Talk:Territorial changes of the Baltic states

Pre-Republic changes

Petri Krohn had removed an old map dating from pre-Republic era, providing nothing but petty claims of irrelevancy that do not apply in the historic situation of the Baltic territories as the rationale. I reverted, and I express my displeasure. Digwuren 06:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting the disagreeable to you edits is often a proper course of action. Expressing displeasure may also be warranted (I take no position on this particular instance). However, reverting edits that do not fall under WP:VAND categories using any automation tools such as rollback, AWB, TW, undo, etc. should be avoided at all costs. Not only it unnecessarily adds to a conflict, it gives a meaningless edit summary while something like "restoring deleted old map from pre-Republic era" would have been much helpful for editors who see the latest summary at their watchlist. Please give this some consideration for your future actions. Thanks, --Irpen 07:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In a watchlist, a reversal typically follows the reverted change, so this does not become an issue. I in general accept your idea that useful change summaries are, well, useful, and thus try to prefer undo over the other tools in this case.

I emphatically reject the seemingly neo-Luddite idea that automation tools should not be used as a matter of principle, however. Digwuren 08:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo proceeded to remove the old maps again, without any explanation. I reverted again, still under the theory that understanding of historical borders is necessary to understand the issues relating to territorial history of Baltics, especially the discrepancy between the districts of Estland, Livland and Kurland versus the countries of Estonia and Latvia. Digwuren 10:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

And again in [1], merely repeating the stance, refuted above, of Petri_Krohn. I reverted and provided an explanation of relevance on the page. Digwuren 10:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll also chime in as one who removed the maps, I think my summary of "removed maps that are before the timeframe of this article, nice as they are the article is talking about changes from WWI and WWII, not medieval history" was clear. Having 1260 and 1680 maps for an article that starts in 1917 does not help the article - if you really want the map you could expand the article to discuss changes before 1917, and that means more than one sentence covering 700 years in the caption. Having maps from a completely different era from the article with minimal explanation doesn't add context, it just adds confusion. They would be more appropriate over in Baltic states which actually covers the time period of the maps. Kmusser 16:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Link to Estland

Petri Krohn Insists on having the link to a disputed and under AfD Estland. This article contains nothing more than restatement of the fact that there was a was part of northern Estonia refferd to as Estland(but this use in english is under debate because it simply means Lands of Estonia) and some uncited and AFAIK unsubstantiated claim of a short lived country of the same name has existed. The rest is links and redirects largely irrelevant to the context. Whats the logic behind this demand? --Alexia Death 14:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, 'Estland' means 'Land of the Ests', just like 'Finland' means 'Land of the Finns' and 'Sweden' means 'Home of the Sweas'. It's just an accident of historial linguistics that the 'n' in German adjective 'estnisch' grew strong in English and gave rise to the modern root 'Estonia'.

Nowadays, 'Estonia' is the standard English term, and the old-fashioned 'Estland' is used in German and a few nearby Germanic languages such as Dutch. Some pundits have suggested changing the English name to 'Estland', too, suggesting it has a better sound. While this is not a bad consideration, the suggestion never gained any traction.

What Petri Krohn is trying to do, I'm not sure. Earlier, he has attempted to push an idea that Estland is a translation of Eestimaa in the sense the latter was used in pre-1930s' writing -- which is quite wrong --; perhaps now he's trying to make the WP:POINT? Digwuren 15:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it bad faith to delete 30 Wikilinks to the article on Estland and then do a WP:AFD claiming that "no other pages link to this page" as you did here. I find it an even stronger indication of bad faith that you (and your meatpuppets) repeatedly remove the recreated links, while Estland is still under discussion (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estland). -- Petri Krohn 17:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no insight to the history of that article. All I know is that contains nothing relevant(and very little anything else). I will not however haggle over single link. Keep it as long as it éxists... There are bigger wrongs to right.--Alexia Death 20:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

They'll get the ears of the dead donkey, and not Pytalovo

I have removed the above from the article as it is a complete fabrication. Axisglobe.com is NOT a reliable source for information, it was a self-published site first and foremost. Haaretz even regarded it as a CIA-front. None of the authors names are real. There is no phone number nor address for the "AIA" agency. And the domain was hidden behind a privacy wall. Screams self published.

Secondly, the press conference where Pytalovo was mentioned was on 10 May 2005. Thankfully, the Kremlin, has transcripts of all press conferences, and has videos of many of them as well. The transcript of the press conference in question is at http://archive.kremlin.ru/appears/2005/05/10/1823_type63377type63380type82634_88013.shtml. The relevant text from the transcript is:

Что касается других вопросов территориального характера, то такие вопросы есть с Латвией, которая, по сути, поставила вопрос о передаче им Пыталовского района Псковской области, со ссылкой на договор 1920 года. Латвия готова, как они заявили нам, подписать с нами договор о границе, но в текст этого договора о границе хотят включить оговорку и ссылку на договор 20-го года, по которому Пыталовский район относится к территории Латвии. Вы знаете, в результате распада Советского Союза Российская Федерация потеряла десятки тысяч своих исконных территорий. И что, Вы предлагаете сейчас начать все делить сначала? Вернуть нам Крым, часть территории других республик бывшего Советского Союза и так далее? Давайте Клайпеду вернем нам тогда. Давайте сейчас начнем все делить в Европе. Вы этого хотите? Ведь нет, наверное? Мы призываем латышских политиков прекратить заниматься политической демагогией и перейти к конструктивной работе. Россия готова к такой работе.

I have also watched the press conference video at http://media.kremlin.ru/2005_05_10_01.wmv and the transcript is a true transcript of the words that were spoken.

An English translation of the press conference is also provided at http://archive.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2005/05/10/2030_type82914type82915_88025.shtml, and the relevant section states:

Concerning other questions of a territorial nature, we do have issues to settle with Latvia, which is essentially raising the question of us handing over to them the Pytalovsky District in Pskov Oblast, citing the 1920 treaty [Treaty of Riga]. Latvia’s representatives have informed us that they are ready to sign an agreement on the border, but they want the text of the agreement to contain a reservation and reference to the 1920 treaty, which gave the Pytalovsky District to Latvia. You know, the Russian Federation lost tens of thousands of pieces of its historic territory as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union. And are we now to divide everything up again? Should we demand the return of the Crimea and parts of the territory of other former Soviet republics and so on? How about giving back Klaipeda then? Let’s all start dividing Europe again. I doubt that this is what you want. We are calling on Latvia’s politicians to stop their political demagogy and begin constructive work. Russia is ready for such work.

Alternatively, a Google search for the phrase "Уши мертвого осла они получат, а не Абрене!"[2] returns only AxisGlobe. The fact that this was not reported by anyone but this black PR website, and that the Kremlin has provided a complete transcript (and video and audio), indicates this is a hoax, and I have removed it from the article due to that. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 00:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• The "dead donkey ears" story has been widely reported in the news: Izvestia, Kommersant, Forbes, UPI. It has even found its way into published books[3]. Apparently the expression "you'll get dead donkey's ears" is simply a colourful Russian expression for "you will get nothing", so I don't know what the big deal is. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Per http://www.rg.ru/2005/03/24/putin-kp-anons.html, e.g.,

Владислав Воробьев

"Российская газета" - www.rg.ru

24.05.2005, 02:10

В понедельник Президент России Владимир Путин посетил редакцию газеты "Комсомольская правда" и поздравил ее коллектив с 80-летием издания. После этого он ответил на вопросы журналистов, объясняя ключевые элементы своей внешней и внутренней политики. Один из моментов, которые он затронул, это - отношения со странами Балтии. Как заявил глава государства, Кремль не намерен вести переговоры с ними по каким-либо территориальным вопросам, назвав подобные попытки прибалтийских политиков "бреднями": "Не Пыталовский район они получат, а от мертвого осла уши. Нам тоже есть что предъявить в ответ, что посчитать, причем не в режиме конфронтации, а в режиме того, что положить на вторую чашу весов. Я считаю, это можно делать", - сказал президент.

A simple explanation is that Putin's comment has been discretely edited out, but that is pure speculation on my part. This link would suffice for attribution of "donkey ears". Izvestya and other Russian media outlets have articles quoting (in original Russian) as well. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Mystery solved. A simple Google search of "donkey's ears" at the web site of the Russian President:

"осла уши" site:archive.kremlin.ru

returns:

23 май 2005 – От мертвого осла уши им, а не Пыталовский район. А что касается тех, кто хочет с нами сотрудничать, мы будем, конечно, это делать, спокойно, ... (link)

... being a transcript of a meeting with the creative team of the newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda ("Комсомольская правда" in the news report above).

Excerpt in context follows:

Но, повторяю, мне кажется, что это делают люди не в расчете на то, чтобы что-то получить территориальное от России. А в расчете на то, чтобы разжечь и испортить отношения. Мы не должны помогать этим людям решать их задачи. И не будем этого делать. Естественно, никогда не будем вести никаких переговоров на платформе даже обсуждения каких бы то ни было к нам территориальных претензий. Пыталовский район Псковской области? От мертвого осла уши им, а не Пыталовский район. ("...Pytalovo region of the Pskov province? A dead donkey's ears to them, but not the Pytalovo region.")

This doesn't quite match the news story, so we should cite the Presidential archives for the "dead donkey's ears" as the definitive source. (I did verify that if you go to the Presidential web site and enter "осла уши" as a search term, it does return the same Komsomolskaya Pravda meeting as Google.) Putin's statement about loss of territory can also now be appropriately quoted and attributed to the press conference transcript at the Presidential site. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Re-added (reworded)

Thanks for the find. I have re-added information to the article, but have dropped the "donkeys ears" idiom, as it isn't a term for which the meaning is widely known outside of Russia. Also, the article needs updating, as the treaty with Latvia has been signed already (in 2007). --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 20:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Leaving the ears out understates Putin's resolve and the message his, shall we say, earthy metaphor was intended to deliver. Readers may well find the donkey's ears more confusing when they run the cited text through a machine translation whereas here the ears can be quoted and appropriately explained for the uninitiated. No more or less earthy than, say, explaining "bubkes" abbreviated from kozebubkes, originally, "goat droppings." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed an appropriate footnote can be added to the article to explain the meaning of this notable quote. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Forbes article is a most inappropriate link, as it is not on the issue of the dispute of the border treaty between Russia and Latvia, but it is on something totally unrelated. The only link to this article is that it mentions Putin's use of the "donkey ears" idiom. I have no objection to the "donkeys ears" idiom being inserted, so long as there is a reliable source for the explanation of exactly what it means. I believe the book that Tammsalu provided explains this, so it can be put in the footnotes as a simple explanation. We just need to remember that we are on this article discussing territorial changes of the Baltic states, not the donkeys ears idiom. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 22:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As the territorial changes article includes commentary on the changes, idioms do apply. As far as I am aware Forbes is considered a WP:RS. "In Russian, 'donkey ears' are what you get when you get squat. President Vladimir Putin famously illustrated the proper use of the idiom in the course of a 2005 spat with Latvia over border demarcation, undiplomatically quipping, 'They're not going to get the Pytalovsky Region; they'll get the ears of a dead donkey.'" succinctly addresses the meaning of the idiom and ties it to Putin's invocation. The Forbes article does not have to be primarily about donkey ears to be applicable; nor is the donkey ears idiom being used as a pretext to bring ancillary or unrelated content from the Forbes article into the WP article, which would be the only concern here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Article title

The article does not discuss centuries of "evolution", please do not rename articles without appropriate discussion first. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)