Talk:Soviet partisans in Estonia

title
I suggest keeping this creation by User:Bloomfield's sock (fake account) User:diwurgen, however, rough editing is needing ;-). The previous title was unacceptable for a number of reasons:
 * 1) it was German Nazis, not fascists they were fighting against. We have Wikipedia, not BSE here, hence no Soviet terminology please
 * 2) the Forest brothers were actually also anti-Nazi (anti-fascist), entitling the article Estonian partisans (anti-fascist) implied the other Estonian partisans i.e. Forest brothers were 'pro-fascist', which is wrong.
 * 3) I suggest either Estonia partisans (pro-Soviet) or Estonian partisans (Soviet partisans) as title, with personal preference for the first version (simpler, and correct: these groups were in effect extremely tiny units of mostly Soviet paratroopers + Estonian communists who had failed to evacuate). -- Miacek (t) 12:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I am a little busy right now, but let's discuss first. Anti-fascist is really applicable as a term, and possibly describes the situation better than pro-Soviet. (I will consider both options before giving my final vote.) I promise to get back to you within three days at most. Let's not move unilaterally until then. Opinions from others should be looked at also. PasswordUsername (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I must agree with Miacek. Term "Fascist" is applied to Italian fascists in scholarly Western sources, not to German Nazi with whom those partisans fought. Please stop moving war.Biophys (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the term "fascist" (lower-case "f" as in this article title) is applied in various ways, broad and narrow - which you could Google. People won't think that the Estonian partisans fought the Italian fascists. Got to run, will get back soon. PasswordUsername (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I consider it rather bad-faithed, that PU reverted my move this morning, without having made a single contribution to that pitiful article. he even failed to comment on talk before doing such a thing, regardless of the fact that I had commented in the edit summary field, when I first moved the page. I still think both Estonian partisans (anti-fascist) and Estonian partisans (anti-Nazi) are unacceptable, both denigrating the other partisan group that was, well, just incomparably more influential than the faction led by N. Karotamm. -- Miacek (t) 13:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Err, I think the point of the Macedonia 2 decision was that controversial move ideas are discussed first to get hold of some sort of consensus. Please let's assume bad faith here last-resort only. (another bit at Miacek talk.) PasswordUsername (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is the case, we must revert this article to its original title (Soviet partisans) and then discuss. I think the arguments by Miacek are very convincing.Biophys (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The original article title was "Estonian partisans (anti-fascist)" - created by the blocked user Diwurgen (not to be confused with Digwuren) days ago. I hope you read that at the top of the page. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Frank, given the trouble this page brought me I actually wish Digwuren or Martintg had shown up and proposed the deletion, a move that would have been wholly legitimate given the state of this article. The same problem we have would have been dealt with in the course of deletion process and much more thoroughly. -- Miacek (t) 21:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think "Soviet partisans in Estonia" would be a better title, as there was nothing Estonian about most of the partisans. DJ Sturm (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, that is a good suggestion. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 05:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Based mostly on Soviet censored sources
Xx236 (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I found a good english language source, and am in the process of cleaning up and expanding the article. --Nug (talk) 11:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit
Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "Rm original research; rearrange; section break". Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)