Talk:Nordic identity in Estonia

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 April 2017. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Estonia Mid‑importance

Nordic identity in Estonia is part of WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.EstoniaWikipedia:WikiProject EstoniaTemplate:WikiProject EstoniaEstonia articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : WikiProject Estonia/Missing articles
Assess : Rate each tagged article by quality and importance to the WikiProject if it has not been done. (See Category:Unassessed Estonia articles)
Infobox : Add infoboxes to articles without it
Maintain : Portal:Estonia
Photo : Upload and/or add a photo to articles without it (See Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Estonia)
Stubs : Add info to stub-articles and check for start-class.

Archives

1

confusing wording[edit]

the wording of "however, gaining official membership of the Nordic region alongside with neighboring Finland was interrupted by the occupation of the Soviet Union after World War II" is confusing, as Estonia was originally occupied by the Soviet Union in 1940, meaning for part of world war 2 Estonia was occupied by the Soviet Union, although it was also occupied by Nazi Germany. There may also be a grammatical error in "the occupation of the Soviet Union" rather than "occupation by the Soviet Union". Any Input is helpful — Preceding unsigned comment added by DirkJandeGeer (talk • contribs) 10:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wording: "Occupation"[edit]

A small caveat, but one which I agree would require consensus nonetheless. "Estonia has been interested in joining the Nordic region again since 1991, when it regained its independence from the Soviet Union's occupation." I believe the word "occupation" should to be dropped and simply leave it as "independence from the Soviet Union", as it implies a state of military control over a territory rather than the civil administration (undemocratic or not) in place before 1991. Is this phrasing preferable, or should it be left as is? KOSƧIO (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the discussion. See for example Occupation of the Baltic states, I know it is just another Wikipedia article, but I think it explains the situation well. It's also good to keep consistency across articles, and I personally don't really get your fixation on "military". A country may be occupied through more means than just military, and the country was actually invaded, and then illegally incorporated into the Soviet Union. Why should we whitewash that? TylerBurden (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that during the 1944–1991 Soviet occupation of Estonia, the Soviet armed forces had effectively control over the entire country, the miltary bases covered over 20% territory, which (as well as most of the sea) was strictly off limits to the public. The hundred thousand plus Soviet military personnel (and their family members) lived under completely military, not even limited civilian, administration. Estonia was as occupied as it gets. I agree with TylerBurden, we should not whitewash that.3 Löwi (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is right now a user that is desperately trying to erase the word "occupation" from the expression in introduction summary. We need to remind that this period is officially is considered as illegal occupation in those countries as well as most of the international community. The topic is debatable but this obsession to remove this word from the text seems very strange and probably says something about this user own political views.5W (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]