and communist uprisings in Germany in 1923 and the abortive Estonian coup in 1924 . Therefore the current title is misleading and it would be better if such moves could be discussed beforehand. In case it has to fit with the WP pattern, then it should match the 1919 Polish coup d'état attempt in Lithuania and be called 1924 Communist coup d'état attempt in Estonia instead.--Termer (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There was no "communism" in any of the previous titles... The title that is right now is pretty standard in Wikipedia and simply re-arranged words of the old title. See category:coups and category:attempted coups. They usually do not specify whether it was a military, communist, fascist, etc. coup. "Estonian" is not really misleading. It was Estonian communists against Estonian government. 1919 Polish coup d'état attempt in Lithuania is rather an exception and exists because of two basic reasons: it was not Lithuanians against Lithuanians, and there also was a Bermontian coup in the same year. Renata (talk) 05:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, perhaps I wasn't clear enough, please provide evidence pr. WP:RS to the contrary above that it's called by the majority of sources "Estonian coup d'état attempt". Otherwise it should be called according to the 177 sources listed: the "...Communist coup d'état attempt...".--Termer (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Uprising

Scholars describe these events as an uprising. See, for example:

http://www.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/087/909.htm Liebman A., Kangelaslik lehekülg eesti tőőlisk-lassi ajaloos (40 aastat 1. detsembri relvastatud ulestousus)?, «Eesti kommunist», 1964, № 11. RZimmerwald (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"Eesti kommunist", Estonian for Estonian communist, is not a scholarly source; it's a Soviet propaganda source. It can not be used as a reliable source regarding facts; only of Soviet version at the time of its publication. By the way, non-neutrality is utterly obvious from the title of this article; translated, it means A heroic page in the history of Estonian working class. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The only problem with the "heroic page" was that the "uprising" conducted by the Soviet Union in Estonia in 1924 wasn't supported by the working class unlike it was hoped, and that was the reason it failed. --Termer (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

To insult sources as "propaganda" is a violation of scholarly integrity. Scholars do not ignore sources just because they've been published in a certain country at a certain time. All English-langauge work on Russia, for example, derives information from sources published in Russia. On the July Uprising in Russia during 1917, an American scholar almost exclusively uses sources from Russia. If scholars consider sources published in Moscow between 1917-91 to be reliable, then these sources can be used on Wikipedia. The input of scholars carries more weight than what any of you have to say. RZimmerwald (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Due to the way Soviets subjugated history to political expediency, Soviet-controlled assertions of Soviet-interested history can not in general be considered reliable sources about the history in question unless they can be backed up. Check out Soviet historiography, which discusses this problem in a bit more depth. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 01:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to expressly approve Termer's handling of the "uprising" issue in this article. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 01:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That's simply called following the WP:NPOV that requires all possible viewpoints to be listed within an article. And even though calling the event uprising is a bit outdated, last mentioned in Soviet history books published before the Glasnost era in Soviet Union and therefore may fall under categories WP:Fringe and WP:UNDUE, -I'm sure the future generations reading WP are going to appreciate finding it out from the article how once existed Soviet POV interpreted historical events according to the Communist ideology.--Termer (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently even many ECP members failed to support the coup and stayed home, so to call it an "uprising" is really a falsehood. Martintg (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Abe Liebman was not a "fringe" author as is suggested by a user above. He was a mainstream historian from Estonia and was clearly a specialist on the history of the country. His opinion that the events of December 1924 in Tallinn constituted an armed uprising holds just as much validity as anyone else's. Liebman's work has been cited in other in English-language accounts of the country. If scholars find it suitable to rely on scholarship of the Soviet period, then so can amateur, wannabe historians on an online encyclopedia. RZimmerwald (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

""Uprising" implies popular support, there was none. Only several dozen communists had an active role, and the attempt was crushed spontaneously by the military, police and civilians before 9am that morning. Martintg (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Attempted

Is the word attempted necessary for the title? If not, a shorter title may be better: coup of 1924 in Estonia, 1924 coup in Estonia, Estonian coup of 1924... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It is called so by the majority of sources since it was an attempted coup, not a coup that had any major consequences other than the Communist Party with it's 300 members were banned in Estonia. An attempted communist coup in Estonia in 1924, attempted communist coup d'etat in Tallinn on December 1, 1924, ATTEMPTED COMMUNIST COUP OF 1924, attempted coup by the Communist Party in December 1924, attempted a coup on 1 December 1924, 1 December 1924, when an estimated three hundred communists attempted a coup d'etat etc.--Termer (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The coup was not successful, it was crushed in a matter of hours, hence "attempted". Martintg (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Comintern connection

The Comintern connection is not an unintuitive piece that would require an inline reference; it's widely mentioned in various sources discussing the coup attempt. For example, consider Estonian MFA's official fact sheet, or Paavo Loosberg's lecture on the topic, or even onwar.com's brief summary. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The source in the article did talk about the Comintern involvement, it was falsely claimed that it didn't. And not like it's against common knowledge, the the purpose of Comintern was to organize the Word revolution.--Termer (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Estonian coup d'état attempt??

Just wondering from where this came from? The majority of published sources call it Communist coup d'etat of 1924, related returns at google books are about 177 [3]. There are only 2 books that call it "Estonian coup" [4] and no wonder becouse it only makes sense in the context For the Comintern and for Stalin, the failure of the Estonian coup in 1924 --and communist uprisings in Germany in 1923 and the abortive Estonian coup in 1924 . Therefore the current title is misleading and it would be better if such moves could be discussed beforehand. In case it has to fit with the WP pattern, then it should match the 1919 Polish coup d'état attempt in Lithuania and be called 1924 Communist coup d'état attempt in Estonia instead.--Termer (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There was no "communism" in any of the previous titles... The title that is right now is pretty standard in Wikipedia and simply re-arranged words of the old title. See category:coups and category:attempted coups. They usually do not specify whether it was a military, communist, fascist, etc. coup. "Estonian" is not really misleading. It was Estonian communists against Estonian government. 1919 Polish coup d'état attempt in Lithuania is rather an exception and exists because of two basic reasons: it was not Lithuanians against Lithuanians, and there also was a Bermontian coup in the same year. Renata (talk) 05:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, perhaps I wasn't clear enough, please provide evidence pr. WP:RS to the contrary above that it's called by the majority of sources "Estonian coup d'état attempt". Otherwise it should be called according to the 177 sources listed: the "...Communist coup d'état attempt...".--Termer (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)