Talk:Johannes Vares

POV

Subjective terms deleted. Political point of view should not be a part of this biography. Otto 17:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you, therefore I was forced to revert your edits. "Joining" means joining voluntarily, which most certainly was not the case. "Annexed" is NPOV, but some might consider "occupation" to be too much. So, "annexed" is the most fitting term. DLX 17:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Otto, annexed is a legal term for legal incorporation of some territory into another state, there is nothing wrong with it. It is perfectly neutral, unlike joined, see e.g. [1] for "United states annexed Califorina, Texas, New Mexico, Florida, Hawaii". As for the puppet government, see [2]. Colchicum 18:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Finally something like an argument.

DLX: As I understood from this article: Vares was leading a communist government, what perhaps was interested in joining the Soviet Union. The same happened with the Anschluss in Austria, where Seyss-Inquart became prime-minister. He was a nazi, so the Anschluss succeeded without fight and from a certain point of view legally. So from where is your knowledge that the Vares-government was not voluntarily joining the USSR? Even if it was not voluntarily it was still joining. Annexed should be used as a term if Estonia as a administrative unit disappeared, but that was certainly not the case.

Colchicum, the point of view of the Soviet-Union was that the member states of the Soviet-Union all were states as such. Stalin wanted to make them all members of the UN but only Belarus and Ukraïne became member. So from that point of view the territory stayed Estonian. Since the USSR had then factual jurisdiction that point of view has certain weight.

Your link about "puppet government" shows only that it is a popular term. That doesn't make it appropriate for an encyclopedia. It is a political opinion to call a government a puppet government. It should be presented a such. Otto 18:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Puppet state and puppet governments are terms of art in political science. You can't reasonably dismiss them merely because they happen to be picturesque. Digwuren 20:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I nowhere propose to dismiss the terms, but emphasize to use them in proper context. You are mixing facts with opinions. They should be separated. There existed an organ what claimed to be the government of Estonia. The most important thing to judge is if it had factual influence on the affairs in a territory. That was the case in the Estonian SSR. Therefore it is a fact that is was the government. Calling it a "puppet state" pretends a subjugate relation with another government. There are different views about that. There have been Baltic nationals in the Politburo of the USSR. So in that context they were a puppet of their own people. An encyclopedia is not for picturesque literature, but for an unprejudiced account. Otto 22:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. NPOV means to represent all published views, giving the majority view most prominence. The majority view is that this government was a puppet government. If you can find a reliable source that backs your claim that this was not a puppet government, then we could add a line saying: "According to xxxxx, this was not a puppet government". Martintg 20:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren incorrectly pretends that the term puppet state is a scientific term, which is not the case. I give the English, German, French and Dutch wikipedia as source in the discussion with Termer at Talk:Puppet_state#Puppet_state. Otto 22:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not for you or I to decide if puppet state is a scientific term or not, that would constitute WP:OR, we are only to reflect those terms as published in reliable sources. I have sources that call it is a puppet state, so we must refer to it as such. Do you have sources that state it was not? Martintg 23:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

1) Estonian SSR legally became part of de Sovjet-Unie on August 6, 1940 (hence annexed). I don't understand your problems with this term.

I have stated my "problem" with the term annexation above. The government of Estonia joined the USSR following the constitution of the USSR. Can you elaborate about what you don't understand? You are quite knowleadgeable about post-perestroika Russian politics. Do you have any clue about Soviet politics? Otto 20:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Constitution of USSR is irrelevant in this context. What about constitution of Republic of Estonia? Digwuren 20:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the Republic of Estonia joined the USSR both constitutions are relevant. What is your reason to state that the constitution of the USSR is irrelevant? It seems to me nothing more then a rude provocation. Otto 22:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand Digwuren question. Estonia joining the Soviet was illegal under the Estonia constitution, because a referendum was required under the constitution, but it was not held. Martintg 20:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make the constitution of the USSR irrelevant as Digwuren provocatively alleged. Further your claim that a procedural error makes a decision illegal is nonsense. Such decisions are made daily also in present day Estonia and in most cases (the great majority) the procedural mistake is taken for granted. In the hijacked articles I read a lot of nonsensical "juridical" claims. You are making fools of yourself and if anything only harm the esteem of the Baltic countries. Otto 22:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It was not some "procedural error", but the law, explicitly defined in the Estonian constitution, a referendum must be held before joining any supra-national body. Just recently Estonia held a referendum to join the EU, thus joining the European Union was legal, but joining the Soviet Union was illegal, according to the Estonian constitutional law. Martintg 23:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Estonia legally became part of the Soviet Union on August 6, that is was annexed, just like Texas was annexed by the United States a century before (see [3] for this wording officially used by the U.S. federal power), see also History_of_Texas#Statehood. At least this term should stay, because "joined" has certain false implications. Colchicum 10:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

2) So the article Finnish Democratic Republic is also biased, right? Colchicum 19:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stay with the subject. Vares was not involved with this republic. Otto 20:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)