Talk:Russians in the Baltic states

More issues with edits by 3 Löwi

What is the reason for this revert? Also, your (Lowi's) statement that it is a partial revert is untrue. Moonshiner 20:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I still do not see any explanation by 3 Löwi. If I do not hear any valid reasons for the revert by the end of Monday, I'll restore my changes to the article. Moonshiner 04:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As you could see from his user contributions, that revert was his last edit so he didn't log in since then most likely (it seems he edits relatively rarely); as it might be so that this page is not on his watchlist, it might be good to contact him on his talk page instead, then he would see immidietly after logging in the next time. Burann 09:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with some of the changes proposed by Moonshiner (e.g., "citation needed" placeholders are rather OK), while with some others I do not. For example, i) The term "Baltic Russians" really dates back to the end, not the beginning of WW2. ii) Introducing a new construct "Russian Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians" (to denote "Baltic Russians" living in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) is bound to be confusing to many. iii) Deleting the whole paragraph in the beginning which explains why "Baltic Russians" as such can be found only in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, but not in other former (Finland, Poland) or current (Kaliningrad) parts of Russia located by the Baltic Sea, again, risks leaving it unclear for many readers how such a pseudo-ethnic quasi-subgroup of Russians has come to be defined the way it is. Cheers, --3 Löwi 16:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, as I suspected, most of your issues are with the language barrier. Regarding the origins of the term "Baltic Russians," unless it was coined by some person at a specific date, in which case you can say it was coined by that someone at that date, you really cannot say that at May 9, 1945 it came into popular usage (which applies to phrases coined as well since the process of introducing new phrases into popular usage generally takes a long time). With regards to "Russian Latvians," in English it is customary when pointing out citizens of a particular country of a particular ethnicity to put the ethnicity before the country (ex: African Americans, French Canadians, etc.). As far as the introductory paragraph, after stating that "Baltic Russians are ethnic Russians who live in the Baltic States: Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania," there is as much need to point out that the article does not refer to Russians in other countries with Baltic coasts as there is need to point out that it does not refer to Russians in Africa. If you want to clarify further, you are certainly welcome to in the main body of the article (maybe a separate section about incorrect usage of the term "Baltic Russians"), but the introductory paragraph should be concise. Moonshiner 00:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not good at English either, but I would just like to note that far from all Russians of Latvia and Estonia has citizenship of Latvia and Estonia, while in Estonia many local Russians has the citizenship of the Russian Federation, which they had opted to receive after they understood that getting Estonian citizenship is hard. As you say "Russian Latvians" for example would be Russians who are citizens of Latvia, so this term does not includes people who lives there permanently but aren't citizens? In that case perhaps it would be better to use "Russians of Estonia" and such to denote whole communities. Burann 07:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Earlier discussion cross-posted from talk:Russians page

Russians who migrated to the Baltics were not "ideologically motivated" or anymore loyal to the Soviet Union than Latvians were. Most were simple people who migrated to the region because of economic benefits, for example they were given jobs and/or housing there. In many cases Russians filled the jobs (factory workers etc.) which the locals were less willing to do. ...[snip] it was the Soviet KGB (with both ethnic Latvians and ethnic Russian members) who were killing/deporting ethnic Latvians (as well as ethnic Russians) in the Baltics, not Russian immigrants who settled there. Fisenko 20:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It's an interesting issue and merits deeper discussion.

The Russians who migrated to the Baltics in Soviet times were mainly driven by three forces:

• Stalinist colonial policies.
• Wish to aid in reconstruction.
• Higher living standards.

The second of these considerations may or may not be ideological. For example, somebody who would move into Latvia in hope of "building a better communist system" there would certainly be motivated by ideology. OTOH, somebody who would move into Latvia in hope of "getting the bombed cities back up" would probably be motivated by idealism, but not any recognisable ideology.

The third of these is not generally considered ideological.

The first of these is more complicated. Specifically, it shows how an ideological motivation of the Party leadership caused people not directly participating in this ideology to move around. If somebody moves because of an ideological motivation by somebody else, does this count as 'ideologically motivated move'? I think it does, but I admit that the conclusion is not immediate. Digwuren 11:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Locals were less willing to do", however, is a myth. Mostly, locals didn't do these jobs for two simple reasons:

• There weren't enough locals capable of work. Large numbers of people were killed and deported by Soviet Union during and after the war, and of the remaining -- well, who was capable of work was usually also capable of warfare, and thus got drafted by either Red Army or Waffen-SS, or capable of fleeing the warzone, and ended up a refugee.
• The locals that were there often failed the ideological checks of the Stalin regime. Many, many jobs -- especially the non-physical ones, professionals of whose were less affected with the drafts -- were barred for many people for reasons that might seem insignificant nowadays, such as having published political articles in school newspapers. Digwuren 11:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The original text made a declarative statement along the lines that "ethnic Russians were singled out," which (whether you believe it to be true or not) is not NPOV. You have to qualify a statement like that, and if there is a controversy, you have to provide both sides, which I hoped to do by adding some historical and present-day context, the position held by some of the governments, the concerns expressed by the CE/EU, and the opposing view. If you think some of this was mis-stated or lacked substance, or missed something out, fine, edit it, and add detail to it. But the point of Wikipedia is to provide balanced coverage of issues, not to advance one viewpoint and delete anything that disagrees with it. --ProhibitOnions 00:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above user. I am on the record of opposing russophobia many times in Wikipedia but for the sake of neutrality and encyclopedicity the position of Baltic governments on how they respond to the discrimination charges should be given. Also, a word or two should be said about the merit of their arguments but not from the POV of WP editors, but from POV of serious publications, European Council and Strasbourg court decisions (there were a couple) and publications in reputable papers...[snip] Irpen 16:32, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Soviet vs Stalinist policies, party functionaries, and more on perceived discrimination

I would like to explain some of my edits and would ask to respond here before reverting them:

• The phrase: "...killed, forced to flee, or exiled to Siberia, both because of the war and due to deliberate Soviet policies that continued, to varying degrees, throughout the Soviet era" seems much more questionable than "...due to deliberate Stalinist policies" simply for factual reasons. There were no killings and mass deportations in post-Stalin time. If I am wrong, please cite the sources.
• "Party functionaries" stuff the way it stood there looks like propaganda (I am sorry if this offends whoever first introduced it). The emphasis on "the military retirees" is factually correct. The functionaries were a very small fraction of Ethnic Russians. Let's just get real here.
• Estonian border service's claim about many Russians crossing illegally into Estonia has no connection to an issue of discrimination (whether perceived or true) brought by ethnic Russians because those are in the country legally.

Please no flames. Let's just stick to the facts. I agree with hidden comments by ProhibitOnions and there is much more to add. Irpen 15:55, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Sowing terror among non-content people or people perceived as potentially rebellous was an important part of *Soviet* policies. Stalin was just extremely effective at fulfilling this policy. Importantly, the policy didn't disappear after de-Stalinization; instead, mass terror was just replaced by individual oppression. Digwuren 11:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments about "illegal Russian immigrants" crossing into Estonia and no Russians leaving are simply inaccurate. First, there was a significant number of ethnic Russians who left Estonia and immigrated to either Russian Fed. or Western Europe/North America in the 1990s. Second, virtually all Russians who cross Estonian border illegally are only using it as a temporary transit point on their way to Western Europe. In regards to “party functionaries”: the largest influx of Communist officials in Soviet history was not from Russia to the Baltics, but from Latvia to Russia after the Bolshevik regime there collapsed in 1918. See Jukums Vacietis, Yakov Peters, Latvian riflemen, Boris Karlovich Pugo etc.

Finally, what relevance does Baltic tribe of Old Prussians has to the discussed history of ethnic Russians/Slavs ? (Fisenko 17:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC))

More information is good. Nobody "willed" or "not willed" to jobs (it was planned economy), there were qualifications or were weren't; many of worker Russians supposedly had qualifications which locals lacked so it was easier to send them instead of training locals (e.g. to work in certain specific factories or in power plants). While at the start of occupation in all Baltic States and even later in Latva and Estonia all "leading" jobs ha dto be taken by Russians. There ws indeed a settling of Russians in major cities; only reasons for that are disputable. Although there might have been planned rusification in some regions too such as Ida Viruma of Estonia. DeirYassin 17:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Most Russians in the Baltic were low to medium income factory workers, as well as sailors, soldiers etc. These are hardly "leading" jobs. (Fisenko 18:09, 24 May 2005 (UTC))

The issue is not who they were, but how they influence. While it is true that the number of buraucrats was small percentage, it is also true that a single bureaucrat can ruin lives of thousands of people. Therefore the fact that Russians occupied disproportionally many managerial positions (not necessarily in government) is a fact of note, as well as their arrogance and disregard towards the language and culture of the country they lived in. mikka (t) 18:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree here Mikkalai DeirYassin 18:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I really have to point out : leading roles in Soviet national republics were for locals only. No exeptions. For example there has been no non-Estonian president/first secretaries in Estonia. The same goes for other republics. As a whole, Soviet Union was determined not to antagonize annexed republics in any way. Most if not all systematic decisions with "disregard towards language and culture" were made by local leaders and local bureaucrats. Non-local immigration mostly was either army, scientists/teachers or industrial workers.

Also, scary stories about occupation are made to differentiate current leaders and situation from Soviet time. As situation in country worsens the stories about past become scarier. For any country. Wether there was any occupation or not. Propaganda has to be taken with a grain of salt. Keep that in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.109.54.96 (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Disrespect to local culture and language

And by the way, many ordinary Russians were not much better. Can you imagine: their offensive term for Lithuanians was "Labas"! (For those who don't speak Lithuanian: it was based on Lit. greetings: Labas rytas, Labas vakaras, laba diena ("good morning/evening/day"), colloquially shortened to "labas"). Friendship and fraternity of Soviet peoples in action. If someone didn't see the idiotism here yet, imagine Frenchmen cursing Englishmen with the word "good". mikka (t) 18:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

This directly above seems more like an unnecessary generalization and stereotyping and I don't think it should go into the article. The point about disproportionate percentage in management and bureaucracy certainly should be reflected, I agree. As for the arrogance and disregard to local culture, this is true to an extent but it is too easy to go over the line writing about this. So, if anyone wants to write on this in the article, it should be done with restraint. I trust that if Mikkalai chooses to write this himself, it would be balanced. I am just asking all interested parties not to loose balance, so that the article won't repeat the history of the Evacuation of East Prussia edit wars. Irpen 19:31, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

The disrespect for locals by these Baltic Russians was and is true however. I know enough of them myself to know it, and from Soviet times I know situations like where Russians would beat locals just because their nationality is not Russian. Now, those were simple workers I guess because I doubt Soviet functioneers would do things like that. Even now for example Poles (great number of them at least) tends to respect local culture and such, while the disrespect forom Russians is astonishing. Anyways, what I said here is POV of course, and shouldn't be directly included in article, but Mikkalai probably will do it well. DeirYassin 19:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC) +

I am afraid you overestimate my abilities. I am a small operator. I can handle only facts. I can summarize them, but cannot write nice general texts. For this reason I never work systematically. My modus operandi is as follows: if while reading something I stumble upon a fact I know is missing in wikipedia, I add it. Sometimes I take a red link or a poor stub in areas I am familiar with and google around to create a decent stub. But nothing more. mikka (t) 20:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC) +

The above comments are nothing but biased generalization and stereotyping. Even if some Russians do demonstrate "disrespect" to the local cultures this is usually provoked by some locals who are trying to scapegoat completely innocent people for alleged historical injustices done to them by Stalin 50 years ago. You reap what you sow, you can't have an official policy of citizenship and language restriction and expect the people you target to love you in return. Baltic situation is not unique. Historically Swedes, for example, played the same role in Finland as Russians did in Estonia and Latvia; today Swedish is a second official language in the Finnish provinces with large Swedish presence. There are numerous other examples throughout Europe of the former "Imperial oppressors" co-existing with the majority population. Usually governments are doing everything they can to reconcile former historical adversaries living within their territory, rather than trying to score some political points by targeting minorities.(Fisenko 08:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC))

Well, I live in Lithuania, we don't have any language policy or such here, we ave citizenship to everybody who wanted, in Russan-dominated cities such as Visaginas Russian language can be used for documents and such (see http://www.apenrade.dk/m99_russiansinbaltics.html for article about comparement of situation of Russians in Baltic States). But still, the disrespect by Russians as I mentioned is here, and it was maybe even more during Soviet times, when locals couldn't have done anything against these Russians. So I'd say this is vice versa, Russians started it, while now in Latvia and Estonia, once these countries got independent, these laws were issued. There is a major disrespect for local culture and such, they don't even try to understand it. There is no similar disrespect of Russians or Russian culture; people listens to Russian music, Russian films are popular and such. However for certain Russians listening to Lithuanian music or watching Lithuanian films might be seen almost as giving in to the "inferior" culture. And yes, my comments are biased, this is my opinion and I don't ask this to be included in article; if anyone will be able to find more documental info or such then that info will be included. And, by the way, as for comparement with Finland; in Finland there are way less Swedes than there were Russians in Latvia and Estonia at the time of independence; in Latvia they made majority in all cities, and recognising Russian as official language would have made cities completely Russianised, as Russians wouldn't learn Latvian and Latvians would have to learn Russian to talk to most of people; it would be more economic then to e.g. air programs of TV and write newspapers solely in Russian, because Russian could be understood by everybody while Latvian only by some. Latvians wante dto preserve their culture and language. DeirYassin 08:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I have met Russians who respect Lithuanian culture and Lithuanians who disrespect Russian culture. This kind of accusations are nothing more than biased generalizations, there is no place for it in an academic discussion and no need to provide "proof" or "documentation" to justify your prejudices. Aside from Finland there are many other examples of bilingual and multilingual states (Canada, Belgium, South Africa, Switzeland etc.) where various ethnic groups are able to preserve their national identities. (Fisenko 08:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC))

I only explained previous sayings about Russian disrespect for local culture as an insider. By proof or documentation, I meant various information about e.g. desecrations of Lithuanian patriotic monuments by Russians or . And don't compare Baltic States to countries you mentioned: in Switzerland, Belgium, etc. few or many nationalities historically lives together, each of them lives in their own regions, nothing related to settling or such there. Same for Canada: but in Canada both languages are those of colonisators, because colonisers fully took power there and dispersed local Indians; however it is also by traditional regions, French in former French colonies and English in former English colonies. While in Russia, where there are also similar traditional regions and many nations, only Russian language is official at state level, unlike South Africa which you've mentioned yourself for example where really many languages are official; in Russia also people of other nations has to learn Russian, while Russians living in territories of those nations does not have to learn local languages, etc. DeirYassin 08:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I live in Latvia, I am latvian and I don`t speak in russian so maybe I am not fully informated of oppinions of russian part of society, still I think that your oppinions are stereotipical and you tend to view nations as one, not as consisting of many peoples. I was slithly interested about whole affair so I tried to get other people oppinions in internet (few forums), what I learned was that if latvian nationalists apears whole comunity will argue with them and that russians are bored of talking about it over and over again, well that was few years ago when I got those russian oppinions maybe they think diferrent now. What I learned from recent events was that some russians think that they know latvian language better then latvians and that they have brought culture to latvians and I think that is disrespect, I also think that it is disrespect and provoking to plan ilegal protests on national holydays, if there is posibility make legal protests in other days. I couldn`t find any poll nor about latvian, nor about non-latvian thoughts about each other, so I can only tell the diferrence by results of last elections where no latvian nationalists were elected, while russian nationalists was, but many latvians also could have voted for them, so that is bad measure for teling how many nationalists there are from each part of society. What I`m trying to say is that there aren`t many latvian nationalists and it does not seem that there are many russians since their protests are outnumbered and it looks like that those people making those protests just try to make latvians and russians hate each other

P.S. Sorry for my english - my dictionary hanged up so I can`t check for synonims and spelling Xil 15:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Aleksandrs Starkovs vs Alexander Starkov

In case of a national name, in English WP an English variant of the name should be used if there is one, that is if there is a variant established by, say, English language media. This coach's name, due to the relative obscurity of the topic of Latvian Soccer in the world news, has not established in English media. So, the variant which should be used in WP should depend on the context of the usage. In the article about Latvian soccer it should be Aleksandrs Starkovs. In the article about Baltic Russians, the original Aleksandr Starkov should be used. Irpen 20:18, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

As for Starkovs btw - Aleksandrs Starkovs is his real name, not Alexander Starkov. If he has hs real name Latvianised it does not means we should Russianised just because article deals with Russians. In the same way e.g. Viktor Uspaskich has his Russian name unchanged, and I won't change it into "Viktoras Uspaskichas" because Viktor Uspaskich is his real name. Some Russians has their name localised however, in Lithuania too, and if their name is localised, we should use the real version. DeirYassin

I stand corrected. I will revert my change back to Aleksandrs Starkovs. -Irpen 21:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

This argument can only convinced someone unfamiliar with the Russian names and Russians in Latvia. Nowhere else in the world are Russian names are "localized" in this fashion and this is obviously not how the name is properly pronounced. The only reason why his name is "localized" is official nationalist policy of the Latvian state and the real transliteration of the name Александр Старков is Alexander Starkov not Alexanders Starkovs. (Fisenko 23:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC))

Well, sometimes Russians do localize their names in other counntries, if they choose to. In US that would be names like Smirnoff, Chertoff, Alexandrov (also note "X" for "KS"), etc. Some Russians choose not to localize their names and some do. If indeed Starkov wished to change his name to Starkovs that's how we should call him. Except, of course, in Russian WP he sould probably still be Старков. Irpen 23:15, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

It's an issue of transliteration. Russian names are originally written in Cyrillic, a script little used elsewhere in the world. Hence, for almost any other language, it's necessary to rewrite the name, and this is often done by pronounciation rules (but not always, see Mikhail Gorbachev). For example, the Japanese write Gorbachev's name "ミハイル ゴルバチョフ". It's not even an exact pronounciation; it reads roughly "Mihairu Gorubatchofu"; of course, a knowledgeable Japanese reader would count the 'u's silent in approximation of the Russian pronounciation.

Latvians do the same thing, except that somewhat unusually, they go by language and not script boundaries, and thus tend to transliterate *every* other language's names and words. Estonians have a number of jokes about this custom, but they do not really belong here. Дигвурен 11:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Smirnoff is not a localized Russian name. It is just an old way to transliterate Russian names into English, pronunciation is still the same. Obviously Alexander Starkov did not change his name, just like the rest of his soccer team players those names were changed into Aleksandrs Kolinko, Igors Stepanovs, Vitalijs Astafjevs, Maris Verpakovskis , Andrejs Rubins, Andrejs Prohorenkovs, Jurijs Andrejevs etc. See Latvia national football team. None of these names are ethnic Latvian, they are Ukrainian, Russian and Polish. They were only "localized" for Western media after the team started to make international headlines. (Fisenko 23:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC))

Actually, I am pretty sure for example Maris Verpakovskis real name is like that, because "Maris" is even Latvian name. At least here in Lithuanian there are both Russians who uses their names as they'd use in Russia and who uses lituanised versions (with endings "as" or "is"). Out of Russians who uses lituanised names, many are second or third generation; sometimes parents decides to give children lituanised version of name and surname in those cases, it happens especially in mixed families. E.g. one of Lithuanian football team players is Igoris Morinas; it would be wrong to change it to Igor Morin because Igoris Morinas is his real name. While, for example, real name of the mentioned poolitician is Viktor Uspaskich, not Viktoras Uspaskichas, therefore Viktor Uspaskich is and should be used (and is used that way in Lithuanian wikipedia too). As for Latvian football team, I am not really sure though, but I am sure that for example Verpakovskis is not Mariy Verpakovskiy or something, and I just wanted to tell here that if Russian's name is localized in Baltic countries it does not means that the name should be Russianised. Maybe someone could shed more light on Latvian policy on names, maybe in Latvia it is different than here in Lithuania, or maybe Latvianisation of name is for example required to get citizenship? (in that case still real name should be used though) I don't know here. But yes, I think current way of writting is acceptable. DeirYassin 08:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

re comment above (in that case still real name should be used though), I think if the change of name was forced, the changed name is still a legal name, you are right. However, in this case the usage of the name in WP does become context dependent as I said earlier (See Gdansk/Danzig kilobytes of talk pages). In articles devoted to Latvia we should give a Latvian name, in articles devoted to Baltic Russians the name should be original rather than forced upon. Isn't it obvious that freely chosen and forced upon names should have different degrees of acceptance? In Ukraine names were Ukrainized by passport authorities and people were not allowed to choose. If in Lithuania they were given a choice, I am glad to hear that. If there is anyone who can tell how it was in Latvia, please let us know. In any case, we can keep both names in the article for Starkov(s) and when the list will get too large, we can move it to a separate Famous Baltic Russians article, and relieve the main article from this dispute. Irpen 05:01, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Re localizing names abroad, certainly many Russians do that and many don't. People change Mikhail to Michael, Yelena to Helen and so on without being coerced. Same story for last names. I don't know whether the soccer players were forced to change the names. And even if they were, we don't have to find the general solution for this issue here for now. The last edit which gives both names next to each other should solve this particular issue and lets not argue which name of the two to put first :). We have much more contentious material in the article to work at. Irpen 23:54, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

This issue is harder than it seems though; even if, for example, e.g. everybody when gets Latvian citizenship would automatically get Latvianised names in passport, it would be very hard to say who of them wants this and who of them wouldn't. E.g. in Lithuania there is free choice, and quite many has Lituanized names or even Lithuanian given name and Lituanised Russian surname (those are usually from mixed families, or from families where e.g. just one grandfather was Russian). This is case with Maris Verpakovskis too; and if we would apply Russianising of names everywhere where the info is related to Russians, it would be wrong for these people who are from mixed families or who decided to localize their names. Also, similar situation exists for example in Central Asia and Caucassus where people's names were ussianised by adding "ov" or "ev" to endings of surnames once; some also might say that it is involuntary, etc. and promote usage of for example Islam Karim instead of Islam Karimov, Nursultan Nazarbay instead of Nursultan Nazarbayev, Aslan Maskhad instead of Aslan Maskhadov, etc. but the nagain, many people feels ok with these surnames actually and maybe wouldn't like themselves to see them changed. So it is quite a hard issue, therefore I think oddicial name should be used. As for localization like Yelena - Helen and localisation in Baltic States, there is difference: in Baltics usually just ending is added "as"/"is" in Lithuanian, "s" in Latvian, while name is left unchanged (e.g. Ivan (John) is Jonas in Lithuanian, but Ivans with localized names are known as "Ivanas"). DeirYassin 09:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

An example of both Soviet era's forced name Russification and free world's free name policy is the late Dajan Ahmetov (of Tatar heritage and well known in Estonia for, among other things, promoting understanding of Islam), who restored his name in 1999 and from then onwards was known as Dajan Ahmet. Digwuren 11:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

During the WW2

Explaining my reverts here: this is article about Baltic Russians, not Russians in general; in Baltic States way less Russians were killed than Jews; also many Baltic Russians ran away to Russia before German invasion. Also, there were not many Russians (I mean, not as mucha s there are now of course) in Baltic States in general at that time, except for some eastern regions of Latvia and Estonia; cities were predominantly local and Jewish - there were way less Russians than Jews in general too. And nazis killed and forced to concentration camps many locals and people of other nationalities too. I guess it should be noted in article about Russians during WW2, but in a more neutral way DeirYassin 09:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

>>>>There were way less Russians than Jews in general too.<<<<

There was almost as many ethnic Russians living in Estonia and Latvia prior to 1939/41 as Jews, only in Lithuania Jews were clearly more numerous. Slavs in general were treated much more brutally than Balts (esp. Latvians and Estonians classified by Nazis as more "Aryan" than Lithuanians) during the occupation. Nazis closed down and robbed a number of Russian Orthodox churches and monasteries in the Baltic not only "treated harshly" Communist activists... Fisenko 18:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I just deleted some stuff from this talk page along the lines:. "Many Russians are bad" and "Many Balts are bad". These discussions won't help us improve the article. The point about the disrespect to local culture during colonization is made at this page and the only question is how to better express it in the article.

On another point. Stalinist policies of post-war mass repressions on balts were in line with similar policies of Stalin to other nations accused in collaboration with Nazis. Of course almost all of the millions of people who suffered had nothing to do with any crimes of Nazis against Slavs or Jews. However, it is true that many people in the territories recently occupied by SU understandably viewed the Nazi Germany as a liberator (not for long though). It was also true that crimes against civilians (not just Jews but especially Jews) were conducted with eager assistance of local collaborators, not only in Baltic territories but also in Ukraine (see, for instance, the highly POV article "the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia which still has some truth in it). The collaboration in the Holocaust was finally acknowledged publicly even by the today's Latvian leadership. The point I am trying to make is that the article should go into some detail on these issues, not just say that Balts were collectively punished by Stalinism for nothing. The truth was that millions where collectively punished for the crimes of the hundreds. The reader would know what Collective punishment is and will be able to judge that what was done to Balts was inhuman and unjust. This article subject is of course the Baltic Russians not the crimes of Nazi collaborators, but if the article called Baltic Russians needs to mention the Soviet repressions of Balts at all, it should give a complete picture. Irpen 19:39, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

It is not only collective punishment, but politics too, many if not most of exiled people were either well educated or rich, or both. The later were seen as opressors (and teated that way elsewhere in USSR too) while the educated were seen as a potential threat to regime (because they werent educated under Soviet standarts). And there were collaborators in every country and it wasn't mass collaboration in Baltics, e.g. Lithuanians successfully resisted formation of local SS unit. Many people in Baltic states also helped Jews to hide and such. There were bad and good people, same as everywhere. Same for Russians probably, and therefore article never states nor should state that all Russians are bad, it speaks just about actions of government. And I think it is relevant because what happened during Soviet occupation influences relations between local Baltic nation's population and Baltic Russians even today I think. And I agree with you Irpen that probably we should keep this discution more about article, will try to do so now. Also I suggest that we wouldn't make changes to article before talking about them here, because this only leads to reverts and disagreements, and in the end these changes are talked about here anyways. Let's reach compromise before changing actual article.DeirYassin 20:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with DeirYassin's suggestion. Unless the edits seem to be completely non-controversial, let's discuss them here first. This is also in line with the rule Be_bold#...but_don't_be_reckless!. -Irpen 21:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Irpen's deletion of talk

Irpen, please restore what you have deleted. Such actions are inadmissible at talk pages. mikka (t) 20:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I just deleted what seemed irrelevant for the article as I explained. I understand the purpose of the talk page is to be an article discussion board. I only wanted the talk page to be easier to follow because it seems to be that acceptable solutions are easier to find in well structured discussions that don't stray off topic. Bad Russians and Bad Balts arguments seemed to me irrelevant, there are google news-groups and other forums for such discussions, but since you insist, I restored them. -Irpen 20:53, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how really existed tensions can be irrelevant here.

Also, you removed it before some of us (e.g., me) could see the responses to some questions. I don't sit by the monitor 24/7. mikka (t) 00:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I simply did not think about the possibility of someone missing some responses. That was my fault. As for the relevance or irrelevance of what I deleted, I saw nothing there related to the discussion of the article. "Those Russians were arrogant" and "Some Balts were also arrogant" dispute was the only thing I deleted. The deletion can be viewed here to judge but probably it's not worth to spend more time on this. I am sorry I inconvenienced others. Since I did it unwillingly, transparently (openly said about deletion and fully restored it upon request), I hope there are no suspicions it was done to make some POV stronger than another. A request to everyone, also as said earler by DeirYassin, let's not have this discussion stray off topic and let's take an effort to have it easier to follow (structured). Regards, -Irpen 01:16, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Once again, is it a tumor in my brain or what? I fail to understand how come Russian disrespect to the national language of the state they live in is off-topic? Or non-existent? Just search google "Русские в прибалтике" (>3,000 hits I suspect you know Russian) and read a bit. mikka (t)

I didn't say that disrespect is irrelevant. Neither that it is non-existent. I said the talk went too far into generalizing and stereotyping both Balts and Russians. Far enough to make this irrelevant for the purpose of the talk page, which is the discussion that may be useful for an article. All points were preserved. As I said, I only deleted the argumentation like "these arrogant Russians" vs "Some Balts also arrogant". Irpen

It is OK to make the discussion structured, e.g., like you did recently, by adding new sections, but deletion for whatever reason may be easily interpreted by the desire to sweep the issue under the rug. mikka (t) 02:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Mikkalai, you are right. Certainly deletion generally may be interpreted as a foul play. I still wonder how could this particular deletion be interpreted as such. It was not made subtly. I clearly said what edit in history deletes stuff, so it could be easily restored (which I did). And, finally, once you objected, I restored everything immediately. I did disregard the fact, that some of the responses may get deleted before they are read and I admitted my mistake. Again, I am sorry. Best regards, Irpen 04:32, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits by 3 Löwi

I reverted some of 3 Löwi unexplained deletions of info about medieval history of Russians in the Baltics. I have also returned Pyotr Wrangel to the list of Baltic Russians, even though he was of Baltic German origin he identified himself primarily as a Russian. I will look into the origin of Dovlatov, but as far as I know his family lived in pre-WW II Estonia and he was fluent in Estonian. Fisenko 02:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Medieval history is fine and dandy, the problem is that in the medieval period there was no such coherent region called "medieval Baltics", nor were there any "medieval Baltic Russians". The usage of such terms makes as little sense as someone writing an article about "Benelux Spaniards", and beginning it with a long and detailed section about the medieval history of Spaniards in the Benelux region. Of course, there were Russians and early East Slavs living in what is now Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, but the history and circumstances were rather different in the three countries and, in any case, they had little to do with most of today's "Baltic Russians". Therefore I set up three different articles under the titles "History of Russians in Estonia /Latvia/ Lithuania" and moved parts of the text from the previous version of this article there, where it is far more relevant. Cheers, --3 Löwi 13:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

While different articles are OK, the title of the current article is "Baltic Russians", period. There is no such nationality, and this article is simply about Russians living at baltic shores regardless time and state. Of course, you have all rights to write your three articles, but this one still rests here, with summaries an references to new, a more detailed ones, which, as you say correctly will cover rather different histories of Russians. mikka (t) 16:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of your good intentions removal of entire sections of the article without previous detailed explanations and consensus is a serious violation of Wikipedia rules. Also some of your statments in newly created articles is highly questionable. For example: "any Early East Slavic settlements at the time in Estonia intermittent only and not continuous" , while many historians would argue what Slavs had a history of continuous settlements on the western shore of Lake Peipus for example. Fisenko 16:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, where on the western shore of Lake Peipus were there continuous Slavic settlements before, say, the 16th century? Can you perhaps provide any references to the exact locations of these continuous settlements? If not, and regardless of your obviously somewhat wishful thinking, removal of entire sections of the article altogether without previous detailed explanations is a serious violation of Wikipedia rules on your part. Please note that I did not remove any sections, but moved them into more relevant articles. Krivichs are part of the "history of Latvia"; the raids of Yaroslav and other Kievan rulers into SE Estonia are part of the "history of Estonia". One could also make a long shot argument that these events are part of the "history of Russians in Latvia" and "history of Russians in Estonia" (albeit they did not result in any permanent Slavic/Russian settlement lasting to this day) -- which is why, as a courtesy, I also created separate Wiki-articles with these titles. However, any discussion about Krivichs, Yaroslav, etc. in the article about "Baltic Russians" is, at best, irrelevant and missing the point... Cheers, --3 Löwi 17:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

>>>>>>>Seriously, where on the western shore of Lake Peipus were there continuous Slavic settlements before, say, the 16th century? <<<<<<

I have already provided references regarding this information within the article. If you need more online sources , here you go:

http://www.helsinki.fi/hum/sugl/proj/recfin/heinsoo.html

http://www.moles.ee/05/Jun/17/15-1.php

If you need names of specific places, I can also give you some of them: Kaster (Koster), Vana Kastre (Stary Koster), Koosa jхggi (Kosovka), Kargaja (Kargovka), Rotzi (Rotsha). There is also a history of continuos Slavic settlements in Latgalia. Even if your changes would improve the article you have no right to make such drastic modification before you reached a consensus on the talk page. No offense but not everyone might agree with your "common sense" Fisenko 17:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Your sources provide no reference to Slavic settlement in those places before the 16th century. In fact, they indicate that at the time some of these places were still inhabited by Votians, a Finnic (not Slavic) speaking tribe. Secondly, the way you horribly misspell names of places (jxggi, Rotzi, etc.) indicates that you have so limited understanding of Estonian geography and history as to make any further discussion pointless, before you have not done your homework properly. Whether or not the Slavic settlements in Latgalia were continuous or not, please verify that with someone more knowledgeable in Latvian history. Regards, --3 Löwi 18:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Please don't try to insult my intelligence Mr. 3 Löwi, this is no place for personal attacks. The issue here is Wikipedia rules, not knowledge of 3Löwi vs Fesenko. The article about Votian tribes mentions what "It was in the middle of the 2nd millenium BC when Slavonic tribes started to settle in these regions." and "The people who had settled during the 12-13th centuries on the western shore of Lake Peipus were predominantly Slavs." , and this was just one example of numerous other references pointing to Slavic settlements on the western shore of Lake Peipus you can find online. Second article is more specific and is entitled "Russians of Peipus Lake region." I might mispell one or two names but it does not change the fact what numerous Estonian toponyms have Slavic origin. Many old Estonian words have also Slavic/Russian origin such as "turg" (torg), "rist" (krest), "raamat" (gramota) etc. once again pointing to Slavic presence and influence. Fisenko 18:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I must agree that 3 Löwi main idea that the expression "Baltic Russians" as a term has short history, and his splitting the article into four are reasonable. Some of his statements are dubious (e.g., "Vestern democracies countries did not reocgnize..."), but this not warrant the revert war. I would suggest Fisenko to pursue his position within the new general article framework of the topic. In particular, a summary about the "second influx" is reasonable in this article, since it was rather significant. At the same time Peipus issue (with all your disagreements) sits well in the corresponding "Russians in Estonia" article. mikka (t) 18:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks mikka (t), for your very reasonable suggestions. As for what you referred to as "dubious statements", let me, for starters provide you with references to the following two documents. Cheers, --3 Löwi 19:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Resolution nr 189 of the Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe on the situation in the Baltic States on the twentieth anniversary of their forcible incorporation into the Soviet Union, 28 September 1960. [1]

Resolution of the European Parliament on the situation in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, 13 January 1983. [2]

That's all very nice, but as EP resolutions go, most members of the European parliament probably did not have a clue of their relevance, indeed, most would not have been able (at that time) to point out Latvia on a map. What countries, other than the USA, actually had official Baltic representatives in exile? What initiatives were taken by specific countries? Also, if the Soviet incorporation was internationally considered illegal, why the need for official recognation of independence in 1991?--Joostik (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look carefully regarding what happened when independence was restored is that numerous treaties which had been in effect prior to the Soviet invasions were also put back into effect. What occurred at the demise of the USSR was the recognition of the return of Baltic sovereignty to Baltic soil, something which would be a specific de jure event with a specific date for each Baltic state. PetersV       TALK 20:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The statements are dubious in the sense that it is unclear how individual governments "did not recognize" this. E.g. AFAIK Finland and Estonian SSR had no troubles in communicating. The only solution would be to have articles

• Estonian government in exile
• Latvian government in exile
• Lithuanian government in exile

(do such articles exist? under other names? if yes, please redirect ) to say that they had official ambassadors, statements of recognition, whatever, with this and that state. I am well aware that this "unrecognition" was strong in 1940. But what was the history after 1945? mikka (t) 19:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally I see no reason why history of Russian and Slavic presence in Livonia should not be mentioned in this article. Especially since I provided academic references (which Mr. 3 Löwi for some reason deleted) to document every historic fact stated in the article. Fisenko 04:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Can somebody explain to me why the history of Baltic Germans can start with the middle ages and history of Baltic Russians can't ? I see recent deletions of info as nothing but violation of Wikipedia rules by Mr. 3 Löwi. Fisenko 19:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

In case of the majority of Baltic Germans the history of their ancestors' continuous settlement in the area began in medieval Livonia, and the same applies to their distinct Baltic (Livonian) German identity. The majority of the "Baltic Russians" are first or second-generation immigrants, and there was no "Baltic Russian" identity before WW2. The oldest continuous settlement of Russians in the area, i.e., the Old Believers' villages, dates back to the 17th century (i.e., not quite the middle ages) and these Old Belivers too have, for most of their history identified themselves primarily as (Russian) Old Believers, but not "Baltic Russians". I am not sure how much of a "Baltic Russian" identity they have even now...

As a courtesy for you, Fisenko: If in the term "Baltic Russians" the word "Baltic" is defined as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, as it is ("Baltic" similar to "Benelux" when denoting three modern states) then it also becomes as patently absurd to use the so-defined term "Baltic" in medieval context as it would be to talk about "medieval Benelux". In the medieval period, there was Livonia and there was Lithuania, there was no Baltic entity that would have covered both. Under Imperial Russia, medieval Livonia became the "Baltic provinces", of which Lithuania was not part of. The Germans of Livonia (not Lithuania) became known as the "Baltic Germans", whereas there were no self-identified "Baltic Russians"... Cheers, --3 Löwi 14:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

"The oldest continuous settlement of Russians in the area, i.e., the Old Believers' villages, dates back to the 17th century (i.e., not quite the middle ages)" This is a questionable statement. I have already gave academic references (including once written by Estonian historians themselves) what say otherwise. Are you saying there was no Russian settlements in Livonia in lets say 15th or 16th century ? For example there is a Russian Orthodox saint and martyr Isidor of Yur'yev who was a priest in a Russian Orthodox church in Derpt . On January 8, 1472 he and 72 Russain Orthodox laymen from Derpt and neighbouring villages were drawn in the river Emajogi by German knights.[3] Fisenko 05:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

"The oldest continuous settlement of Russians in the area, i.e., the Old Believers' villages, dates back to the 17th century..." -- the emphasis is on the word continuous (unbroken, continued, uninterrupted, unintermitted). Of course, in medieval Livonian towns like Dorpat (Derpt, Tartu) there existed at times small Early East Slavic settlements of merchants, craftsmen, and a few Orthodox priests from Pskov, Novgorod or Muscovy, but none of these settlements were continuous enough to survive for several centuries or until modern day, because these Slavic settlers were later either killed (thanks for your example), left the area, or their descendants were assimilated into the local population. The whole town of Dorpat was near-destroyed and emptied of its population for several occasions in later history, and there are no villages neighboring Dorpat (Tartu) at present where any Slavic peoples would have lived continuously from the 15th-16th century until now. Cheers, --3 Löwi 08:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The identity of Russians apart from Russia and associated with the Baltics occurred at the same time as the national awakenings in the 19th century. This is different from the Baltic German identity which was associated with German hegemony over Livonia (Estonia/Latvia) and which goes back much further. If we want an article about Baltic Russians going back before the mid-19th century, then we need to retitle as "History of Russians in the Baltic states". That is not the same as "Baltic Russians." PetersV       TALK 20:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Random rant

I took the liberty to delete this stupid comment -- it had no connection with the topic and its main content was just random insults toward Latvians and Estonians. However, as a stylistic example, see its last sentence:

"A wonderfully brutal russian invasion and permanent and unsetimental occupation therafter seem to be the only cure for this sickening mass pathologies masquarading as peoples, barring that is a magical change of heart among the lot concerned which appears improbable."

Evidently the writer is one of the "Baltic Russian" Nazis who has even lower opinion of Latvians than Hitler had of Jews.

The title does not make sense

The "Baltic Russians" are not in any way a separate group of Russians. The article should be titled "Russians in the Baltic states" and the content should be changed accordingly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.159.164.35 (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Yes they are a separate group of Russians. No reason to change a common, simple title. We have plenty examples: category:Russian Jews (who are Jews who happen to live in Russia), Sakhalin Koreans, and the whole 100* <Something Americans> in Category:American people by ethnic or national origin. Not to say that "Russians in the Baltic states" may well speak about drunk Russian tourists hooliganing in Latvia or Moscow Mafia operations in Estonia. 17:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, maybe you're right. I mean, the title could be as it is (a short way of saying "ethnic Russians who live in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania") -- although, strictly speaking, there are no "Baltic Russians" as a separate group of Russians (comparable, for example, to Baltic Germans.

Notable Baltic Russians

Who should be included here? For example, was Yuri Lotman a "Baltic Russian"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.235.60.66 (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Yuri Lotman was not a Russian, he was a Jew. So if you consider Jews living in Baltics to be Russians, like the section below suggests, then he was. In my opinion he would not have liked to be considered among "Baltic Russians", but that, like I said, is my personal opinion. DLX 07:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd say he was a Russian Jew. Whether he was a *Baltic* Russian is more disputable -- but the mere fact of being a Jew should not exclude him from the list. There are other Jews who are in the list (Eisenstein, Tynyanov), and Wikipedia article on Lotman says he was "a prominent Russian formalist critic ... etc". Lebatsnok 16:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Eduard Toman, perhaps? Elsa Gretškina, the Soviet-era Minister of Education, is not only notable but also notorious. And, of course, from recent days, Dmitri Linter. Digwuren 11:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Lotman indeed had jewish roots but I think it is prematuraly to declare him 'a jew' taking into consideration that he didn't follow jewish style of life and was entirely absorbed by Russian culture.In fact Lotman contributed much exactly in the field of Russian literature.As to his surname,than we shoud also declare,for example, US president Dwight D. Eisenhower to be german because his ancestors emigrated from Germany.I remember the funny episode from the life of famous american grandmaster Fischer:some jewish encyclopedia recorded him as a jew in its lists of famous jews.In fact he is a warlike antisemite in spite of the fact that his mather had jewish roots and his biological father probably was jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.237.145.140 (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The main article deals with the situation of post-WW2 Russian-speaking immigrants and their descendants. I would suggest limiting the list of Notable Baltic Russians to Notable Russian-speakers currently living in the Baltic states, or born there post-WW2. That would eliminate many, such as Eisenstein, or Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow, who shouldn't even be considered. Notable Baltic Russians in general already have their place in History of Russians in Latvia/Estonia/Lithuania.--Joostik (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion para moved here from article

Jatder wrote: Actual ethnic identity of "baltic Russians" is unclear. People, who are called "Russians" in this article are not only Russians ethnically; many can track their roots in today's Ukraine, Belarus, and other counties, that were parts of USSR during the mass migration time (1945 - 1991). But many of these not Russians (that are called Russians in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania) speak russian at home and consider themselves as "Russians". Most of jewish poulation of the Baltic states (I mean Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania again) are also usually referred to as "Russian - speaking". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 3 Löwi (talk • contribs) 05:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

It's a valid issue. These people tended to be easier to assimilate in the Russification policies of Soviet Union than moost local people. It's probably worth mentioning in the article in some way. Digwuren 11:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete citizenship section

The citizenship section is incomplete and only usefull to a certain point because it does not say what the situation is right now. It says that the Baltic countries have "passed the test" (which sounds more like essay writing than encyclopedic writing, if you ask me) but does not say what percentage of ethnic Russians in each country still do not have citizenship or how exactly the requirements were changed in order to "pass the test".

The paragraph currently makes the argument that "because those countries joined the EU, it follows that there is no discrimination because if there was they wouldn't have been allowed to join". I don't think I'm alone in thinking that this isn't nearly enough. Esn 16:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not enough. Nothing really changed in Latvia or Estonia since these coutries have joined EU. Both have a type of passport for 'second class citizens', called 'alien passport'; in Estonia it is white, in Latvia violet coloured. So, stright to the point: all these citezenship issues were raised up because of the very unstabe situation for nationalist - thinking politics in Latvia and Estonia in the beginning of nineties. Both countries had a referendum before exiting USSR, and on both referendums citizens (not depending on ethnic or national issues) of these two states voted for independence. But, a fight for power began inside of the new states, and it was decided, that if other ethnic groups would be able to vote, they would elect those politics, that nationalist - thinkers would not be happy to see. So, few years after the referendum (of independence) about a third of Estonia's population, and about a half of Latvia's population had their rights cut and a right to vote cancelled. These people voted for indepenence, and here's what they've got. The idea of 'naturalisation' has probably be an advice of Latvia's and Estonia's american 'friends', even the name of the process is the same, and the style of Latvian test (I don't know about Estonia, as it's difficult to find any info in other language, rather then estonian) is very much alike with the american (US) one (I compared it myself). In Latvia the law on naturalisation was launched on 22 july 1994 [4], after the new Saeima (Parliament) was elected in 1993 (with 'minorites' not participating in elections)....sorry, have to go, to be continued. j 14:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Let quickly me point out two facts (about which you obviously are mistaken). During the independence referendum, the majority of ethnic Russians in Estonia did not vote for the independence (this can be deduced from simple math, and the referendum results in those regions where ethnic Russians were majority). That " a few years after the referendum (of independence) about a third of Estonia's population, and about a half of Latvia's population had their rights cut and a right to vote cancelled" -- is plain wrong. Please do your "homework" better. Until then, no comments on the rest of your diatribe. Cheers, --3 Löwi 14:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The "alien passport" issue is bogus.

The alien passport system is a way to issue passports to non-citizens. If such a mechanism wasn't legislated, stateless people couldn't travel overseas -- obviously, an undesirable outcome. Non-stateless non-citizens are generally expected to hold a passport of whatever state's citizens they are.

Furthermore, in vast majority of the case of non-citizens in both Estonia and Latvia, the issue is not that a person has asked citizenship and it has been denied. The issue is that the person has never *asked* for citizenship. And when such unwillingness happens, the state's options are quite limited.

Alsø alsø, remember that statelessness of former USSR citizens is also outcome of this very lack of desire by these people themselves. Up to the end of 2000, Russian Federation's laws mandated handing out Russian citizenship -- along with nice colourful passport -- to any former USSR citizen who only asked for it. A number of post-WWII immigrants have used this option, in both Estonia and Latvia. Many have not, due to their own considerations -- whatever they may be. Digwuren 15:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Russia want them to come back. (problems with demography) So they suport not to learning state langues, integration and gaining citizen rights.

Russians without citizenship are denied the right to elect local authorities and use their language in state institutions.For example,in Latgale, a region of Latvia,where there are few Latvians,the populace consists mainly from Latgalians and Russians,hundreds of thousand people should address themselves in latvian which is the language foreign for this territory.These list of such 'nianses' can be continued.

Latgalian is also considered Latvian, of course. PetersV       TALK 22:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

marginal minority

Well, most of incarcered in Baltic states are ethnic russians. And most of lower class jobs are done by ethnic russians. Something like algerians in France. There are some places, what could become a russian gettos.

Also, a surprisingly large part of private enterprises are owned by Russian-speakers. For example, in Ludza, where I live, there would be hardly any private firm without them. Public servants tend to be Latvian though.--Joostik (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Russians without citizenship are denied the right to elect local authorities and use their language in state institutions.For example,in Latgale, a region of Latvia,where there are few Latvians,the populace consists mainly from Latgalians and Russians,hundreds of thousand people should address themselves in latvian which is the language foreign for this territory.These list of such 'nianses' can be continued.

The term "Baltic Russians"

I'm changing the first sentence, the term is usually used to refer to the Russian-speaking community as a whole, not only ethnic russians. Even Armenians/Azerbaijanis fall under the category, let alone the fact that it's often impossible to distinguish one slavic ethnic group from another. BanRay 18:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it was better as it was, because rest of the article explicitly deals with ethnic Russians, not all Russian-speakers. Oth (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, there's also a slight dispartity in numbers bewteen this article and the Tallinn one, according to the latter, Russians make up 36.5% of the population. According to the "Baltic Russians" article:"36.86% of city's population are Russians" (ethnic Russians?), needless to say that both numbers are unsourced. And, honestly, it is beyond me, how someone can distinguish ethnic Russians, from, say, ethnic Ukrainians. I, for instance, don't know my ethnic nationality, or whatever it's called. Gotta be Ukranian, but, hell knows. As I see it, both articles inconsistently shift between ethnicity, citizenship and language. I'll run through the article and see what we can do here. BanRay 13:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sure there are Ukrainians, Belarusians etc. in Baltic States who do identify themeselves as such and it doesn't seem correct to consider them Russians even if they use Russian language in everyday life. So I would suggest keeping this article about ethnic Russians only (correcting numbers and wording where needed) and make a separate article for other Slavic people in Baltic States (like there is for Estonian Swedes). Alternative is to rename this article to Russian-speaking people in Baltic States and expand to include other peoples. Either way the help from our southern neighbours is probably required. Oth (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I can see where you coming from Oth, but I tend to think of "Baltic Russians" as more of a social group, rather than an ethnic one. Sure there might be Slvaic people who identify themselves as Ukrainians or Belarusians, but then you've got ethnic Russians who don't really identify themselves as Russians, so it's kind of a tricky thing either way. Maybe we should just move the whole thing to russian-speaking people and edit it as such. But first I'd like to hear what other people think, since it might be different in Latvia and especially in Lithuania. BanRay 22:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The definition "Baltic Russians" has multiple problems. (1) Each Baltic country has its unique relationship with their Russian minority. (2) Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia are located in Caucasus but there is no article "Caucasus Russians". It would make sense that each countries had a separate articles: Russians in Estonia, Russians in Latvia and Russians in Lithuania. Current "History of..." articles could be merged of these new articles. Consequently the article "Baltic Russians" could be a disambiguation page. Peltimikko (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "Baltic Russians" along with "History of Russians in the Baltics/Baltic states" is better as a disambiguation page. There are different circumstances in the three Baltic states based on which parts were conquered by whom when, trade routes, etc. PetersV       TALK 03:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Another problem is the possible confusion with Russians living in Kaliningrad Oblast and in the areas of Saint Petersburg. However, the term Baltic Russian is in no way misleading since these communities share a similar history, are facing similar issues and live geographically close. Aaker (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Do you mean Kalingrad and Saint Petersburg having similar histories? They would not. Koenigsburg was German before WWII. Nor is the history of Russians in St. Petersburg similar to that in Estonia, nor Kalingrad that in Lithuania. So I'm not quite sure what you mean here? PetersV       TALK 04:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say Russians living in Estonia and Latvia have quite similar issues. But Lithuania has different issues, because the number of Russians is much smaller. Peltimikko (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The Russian Federation also signed a treaty with Lithuania recognizing acts against Lithuanian sovereignty committed by the Soviet Union, so official Russia can't agitate as much there, while Estonia and Latvia are open game. PetersV       TALK 04:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I can' see how Armenians in Estonia or Armenians in Latvia, etc. would fall under the category "Baltic Russians"? let alone the fact Armenians/Azerbaijanis are not a slavic ethnic group even though many of them may speak Russian as a second language. So do the Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians, does it make them Baltic Russians? Shortly anything here doesn't make much sense to me.--Termer (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

References to Geneva convention of 1949

I have removed reference to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva convention and tried to slightly change the wording in history section as its mentioning is very dubious and misleading in this case. This convention was adopted in 1949, but all three republics had become part of the USSR already in 1940 (by the way, without any state of war between the USSR and these republics) and by the time of adoption of this convention they had already been completely incorporated as constituent republics of the Soviet Union with their own CIVIL (not military!) administrations/governments. This convention cannot be applied retroactively in respect to events of 1940. Relocation of Russians to Baltic states corresponded to legislation of that period as there was a single Soviet State, of which all three republics were part. Their presence was necessary to restore the economy destroyed during the war and was economically motivated. Events of 1944-1945 cannot be called "military occupation" as one cannot "occupy" what is already his own (in this case - until 1918 and again since 1940). The opinion of United States and the Stimson doctrine were just their own subjective opinions, not the supreme truth, which they used for political purposes in their struggle with the USSR. Wikipedia must be neutral and not present the official viewpoints of just certain states (in this case - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) Dilas25 (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If we suppose that relocations of ethnic Russians and other Russophones to Baltic states after the WW II were TRULY illegal at the time, then we should admit that all three states have the right to sue Russia (as successor of USSR) in international courts and demand financial compensations and repatriation of all Baltic Russians back. For some mysterious reasons, neither of the three republics have ever even tried to do something like that. The only logical reason that could explain this is that the relocation was in fact entirely legal (and the Baltic governments know that!). Losing such case against Russia in international court would effectively undermine all policy of Latvia and Estonia in the area of citizenship since 1991 (incl. the issuse of "non-citizens" and deprivation of voting rights).Dilas25 (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that articulates this viewpoint? I suspect it may be the so called "Russian patriotic-nattionalist" viewpoint as identified by some authors. In any case it is a minority viewpoint and Wikipedia policy dictates that we must give due weight according to the prevalence. --Nug (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, we are having a bilateral conflict of interpretations (Russia vs. Baltic states who were the participants of 1940 events). In this case both points of view must be presented in an equal and balanced way. Your edit clearly changes that balance for the benefit of official dogmas and propaganda of Baltic states (supported by their allies like US for political reasons) since 1991. The official position of Russian Federation (the opposite side of the conflict), see http://www.mid.ru/bdomp/Brp_4.nsf/arh/3575341BD4842979C3256FF8002F095F?OpenDocument is not by any stretch of the imagination a "minority viewpoint". Do you have any authoritative proof that the named Geneva convention had RETROACTIVE and EXTRATERRITORIAL effect on Baltic states except for some subjective opinion of some Jewish "scientist" whose name nobody knows and whose book is not freely accessible in internet? PROVE that the fourth Geneva convention can be applied in respect to events that happened before this convention was even signed and in respect of those states who never ratified it (at least at the time those events happened). I propose to clearly state that the Baltic states consider 1940-1991 period an illegal occupation, but the oppoaite side does not recognize such claims. By the way, none of the three Baltic states has ever officially declared persons who resettled on the territory during Soviet era as "illegal settlers" nor officially demanded their repatriation. In Latvia and Estonia almost all of them received residence permits but were deprived of voting rights. Lithuania chose the most fair way - granted citizenship to ALL permanent residents of the country at time of declaration of their second independence.Dilas25 (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Prove that the Geneva convention does not apply. All governments have opinions and Russian foreign ministry is denying for political reasons. That is why here in Wikipedia scholarly scientific opinion is given more weight. We have the opinion of Dr. Yaël Ronen, Senior Lecturer of public international law at Sha'arei Mishpat College Israel, who states that settlers under illegal regimes have no rights, and there is no question that the incorporation of the Baltic states was illegal, that is an accepted fact. I've recently read that Estonian and Latvia's position is based upon solid legal precedence, France refused to grant German settlers French citizenship after it had recovered Alsace-Lorraine 47 years after Germany annexed it. The only reason Estonia and Latvia granted residency was for humanitarian reasons. --Nug (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Tatjana Ždanoka

Do you think it is OK to include Tatjana Ždanoka in the list of notable Baltic Russians? Counterargument - she is technically not an ethnic Russian, but a Russophone Jew. Pro-argument - she has continously associated herself with Latvian Russians and has been engaged in protection of Russians' citizenship and linguistic rights in Latvia. The term "Russian" in wider sense can be applied to someone who is not necessarily an ethnic Russian, but who nevertheless speaks Russian as a mother toungue and associates himself or herself with the Russian culture.Dilas25 (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. -- tariqabjotu 01:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Baltic Russians → Russians in the Baltic states – Title of this article should be changed to more accurate and less confusing name. Newbuddywiki (talk) Relisted Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC) 11:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support in general. Perhaps Russian diaspora in the Baltic states? Red Slash 09:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The proposed title is best for consistency with the members of Category:Russian diaspora by country. --BDD (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article should be split up

1) There is no "Baltic Russian" identity. There are Estonian Russians, Russian-speaking Estonians, Russians in Latvia, Russian-speaking Latvians, etc. 2) There is 100x more academic literature on "Russian-speaking people in .... [Estonia;Latvia;Lithuania]", than there is about "Russians in the Baltic states" 3) "Baltic states" is a geopolitical term. It is not a political union. 4) The laws are different on these topics in all three countries.

It makes absolutely no sense to have this unified article for all three countries. There is no "Baltic Russian" identity and there is no common "Baltic states" identity either. These are three separate countries. Blomsterhagens (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I definitely agree. H2ppyme (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

syntax

“Communist party members who had arrived in the area with the initial annexation in 1940 and the puppet regimes established evacuated to other parts of the Soviet Union;” - is this trying to say WERE evacuated? Peter Flass (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)