Talk:Izborsk

Old talk
Those facts should go into the Treaty of Tartu article, not here. I remember our discution regarding Ivangorod fortress, where you as well insisted that what is in Ivangorod article wouldn't be repeated in Ivangorod fortress. I agreed with that by now; it would be a waste of time and space to write circumstances under which the Treaty of Tartu was signed in every related article (which would also include Pechory, Ivangorod and so on) so much better way is to write everything about the treaty where that information belongs, the Treaty of Tartu article, while links there should be established from related articles. Burann 18:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the article on the treaty lack any data as to the circumstances of the treaty's conclusion. --Ghirla | talk 19:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed that. I would have added the sentence I removed from here to Treaty of Tartu article, but the sentence "Lenin was forced to cede Izborsk to Estonia" is almost meaningless as it would say nothing to someone who does not know the history of the area well, and just raise many questions (Forced by who? How? Why?). Reality is way more complex than that; if you think it is very important it is possible to ask on the notice boards, maybe some people would know enough about the Peace of Tartu to write something more there. However, what will be written should be written in that article and not here, as we are probably not going to write all the same information about Treaty of Tartu in all the articles about towns that were in Estonia in 1920-1945 and are in Russia now which would lead to similar situation as currently happened in the History of Russians in Latvia article, where many details which are not related to Russians of Latvia but only to the History of Latvia in general had been added because of a dispute over a single word (BTW in Ivangorod and Pechory articles links to Treaty of Tartu exist already instead of explaination of the treaty). Burann 19:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)