Talk:Treaty of Tartu (Estonia–Russia)

Estonian Red Rifles

206.186.8.130, are you kidding? Do you really consider 1) one page article in unknown and offline book or magazine from 1987 (Маамяги В. А. В огне борьбы : (красные эст. стрелки), В. А. Маамяги. – М. : Мысль, 1987. –237 с.), 2) high-school presentation made by schoolboy [1] and 3) unreferenced article on the webpage of paintball competition (!) [2] as reliable sources by WP:RS? Anyway, even if there were couple of men who were called (or calling himself) "Estonian Red Rifles", what makes the fact of their repatriation so important, that it should be mentioned here? Sorry, but I had to revert your changes, using that kind of sources makes this article look really ridiculous. Ptrt (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Schoolboy report looks pretty good to me, as this is Estonia, where Secret Police watches forum hosted by a dissident group and harrasses said group about postings on this public forum. Russophone High School is closely watched institution in this kind of envronment, so yes, I'd say it is pretty reliable source. Printed evidence is admissible, so your rejection of 1987 book is based solely on your biases (as if this part isn't obvious). And if you not happy with paintball page (although Russian fans of role games are normally pretty paranoid about historical details of events they are reconstructing), you must like Great Soviet Encyclopaedia more. 206.186.8.130 (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please.. you edited here before, so I'm sure you know what WP:RS states - "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". So, no school presentations, no paintball competition websites, no un-verifiable printed sourced (your reference doesn't even have authors full name and publisher)! Great Soviet Encyclopedia.. well, that MAY be acceptable, but I see only "Estonian Rifle Division" mentioned there, nothing else, nothing about that nickname and, most importantly, nothing about their repatriation to Estonia after Tartu Peace Treaty. And you missed one question - what's so special about them, so they have to be mentioned here? Ptrt (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Your lack of command of Russian language is understandable, but it does not give you right to bash sources you are unable to read. Author's name is Маамяги, and book (most likely memoirs) had been published by Мысль publisher (big Moscow publisher specializing in literarute dealing with humanity, history, philosophy etc.). 206.186.8.130 (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Russian is not my first language, but I do understand it enough to realize you found this reference with web search and now try to present it as credible source, supporting your point. I did some searching myself and found a bit more information about this book and it's author (at least you could try to write people's names correctly), now could you please do YOUR homework and read this book. And then think again about WP:RS. Sheesh....
And you still haven't answered to question about notability of their repatriation. Perhaps it's because there was no such thing? Ptrt (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm completely missing the whole point of this "Estonian Red Rifles". There were not that many of these guys anyway. The few Estonian communists, they remained in Russia after the Tartu treaty and were killed by Stalin's regime later on. So if anybody would bother to explain, what' up with this? Thanks!--Termer (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

First international treaty

The treaty was also of utmost importance to Soviet Russia being its first international treaty.

But what about the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk? Fransvannes (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The idea of this, whoever put it in there utmost importance - first international treaty, is clearly coming out of the international isolation that Soviet Russia had fallen during Russian Civil War and Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War and therefore in context the treaty was the first one that brought Russia out of this international isolation. the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was a treaty that took Russia out of World War I and you could say that caused the international isolation in the first place. So in case you feel so, the fact about first international treaty and its utmost importance should be put into context and clarified what is it exactly about. Or else, since it doesn't have a clear intext citation included, the phrase could be simply removed. --Termer (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

In any case, the Treaty of Tartu was not the first international treaty of Soviet Russia, so I'll remove that part. Fransvannes (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Russian-Estonian?

Why is this page named Treaty of Tartu (RUSSIAN-ESTONIAN), aren't the countries usually in alphabetical order in these situations? Same goes with Treaty of Tartu (Russian-Finnish). H2ppyme (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I think there is not Poska on the top picture. Are they Joffe and Gukovsky? --Numbriga kärumees (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Russia vs RSFSR

On 14 June 1941 Soviets deported 10 thousand people from Estonia. Indeed, it was a crime against the people of Estonia. However, I have to remind my estonian friends, that it was Estonian government which first legitimised the Bolshevik government and recognised the bunch of thugs as Russia's legitimate authority by signing the Tartu Peace Treaty with them in 1920.

Question: how can a total destruction of a country, looting, raping and murdering of its population can be legitimised? It can be, if the country in question is Russia. Some estonian 'patriots' claim that, in 1920, it was not Estonia the bolsheviks were after, but Russia and that, therefore, profiting from loot, rape and murder was not only legitimate, but just.

Question: how can a total destruction of a country, looting, raping and murdering of its population can be criminalised? It can be, if the country is Estonia. Then, in 1939, these "legitimate representatives of the Russian people", whom they, by then, were trying to annihilate for almost 20 years, started to loot, kill and rape in Estonia, they, these very same 'representatives', have suddenly lost their legitimacy. Estonia's accession to the USSR was 'illegal', it was 'a crime', even 'a genocide'.

It was Lenin, Trozki and Joffe who recognised Estonia's independence. It was Stalin, Molotov and Kaganivich who took it back in 1939. Keep Russia and Russian people away from it, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avhahn (talk • contribs) 09:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Your contention is WP:OR, the treaty is clearly between Russia and Estonia as the treaty text indicates[3]. In any case Russia had declared itself to be the legal successor to the RSFSR in 1991, so the distinction between Russia vs RSFSR is moot. --Nug (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Estonia signed the Treaty not with Russia, but with the Socialist and Federative Republic of the Russian Soviets, as as the treaty text indicates [4]. RSFSR was never a legal successor of the Russian Empire and, therefore, could not 'give independence' to Estonia, but only 'recognise' it, again [5]. Russia, as in Russian Empire has never acceded to or recognised the succession of Estlandia form the Russian Empire and, therefore, can not be indicated as a party to the Tartu Treaty between the Socialist and Federative Republic of the Russian Soviets and the self-proclaimed, unrecognised "State of Estonia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avhahn (talk • contribs) 12:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Splitting on what is basically semantics ... you'll need a RS, anyway.50.111.50.20 (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)