Talk:Finnish Civil War/Archive 1

Name

Moved since I (googling) believe the name Civil War in Finland to be more in accordance with Wiki-usage, aswell as common English language usage. -- Ruhrjung 06:31 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree. Cf. Civil War. - Hephaestos 06:39 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Still, given the context of both the Finns and Swedes of Finland being represented on both sides? -- Ruhrjung 08:36 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree too. "Civil War in Finland" gets 111 hits on google, "Finnish Civil War" gets 171 717 hits (with this wikipedia article as #2!). And calling the war "Finnish" doesn't exlude the Finland-Swedes. -- Jniemenmaa 11:46 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, well, maybe I've done yet another mistake then. My intention is/was to avoid confusing terminology. I'm definitely not arguing for "Finnish" excluding "Finland-Swedes", but in the context of the tensions between so called "Swedes" and "Finns" before and after the war, I feel the term "Finnish" might confuse other foreigners not so well informed about Finland, like how also I during many years remained pretty confused on this matter. -- Ruhrjung 12:06 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'am not really following you here. There is no mention of Swedes of any kind in the article...

Note that I got the google hits above wrong. And I agree with google here, I've never heard the term "Civil War in Finland" before. -- Jniemenmaa 12:19 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've no prestige digged down in the Finnish/of_Finland issue, and even less problems to admit that I might have acted imprudently, but I don't see what you aren't following.  ;-)))

In some cases "in/of_Finland" might be prefered of NPOV-reasons, with reverence to the Finland-Swedes. That's not the case here. In other cases foreigners' understanding of Finnish history might be less confused if, when suitable, "in/of_Finland" is used instead of "Finnish". That was my thought here. A clarification in the text would be much less needed if described as a war within a country instead of a war of a ethnicity/nationality. - In particular as there actually was one, two or three conflicts of ethnic/national character involving Finns going on, but the Civil War not being one of them, and as it seems to be a matter of terminology whether the Finland-Swedes at that time were "Finns" or not.

The terms "Finnish" and "Swedish" can be used, without qualification, for different denotations, between speakers with the background knowledge of a Finn or a Swede. But for a foreign reader with limited and maybe distorted references, it is less than optimal. One doesn't discover this at once. It takes some time. Meanwhile, one's confusion has led to a bunch of misunderstandings. That ought to be avoided, when possible.

-- Ruhrjung 15:27 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ok, I understand what you mean, but I don't think changing the name of the article will solve anyhing. If there is something that can cause misunderstandings, then surely it should be dealt with in the text of the article itself, or in the article which links to this one.

How about moving the article back and keeping Civil War in Finland as a redirect? -- Jniemenmaa 09:04 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm actually, within hours, on my way to the traditional mid-summer holiday in Finland next weekend, and won't sabotage more for the next two weeks.

But I would like to tell, that it was exactly so I thought (although with the opposite outcome, than yours). I considered writing something along the line:

The Civil War was a conflict between Socialists and non-Socialists of Finland, although also marketed as a continuation of the conflict of Sortovuodet between Russians and Finns (in the sense citizens of Finland), as Russia with the October Revolution had turned Socialist. The contemporary conflicts between Finns and Swedes (in the sense the governments and public opinions of Finland and Sweden) and between Finns and Swedes (in the sense promoters of the Finnish or Swedish language in Finland) were not directly connected to the Civil War, {and then maybe anything about Finland's language strife coming in the background during the Sortovuodet, the Civil War, and the Åland crisis}.

However, I felt the needed definitions of Finns/Finnish resulting in an awkward prose, making the whole project highly sensitive of prose-improvements by kind Finns who don't realize that these terms actually are, or might be, a problem for non-Finns. Not to mention the probability of repeated rewrites due to different political opinions on the Civil War (War of Liberation, etc, etc, etc).

My reaction then was to reduce the confusing use of Finns/Finnish, which you in turn have reacted against.

The choise of title for the article has, I believe, an impact on the usage in other Wikipedia articles. Isn't then Civil war in Finland, Russification in Finland and Language strife in Finland superior to the alternative Finnish Civil War, Finnish Russification (or Finnish oppression years) and Finnish language strife, contributing to clarity and counteracting confusion?

-- Ruhrjung 10:57 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

To Ruhrjung: Just coming back to this discussion. I forgot to answer before.. But anyway. Your first argument was that "Civil War in Finland" was the most common term (according to google). I disagree. "Finnish Civil War" gave about seven times more hits.

Do you want to change all the wars on Civil war to the form Civil War in XXX? All those civil wars involve different ethnic groups and other internal conflicts that might confuse someone. Is the "Finnish Civil War" the only one you want to change to the form "Civil War in XXX"? Just curious :) -- Jniemenmaa 10:18 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

To be honest (not that anyone get any happier by that!), I do not really want anything. I was merrily writing, trying out different wordings. Noting that a link to the Civil War was red, I was about to write a redirect page, when I started to "think"...

After a brief period of that, I'd come to the conclusions you see above, most of which for sure is based on my accumulated contact with Finns in English.

- To answer your question, I would say that lesser known events might be on my agenda. See my thoughts on Talk:Battle of Hemmingstedt which rather much reflects a similar background: There I came to Denmark in my early twenties, half-by-half fell in love with the country (or at least certain aspects of Copenhagen), to discover that my slappy knowledge and wordings regarding Schleswig-Holstein were not only false, but actually wounding people. ...and definitely contributing to misunderstandings and bad feelings. I was, and am, in no ways looking for a finlandization of Germany's history writing. I do not want anything like propagating lies to please Germany's victims - admiting the blame for wars the enemy started is a terrible nightmare - but I want to escape from blurry conceptions when they have potence to confuse and hurt, like the projection of Danish nationality on these Dukes of Schleswig and Holstein, ...or a slappy usage of Finnish when a less blurring term would do better.

I must in this context confess that my googling obviously was done with questionable methods.
-- Ruhrjung 12:17 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Two mistakes -It is a mistake to claim that communists were waging war in red side, since Finnish communist party was only founded after the war. For sure some social democrats considered themselves as communists even before, but meaning of this term was not established. -National guard splitted to protection guard and red guard only after general strike of 1905.

Question

I edited some of the writing because a few parts seemed very, very awkward to me. I just wanted to verify in addition that "The svoboda appeared to the Finns as merely the Russian military going out of control" was correct. Was this view held by all, or would the "Red" Finns have been sympathetic to the Russian troops? Also, is there any chance that "Thus it turned out, that from the point of view of the poorest Finns, Oskari Tokoi's Senate's attempt was as much of a failure as universal suffrage had been." doesn't conform to NPoV?

I'm not leaning either way, because I genuinely don't know, but someone who knows more about the subject could probably give a ruling. - Small Profit 12:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Strengths

I put the template to the article and the strengths too from the fi-wiki article. It seems very inaccurate but I couldn't find anything about it. Anyone any sources? Please edit. --Pudeo 15:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

All the strengths and casualty figures concerning the war are more or less inaccurate. For the strengths, the max. numbers presented from the reds have been even as high as 150 000 men, but it is obviously not correct. Probably the "truth" lies somewhere between 50 000-90 000 (or 100 000) on both sides. In addition, due to the bad discipline on the red side, the numbers of the soldiers on paper was often quite different from the actual figures in the battle field.

For the casualties, the "Sotasurmat"-table is a collection and combination of the 3-4 most important archives, but the info in them is uncertain also, for many reasons. The numbers 8 360 and 1 650 in the Template are by prof. Jaakko Paavolainen (1966-1967) based on two main archives available, and uncertain too. In the large archive by the Finnish Lutheran church there is a tendency to mark the dead reds to have killed in action and in the major archive by the Social Democratic party there is a tendency to mark them executed. It may be wise to change the numbers in the Template, for executed reds 7 000-9 000 (executed whites 1 650 is probably ok) and dead reds in the prison camps 11 000-13 000 (missing from the Template !). The figures for whites killed in action may be quite ok (as the white figures in general), but numbers for reds missing and killed in action are approximations --84.231.165.135 14:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination

I am a GA reviewer. I'd like to note that this is definitely an article that should get GA, perhaps FA, but unfortunately there is a need for a thorough copyedit in order to get it up to standard. I would like to offer to help. I see two possibilities, but in both cases it will require that you retire the nomination.

1. I can help with the copyedit. Once it is ready, you can renominate the article, but it will have to go through the queue and someone else will review it. I would be disqualified because I helped in the article.
2. You can find another English editor, work on it, and renominate it. You can then leave a message on my talk page and I will review it immediately.

I would like to see this article get GA status. Please tell me which you would prefer. RelHistBuff 17:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I got a message on my user page. I copied it here because it is best that conversation on the article is kept in a central location. Message below:

I comment the opinion you wrote on the disc. page of FCW dealing with the "official level" of the article. I wrote part of it using this "ilummeen" or several direct IP-addresses. To me it's not so important whether its of GA or FA or whatever level, the main thing is that we finally can present a more historical than a political article of the very difficult subject (and still there may be subjective lines in the text). I'm a very unexperienced Wikiuser, so if there is a good reason to alter the nomination, I do hope that user --Pudeo could help us with the "byrocracy" and carry out the nomination process :). But still, the main thing here is that as there is a need for a thorough copyedit you (RelHistBuff) should do it anyway in order to get a generally acceptable article :). --Ilummeen 05:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I would be glad to help. The article has done an excellent job of maintaining NPOV on a subject that is very difficult. It is an example of what is the best of Wikipedia. I left a message on Pudeo's talk page and hopefully he will respond. If he doesn't respond in the next few days, I will go ahead and act on your advice. RelHistBuff 08:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, yes I agree with Ilummeen, please go ahead. The peer-review I requested wasn't very successful but I think this article could use some new texts, to a certain point where it isn't too big. For example, aviation in the civil war. I can't write very English articles very well (atleast nothing compared to this class), so if Illumeen you are Finnish, you could do it if you have time and/or interests when you have the Finnish material available. --Pudeo (Talk) 13:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I might try to add some things if I have the time (I do have the interest on this controversial subject). The importance of the "air force" in the FCW was so small that I think it's a bit extra text in the Finnish article also. --Ilummeen 05:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will start copyediting. I will stop occasionally for feedback. Don't hesitate to interrupt me if you see something wrong. In the meantime, could you remove the GA nomination on the WP:GAC list and GAnominee template above? Kiitos. (I am not a Finn, though.) RelHistBuff 08:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Maps?

I'd like to see maps here to clarify the situation during the fighting. F.ex. three small maps, initial frontlines, Tampere offensive and final offensives. Opinions? --Whiskey 09:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if they are needed ,here are some. Not sure about their copyright status if they were released for a book years after the war. They're quite unclear also but we might have map graphicists that may be interested? --Pudeo (Talk) 20:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Are these maps accurate in terms of finalnd's borders at the time. I thought Russia had no direct border with Norway in the north until after the winter war. the wikipedia article on the winter shows that to be the case. Anyone got any ideas?

Ian

Yes, they are correct. The Petsamo area (that "arm" between Russia and Norway) was ceded to Finland 1920, as a compensation on the border change near Saint Petersburg during the previous century. --Whiskey 11:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits for today

I have a question on the sentence, "On the other hand a crisis between Imperial Russia and the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland...". Do you mean to say "In addition to this, a crisis..."? It seems so because that sentence is not related to the previous sentence. RelHistBuff 13:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think so, it is not opposite of the earlier text as "on the other hand" would mean. But I'm not sure if it means that the crisis unified the Finnish people, I don't think so. So "in addition" would be better. Good job with the edits. --Pudeo (Talk) 16:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Reading ahead, I have another question. It would be good to consistently use one term for the Socialists/Social Democrats/Left and the non-Socialists/Conservatives/Right. I was about to do that, but then I wondered if the usage was for a generic group or an official party name. Normally if the word is capitalized, it means a member of a party. Also is it correct to equate Socialists with Social Democrats or is one a subset of the other? RelHistBuff 18:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Before 1918 Social Democrats included both communist and other kinds of sosialists. In Finland the split only happened after the Civil War. In Imperial Russia the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party had the Bolshevik and Menshevik factions. The word "communist" only came into use after the October Revolution.

When refering to the 1918 party it may me better to refer to "socialists" to differentiate from modern social democrats. -- Petri Krohn 22:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, for the moment, I will leave the words as they are and work on grammar and prose, but at the end, I will come back to this and try to make the usage more consistent. I will also put a few (not many) citation needed tags. Although there are citations on every paragraph of the article, there are some interesting or contentious facts that ought that have a specific citation. RelHistBuff 19:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

February Revolution (1)

This section was a bit difficult. There was more repetition of statements which I reduced and I moved one statement to put it in chronological order (the rise in income during the First World War). There were a lot of quoted objects like "ancient regime", "July days", "legal", etc. which I believe is meant to show irony or to imply a special meaning. As this is difficult to understand without knowing context, I tried to change these to regular text. It would be good to get feedback on these. I also tried to reduce the use of the phrase "one of the main factors" or "important factor" as the other factors are not precisely described. RelHistBuff 14:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job by RelHistBuff. The quality of the article is enhancing markedly. I think most of your changes are relevant, e.g. "July days" is an expression used only by the Finns and Russians and most of the "western" readers do not know it.

As for the names of the political groups (in the earlier disc. session above), I think that Social Democrats is the correct impr. for the Left as politically it was the only major actor 1917-1918. Inside SD there were moderate (reformist, "Bernstein-Kautsky") socialists, leftist ("Kautsky"), and revolutionary (radical Marxists) socialists. The Civil war split them in three parts later, but before the war there was a large more or less unified party. I have used many (too many) impressions of them in the text, but Social Democrats and Socialists would be the best two (using only the term socialists is wrong and missleading). The Right and non-socialists were split in many parties; there were two moderate parties "Young Finnish" and an "Agrarian" party. On the right there was a conservative "Old Finnish" party. But still e.g. in the latter there was also more moderate conservatives and "heavy" rightests. To understand this "carnival" it should be seen that in part the "party map" on the right reflected the varying reaction of the Finns toward the Russian oppression period 1899-1905. In addition the "Young Finnish" party included more liberals concerning both economy and politics. In addition to all this there was a "Swedish" party (conservatives) based on the "fight" between Finnish and Swedish language and radical "Activists" believing on violence as a means to get rid of Russia. Activists were a small but a powerfull group (later in 1917), that was split in many non-social. parties. According to my understanding of what happened in 1917, it was first the Conservatives and socialists that competed most severely of power and esp. the "Agrarians" tried to achieve compromizes (the conservatives i.e. "old estates" had more to lose and SD most to gain). Later in 1917, as the violence and breakdown advanced, all the non-socialists (incl. activists) were more united against SD, (huh, what a terrible long expl.) --Ilummeen 04:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought the situation would be complex. One thing that might help is a short explanation near the beginning. It doesn't need to be as detailled as you described it, but it should show that the two sides were not monolithic parties. For example:

"The Left mainly consisted of Social Democrats who covered a fairly wide spectrum from moderate to revolutionary socialists. The Right or the Conservatives were even more diverse including several elements such as an agrarian party, an economic conservative party, a Swedish party, and a radical activist party."

I wouldn't put activists there as an party, as it was more like a movement, where members had ideology from far right to far left, and the only combining thing was will to separate Finland from Tsarist Russia. After the October revolution the left wing of activists fractured, as some members started to support joining the new socialist Russia.--Whiskey 13:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

After the explanation, the article can use just "Social Democrats" and "Conservatives" and reduce the other descriptors in political situations and events. Similiarly when the civil war is described, then Red Guards rather then "Reds" and White Guards rather than "Whites" should be used. Otherwise it sounds too colloquial.

One note. Here in Europe, an "economic liberal" based on the French word libéral is considered to be right wing. I think that is what you meant when you described the Young Finnish party. In the US, a "liberal" is considered to be socialistic or left. Although I am more used to the European usage, we should stick to the US definition of "liberal" as the readers of the English Wikipedia are mostly Americans.

I will continue on to the next sections. RelHistBuff 11:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

User Whiskey is wright, the Activists were not a party, just a small group devided in many parties (or no party activity at all). The "Young Finnish" party was mainly moderate and liberal in the sense that they supported parliamentarism (against monarcistic plans of the conservatives) and social reforms, and thus the rightest people accused them (e.g. K.J. Ståhlberg was accused) of being almost socialists (so they were liberal in the US way). Still due to the blow and trauma by the war, some Young Finnish turned to support monarchism later. If you think, in the end, that there is a need to explain these party matters in the text, could you do it yourself, and we can check it later (so the style would be the same). --Ilummeen 15:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, not to explain in detail, but just to say something at the beginning which will allow to use descriptors of the two sides consistently. OK, I will do that after I have made a complete pass through the article. I just noticed that shortly before I started editing this article, the article went through an assessment for A-class in the military history WikiProject. Hopefully the changes will help in progressing in that project as well as GA. RelHistBuff 09:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Escalation

I struggled a bit with the naming changes. I guessed that the change in name to the Red Guards only occurred in Helsinki, Kotka, and Turku initially and then it was officially changed in January. It's probably not important, but just trying to stay consistent. RelHistBuff 14:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You guessed quite wright :). Very good job both with Finnish sover. and Escalation. --Ilummeen 16:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I was on a business trip yesterday so no edits were done. I see someone else is working on the article. I will just go ahead with this first pass I am making on the article. RelHistBuff 08:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Brothers in arms

Questions and comments concerning my edits in this section:

1. Although it did not say so, I assumed that what was mentioned as "Red Finland" took on the name of Finnish Socialist Workers' Republic. If that is not correct, then please change it.
2. The first citation is probably not so important, but since it made a comparison, I thought it could be contentious. The second citation is more important because it sounds like an opinion (Lenin wanting to annex). It could also be rewritten in another way to sound less like an opinion, but an undisputed fact instead.
3. I took out a debatable sentence: "If the Reds had won the Civil War, one major question would have been whether the socialistic Finland could have kept its sovereignty alongside the Soviet Union that would be established in 1922." This sounds like someone is speculating, so if it is put back in then it definitely needs a citation.
4. Is there a difference between the Vaasa Senate and the Vaasa Cabinet?
5. The listing of towns defining the frontline is quite detailled, but without a map, this is a lot less useful especially to those unfamiliar with Finland. Could a rough map and line be produced? Then one can see the geographical separation in relation to the larger view including Russia, Baltic Sea, and Sweden.
6. Originally the explanation of the motives of the volunteers mentioned "the guard" and it wasn't clear which side it was referring to. In the current context, it appears to be the White Army. Is that true? Or did the motives refer to both groups of volunteers?
7. The Red Guards had "agrarian workers" while the White Army had "peasants". What are the differences between the two? I guess that "agrarian workers" are the propertyless peasants mentioned earlier. And I guess the "peasant" volunteers for the White Army are land-owning farmers. Is that the case? If so, then it would be better to use that description to avoid confusion. RelHistBuff 11:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that anonymous editor 213.35.223.81 was changing the text mentioned in points 4 and 6 above, but then the next edit must have crashed losing half the text. I restored it to the point after the two edits. Whoever it was can go ahead and continue. RelHistBuff 09:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I do hope for a war map also, and we have the same problem in the Finnish article too. I quess nobody can find one without copywright problems. Excellent job with copyediting, when it's done the art. is a lot better. ilummeen

I added three quick maps I made to the article. I recognize they are not up to quality they should, and they most likely do not follow the Wikipedia guidelines for maps, but maybe someone could use them to produce better quality maps someday... --Whiskey 23:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The maps are a great addition! RelHistBuff 09:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to say that you --Whiskey made really nice maps ! --Ilummeen 18:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes nice maps, but the quality isn't that nice. You should have saved them in high quality JPG or png. The arrows could me more official but they're so small that it doesn't bother that much.--82.128.134.202 11:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Like I said, they weren't a high quality. The arrows were especially painful as I had to draw them by hand. Now I know what to keep in mind next time. ;-) --Whiskey 12:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

First pass done

I have finished the first pass and I recommend Ilummeen and others to take a look at the last few sections that I edited. There are also some minor cleanups to be done such as was mentioned previously, but in the meantime someone can already nominate the article for GA status again. While the article sits in the queue, the cleanup can be done simultaneously. RelHistBuff 09:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Kiitos Paljon, for the very good job. I tried to make some adjustments, but it's so difficult for me in English. I'm not sure whether we should write reunification or unification as the Finns were divided in two long before the war, by the estates. Thus, the real unification started with parliamentarianism after the war, but still I quess the Finns were more separated by the war than by the estates (?). Another thing is that there really has been a (re)unification, but it has been a hard, painfull road and there still can be strong feelings about the war of 1918. I wonder how long it takes for the peoples in the Balkans to unite..... --Ilummeen 15:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess it depends on the context. If viewed from a political point-of-view, one could claim that Finland was unified previously (albeit under Russian or Swedish control), while from a social/economic point-of-view, one could claim Finland was always divided as you mentioned. So it could be both a first-time unification and a reunification. You could describe both. RelHistBuff 15:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Left/Right consistency

I made an attempt to cleanup the usage of terms for the Left and Right. Firstly, I defined the Left and Right in the Background section. Then I used "Social Democrats" for occurrences of "socialists" or "Left" and "Conservatives" for "non-socialists" or "Right". I didn't change every occurrence, of course, because sometimes the original terms seemed more appropriate. Please check if the changes are appropriate and go ahead and correct them accordingly. RelHistBuff 09:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's quite ok now. I made an addition to the chapter Red and White terror "A notable feature on both sides.....", I think you should check it....... --Ilummeen 18:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

English sources

Are there really no more sources in English available? Having only one English source severely limits the verifiability of the article.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are two, Upton's and Alapuro's. Upton's is used most in the article. Nope, there really aren't much English references made on the subject, unfortunately. --82.128.134.202 11:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I returned the Finnish version of A.F. Upton's book to the References chapter (the English one remains ofcourse). I have red the Finnish version and cited according to it in the text (Upton 1980 and/or 1981). I have not seen the English book, so I'm not sure whether the two are exactly the same. Thus I feel more secure if citations and Ref. are in the original form --Ilummeen 08:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

About the references, I would add Harvard reference templates such as in atomic line filter (you can click footnote to get to the reference). But it would look and be better if there would be page numbers. There are some pagenumbers for references in Finnish Wikipedia. So do you think you anyone can get page numbers for even some sources. I don't have any of the books anyway.. I'd start converting them to Harvard reference template if you can get some page numbers, otherwise I don't think it has that much point doing so. --Pudeo (Talk) 13:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, I agree but I could do that perhaps later. At the moment I have time for only small checkings in text. --Ilummeen 05:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now the references are in Harvard template. Now only to put the notes that are in text to this format: {Harv | Smith | 2006 | p=25}}. P for page, pp pages, 2nd field for surname and third for year. I haven't figured out how to put many references to one note, as many of the notes have many references such as the strenght; Arimo 1991, Manninen 1992-1993, Upton 1981.

If it isn't possible to do so I may have to split them to own notes. That wouldn't increase the amount of footnotes because then I would put one reference to have its own note and it would have a,b,c notes then.--Pudeo (Talk) 12:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed the order so that the footnotes are first and the references afterwards. This follows the Guide to Layout. Concerning the need for page numbers of the sources, this may become a issue when the article is submitted for featured article. RelHistBuff 07:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've not edited a wikipedia article before now, but I am currently working on Finnish history for a masters degree. Other sources that talk about the Finnish Civil War are available. Mannerheim's memoirs offer a good deal of information, from his perspective, regarding the Civil War. In addition, there are a number of comprehensive histories of Finland that provide sections that deal with the Civil War. A few authors to reference include: John H. Wuorinen, W.R. Mead, Hillar Kallas, H.M. Tillotson, L.A. Puntila (translated by David Miller), and Eino Jutikkala and Kauko Pirinen. Each of these has at least some material on the Finnish Civil War. WSUSwedeFin 18:43, 25 March 2007

Next steps

Well, it seems the article was passed quietly by a GA reviewer. Congratulations to you guys! Unfortunately there were no comments left to help improve the article, so I would suggest that you take it on to Peer Review to get some feedback and then submit it to Featured Article. I see no problems that this article will reach FA. RelHistBuff 08:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah good job. I just finished with reference linkings. If anyone wants to study these books more, please add |pp or |p after the template and add the site numbers. This article seems to have some issues with Internet Explorer, right? I see too much space between Red Guards chapter and the footnotes aren't in two lines. Do anyone of you know some good Wikipedia mappers who could produce high quality maps from those that Whiskey made? --Pudeo (Talk) 15:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see that the article has advanced in the "formal hierarchy" of Wikipedia too. The main thing is that it's now simply a much better article than before, thanks to you RelHistBuff, Pudeo and Whiskey. I made some additions further, as there had been criticism the art. being just a scratch, perhaps you could check the language. We still "swim" in the surface of the war 1918 and a deeper analysis is lacking, but my time is limited and now I'll be away for a while. Ilummeen 05:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I will check the English. I would recommend to be careful on the quantity of additional text. It is already at 54 KB and someone from the old peer review did mention that it was already quite long. Admittedly, the topic is fascinating and deserves a deep analysis, but since this is an encyclopaedia article, it does not have to be a definitive work on the subject. RelHistBuff 09:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There is some good peer review advice in regards to the lead section. I would suggest that someone work on a proposal for a new lead section in a sandbox somewhere. In the meantime, I will check the prose again. RelHistBuff 08:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

February Revolution

There are some portions of text that are rather difficult to understand. In particular the paragraphs starting with "The Senate had to deal with several major problems during 1917..." and "Finland's autonomy had been restored by the Provisional Government of Russia". I think these are new because I don't remember them when I did the first pass. If no one minds, I will attempt to rewrite them. RelHistBuff 11:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I am having difficulty working with the following text as I cannot understand what it means.

These factors caused a marked unrest and uncertainty among the common people and the fear of starvation was one reason for joining the Worker's Protection Guards later. Still, these factors were of secondary importance, only reflecting the political power struggle and breakdown of the Finnish society. E.g. the lack food concerned mainly cereals and the proportion of bread comprised 10 to 20 % of the total daily consumption. Hence, the deficit of cereals could be substituted by other food products. However, the question of food and hunger became a very emotional crisis between farmers in the countryside and industrial workers in urban areas. In addition, both the politicians and political media utilized the fears of the common people effectively

Another problem is that it introduces the "Worker's Protection Guards" at this stage when the Guards are not defined yet. Also, this name is a mix of both Red and White because the Red Guards were called "Worker's Security Guards" and the White Guards were called "Protection Guards" as defined in the next section. Ilummeen, could you rewrite this in another way and then I could take another look? RelHistBuff 21:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was written in a hurry. Worker's Security Guards and later Red Guards are correct names for the army of the Left and Protection Guards and White Guards on the Right. After the war, during the greatest split, the Right preferred the names Protection Guards and Red Guards, the Left using Workers's Sec. Guards and White Guards. If there is a risk or need for avoiding POV it these also, perhaps it would be best to use the names Red and White Guards, but it cuts off part of the history of these troops. They were not originally established for starting the civil war. The purpose was just to maintain general order since spring 1917, but the escalation of the crisis of 1917 led to these Guards of different colour. --Ilummeen 05:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Lead

Last night I tried to formulate a new lead for the article, using my MSWord progr., but as usual it's long. Still, I might open it to you so you could rewrite it and make shorter. A technical question: can I copy a MSWord text directly to the Wiki-FCW article ? --Ilummeen 14:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The best thing is to use a sandbox. It is a temporary writing space that has a copy of the lead section. I made one, for example, at User:RelHistBuff/sandbox/FCW. You can modify/add to it and everyone can see and work on the changes while the main article remains untouched. You should be able to copy and paste your new lead, but of course you will have to add in the wikilinks and wiki-formatting. You can make your own sandbox in your own User area or you can go ahead and use the one I just created. RelHistBuff 15:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

So, now the "Lead" is in the Sandbox that you made. It's long and it was written during the night, as I was coming back home from a journey by train. --Ilummeen 16:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I made some other changes also, that was mentioned in the peer review. Check them too, please. --Ilummeen 16:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I will get to it as well as the other items mentioned. I am travelling for the next two weeks so my internet connectivity may be limited. It may take a bit longer in time. In the meantime I have asked others to take a look. RelHistBuff 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah you added it. As you said it needs to be shortened atleast a bit and referenced cited. Hopefully RelHistBuff copyedits it. --Pudeo (Talk) 10:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC) EDIT:And it seems some off the lead material is more of the "background" stuff, maybe. --Pudeo (Talk) 17:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Sorry, but Upton 1980-1981 is the most proper. in the first cit. of Red and White Terror. Arimo 1991 and Aunesluoma & Häikiö 1995 are not correct ones. I will not alter them myself as I would mix up the Harvard system :). --Ilummeen 17:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Template photo

As Agne emphezises on the peer review page, NPOV is important in a sensitive subject like this. Therefore, I have a question to you fellows whether the photo of the Finnish jägers in the template is an optimal choice for this article (?). We do know that jägers had a major impact for the White victory and we are aware also that jägers did not go to Germany in order to get military training for a war against their fellow citizens. But still for neutrality another type of photo might be better in a such central place of the article ?. The similar article of the Finnish Wikipedia has a photo showing the ruins of Tampere, and is neutral. Ofcourse we do not have to have the same photo here, but something like that. I do not have anything personal against the jägerphoto. In fact, my grandfather's (may he rest in peace) close relative was a sergeant major in the Jägerbataljon 27 and is standing somewhere in the jägerphoto --Ilummeen 12:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it's a problem, for example Battle of Berlin, isn't that quite much more sided than this. And the Jäger photo looks nice in the template to me atleast. If you have a better image that looks nice I have nothing against it. --Pudeo (Talk) 10:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Nop, I do not have any other or better choices and if I'm the only one who's worried of this, just forget it and keep the original image. You are right, it looks quite nice. --Ilummeen 12:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarification needed for estates

There is a need to clarify the issue of land ownership in the article as it is an important issue why the frontline formed where it was in the beginning.

At Karelia, Savonia and Ostrobothnia the land was owned by small farmers (over 44% of families living from agriculture), and less than 35% of farms there had crofters. The farm sizes there were only under 20 hectares, small enough to be farmed by a single family with 2-3 hired hands. At total, there were about 13% of families living from agriculture crofters there, as it was almost double that in southern provinces. Also, the crofters in middle and northern Finland were much closer in their living standard with independent farmers than in southern Finland.

For that reason, there were not an enthusiasm for socialization or land reform on those areas, as land was already owned (almost 90%) by independent small farmers, and so it was them who ruled the land there, not Estates (as large land owners) or Aristocracy. It was also them who provided the initial muscle to the White army when the fighting started.

The current text leaves an impression that it was estates of large land owners who owned the land everywhere and used crofters and tenent farmers to cultivate the land, while in reality they were concentrated in southern Finland, and middle and northern Finland was owned by small farmers who cultavated it themselves. --Whiskey 10:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The agriculture and land-ownership was not the most important (but not insignificant of course) factor in the formation of the front line and start of the war in 1918. The industrialized centres played the major role (they had the leadership within the worker's movement 1899- on). The front line was a result of high red worker's and russian army activity in Pori, Tampere (effected by Turku also), Viipuri, Kymi and the industrial area of so called upper-Vuoksi river (Lappee, Imatra). The lonely "red island" north of the front line was Warkaus in Savo, because it was a small industr. town with red activity (note Oulu "city" in the north too). It may be that there is a confusion in the text due to my bad english. I have to add the term Class Society (sääty-yhteiskunta in Finnish) in to the Lead and Background with the estates. I do not mean estates just as the very large farms (kartano in Finnish, of course they were a part of the class society) in the country side. Instead I mean the estates (sääty in Finnnish) formed by clergy of church, large landowners, industrialists and other bourgeois groups that had the leadership of the Finnish state (e.g. the right to wote) before and in the period of 1905-1917. One major issue here was the change of the class society to a more democratic system with parlamentarism and universal suffrage. --Ilummeen 12:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to the Middle-European situation, the socialists never gained large support among the agrarian people, but Agrarian Party (moderate right, centrist) collected those votes with increasing amounts during the elections between 1907-1917, especially in the middle Finland up to the Oulu and Kajaani; even the crofters of the area threw themselves to the Agrarian Party instead of Socialists. In the Middle Europe the land reform was always part of the socialist movement and socialists gathered quite a support from agrarian people there.

Anyway, one should still point out this pecularity of the war. And downgrade the language in the part where crofter's plight is deemed one of the main reasons for the war. (Also, the article still underestimates the development in political system between 1905-1917.) --Whiskey 12:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, socialists never gained any support among the land-owning people !! (crofters were devided in two e.g. due to the different position of crofters in southern Finland and in Ostrobothnia in the society). The crofter's situation was not the main issue in the war. And it's not at all peculiar that the true land-owning people fought on the white side and the land-owners having smaller land area established their own party; the Agrarian party. But instead the socialists got an exeptionally high support among the agrarian worker's. This high support was the special feature in the Finnish case, and was caused by the major role of forest industry in the industrial development of Finland. --Ilummeen 13:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Naturally yes, if we only count paid workers. But if we took into account the total workforce - that means also those who worked in their own fields and forests - it is no longer as high.--Whiskey 13:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Those who worked on their own fields and forests were not agrarian worker's, they were land-owners. The paid workers i.e. the agrarian worker's joined the socialist worker's movement in exeptionally high numbers in the European scale. --Ilummeen 13:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

They are not workers, but they *DO* belong to the workforce. If their part is omitted, it creates defective statistics. (Imagine situation where a plumber creates his own company. He still makes just the same stuff, but he would be no longer included in the workers in the area.) And one of the reasons you mentioned is just the forest industry, as especially in northern Finland there were large areas owned by the state or paper/sawmill companies, which used hired workers to harvest and handle the wood. --Whiskey 14:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the Finns belonged and belong to the potential workforce, but it's not relevant here. I am truly sorry, but I do not see any reason to continue this a bit ackward conversation, sorry. --Ilummeen 16:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the *potential* workforce but *actual* workforce in agriculture: Of all those people who did the work on the fields, half of them were working on their own fields in the middle Finland. (At southern Finland, it was only about the quarter.)

And based on how you define estates (as including only large landowners), you actually forget those small farmers: They didn't belong to estates, they didn't belong to workers, but they still managed to form almost half of the population in the middle Finland. --Whiskey 23:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Makes no sense

The following makes no sense in the English language:

The Civil War is the only conflict in the history of Finland that has caused dispute even of the name of the war.

Could someone put it in coherent English, please. I tried, but obviously did not understand it because I was corrected for misunderstanding. If the notion can't be expressed in English, I suggest cutting it altogether, since the point, whatever it is, may not be worth making. qp10qp 17:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I brought this up too in my peer review, and this is what I said, but I don't think it's been acted on, so I don't know if I understood it either. Here is what I said: "'The Civil War is the only conflict in the history of Finland that has caused a major dispute even on the name of the war' -- assuming this is saying that this is the only conflict to have a major dispute in naming the war? If so, perhaps re-word to 'The Civil War is the only conflict in the history of Finland that has caused a major dispute with the name of the war'" --plange 17:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I can find no mention of such a dispute in the text; the opening section shouldn't raise matters that aren't explained in the article. If Plange's interpretation of the sentence is correct, it seems to me that there's no significance at all in this being the only Finnish conflict with a dispute over its name (since not many conflicts do have a dispute over their name). I would drop the sentence entirely. qp10qp 19:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, how many wars in total were there in Finland? I'm not asking that in a sarcastic manner, I'm being serious, as that would help determine the significance. If it's the only one of 100, then sure (but still needs to be supported in the text per above), but if only one of 3, meh... It's also not unusual for a civil war to have a conflict over the name. Since it was a civil war, conflict over the name is usually part of the territory. Heck, even here in the Southern US over 150 years later, there are some who refuse to call the American Civil War by that name and refer to it as the War Between the States, or even more euphemistically, The Late Great Unpleasantness. --plange 20:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If we're only talking about the time post-1917, then we have

1. The Civil War (or Freedom War, Brethren War, Class War or The Finnish Revolution) 1918
2. The White Karelian Expedition 1918
3. The Finnish Expedition to Estonia (The Estonian Freedom War) 1917-1920
4. The first Petsamo Expedition 1918
5. The Aunus Expedition 1919
6. The Ingrian Rebellion 1919
7. The second Petsamo Expedition 1920
8. The Winter War 1939-40
9. The Continuation War 1941-44
10. The Lapland War 1944-45

....plus some other stuff too, i.e. the Finnish Navy support of British operations against the Bolshevik Navy etc...have I forgotten any? --MoRsE 23:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I get the picture now. So I removed the meaningless sentence and added a clause to the same effect in an appropriate context higher up the paragraph. "The Civil War was the most controversial and emotionally loaded event in the history of modern Finland; and there have even been disputes about what it should be called." qp10qp 01:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering too, if it might not be interesting to name the alternate names? --plange 03:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly in the body of the article, but not in the intro, IMO. I'd rather not see it mentioned in the intro at all, as I've said; but I'm only copy-editing, and that's up to the content editors. qp10qp 15:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the high classed copy-editing of FCW qp10qp :) --Ilummeen 07:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope it doesn't seem like interference. On the above point, have you considered putting the other names in footnote 5? Footnotes can be used for notes as well as references, and this would be, in my opinion, the immaculate way to present this side-information without interrupting the text. qp10qp 16:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

Raul has given the article featured status. Pudeo, Illumeen, or someone, go ahead put the star (the {{featured article}} template) on the article page! Congratulations! --RelHistBuff 09:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations to yourself --RelHistBuff !. Raising and improving the uncompleted article step by step to the top was mainly due to your and --Pudeo's activity and work. It was really nice to co-operate with you all. --Ilummeen 12:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations to the editors who put this article together. In my opinion, it's one of the best articles on Wikipedia. I have no knowledge of the sources, but the article inspires confidence in its reliability because it manages an impressively neutral stance and by using multiple sources constantly hedges against generalisation. It manages to maintain a neutral point of view not just towards the right and left but towards the different factions within each side, and the cumulative effect of this objectivity is, in my opinion, a convincing picture of the complexity of the situation. Many times well done. qp10qp 23:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Some copy-edit questions

Outcome of wrath

I'm not entirely comfortable with the heading "Outcome of wrath", because this isn't a known phrase in English, as far as I know. An outcome is a result, an ending, but I think this term refers to what followed the ending of the war. Also, "wrath" is an old-fashioned word in English, hardly known outside the bible these days (the title of Steinbeck's novel The Grapes of Wrath was actually a quotation from the mid-nineteenth century Battle Hymn of the Republic). My suggestion, from the context, would be "Bitter Legacy legacy". Would anyone object to that?

Close Finno-Russian combination

What is meant by "a close Finno-Russian combination" in the following?

"...the most radical Guards and the Finnish Bolsheviks, though low in number, favoured a close Finno-Russian combination."

As "combination" is not a precise political term, I was unsure whether they favoured the amalgamation of Russia and Finland, Russian hegemony, or a close alliance.

Social position of crofters

In the following, the crofters held a better social position than what? Than in the south? If so, it can be added. It's not clear, and I was tempted to cut it, but it obviously contains an important social detail which might not be self-evident to non-Finns.

"...the north... where crofters were few or held a better social position."

Alongside

I'm not certain that "alongside" is the right word in the following; could someone have another look at the translation? Perhaps "along with" is meant, but even that doesn't sound quite right to me.

"After the Civil War, in 1919, a moderate Social Democrat, Väinö Voionmaa, wrote: "Those, who still trust in the future of this nation, must have an exceptionally strong faith. Alongside the war this young independent country has lost almost everything..."

Activist

Finally, the word "activist" has a capital letter in one place and not in another. I get the impression that this is the name for a political group rather than just a description of a political type in any party. A link went to the latter, but I removed it as unhelpful. If these activists were a specific political group, perhaps a phrase or note could be added to define them.

qp10qp 23:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Activists were not a political party, they were a group that arose by the Russian oppression since 1899 and were divided in many parties and larger political groups. The main thing was, that they urged for Finnish sovereingty via strong deeds, violence etc., and asked help first from Sweden and later from Germany (jjääkärit). Although the majority of the leaders and main organizers of activists were young university students (swedish speaking Finns and Finns) from the "upper class", there was some worker's activism also and that's why many members e.g. of the Jägerbataljon 27 trained in Germany originated from the "working class". The worker's activism had two goals; independency of Finland and social improvements and it had the strongest phase during 1899-1907 and diminished after the general strike in 1905, after universal suffrage and the parliament had been achieved. The national split finally broke the relations between activists and socialists (incl. worker's activists), non-sos. activists leaning to Germany and sos. to bolseviks. E.g few hundred jägers stayed in Germany during the Civil War as the jäger leaders were not sure whether those jägers would fight on the White side. Perhaps you could add some things to the art. yourself, by that the formulation in English would be ok immediately :) --Ilummeen 08:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. I note that you don't have a capital letter on "activists", so I shall go with that style. The trouble is that, as you know, "activists" with a small a is an unspecific word that can apply to any party, including those on the left, so "Conservatives and activists" isn't quite self-evident. I think this can be clarified with tiny changes, and so I will have a go. qp10qp 16:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Democratically elected" and other POV-pushing edits

I reverted a large set of changes by User:Kelstonian [1]. I believe his edits were an attempt at unfounded POV pushing. His main points:

1. Emphasizing that the white side (the Senate) was "democratically elected". I do not belive that it can be said that anyone in 1918 was democratically elected. The Grand Duchy was never a democracy, (although the election process itself was modern). A main issue of contention in 1918 was the legality of the dissolution of parliament in 1917 and the 1917 parliamentary elections. Basicly, it can be said, the whole issue in the war was "who had legitimacy in Finland" or in modern terms "who was democratically elected".
2. He has systematically replaced the term "Conservatives" with "non-socialists", stating that "It's wrong to call all non-socialists conservatives, e.g. Nuorsuomalaiset were rather liberal". This may be true, but I feel this choise of words was made to bring POV into the article, by giving additional legitimacy to the white side. The Young Finns were conservative compared to the Social Democrats, besides, I believe this word is an anacronism in the 1918 context.

This is a featured article. The fact that the article reached this status without any major edit wars or content disputes, is an indication, that in 90 years the Finns have been able to reach an consensus this once heated issue. Evidently User:Kelstonian does not want to share this consensus. -- Petri Krohn 06:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The elections of 1917 were democratic. If you make the unusual claim that they weren't then prove it. All non-socialists weren't conservative as you acknowledge. You're pushing your POV by intentionally including untrue statements in the article. The claim that Finland became independent 1918 following Germany's defeat in WWI is untrue and should not be included in the article. As a comparison, do you think Finland lost its independece after the YYA agreement with the Soviet Union after WWII? Including factually incorrect claims in order to maintain some weird political consensus is the wrong way to edit Wikipedia articles.--Kelstonian 07:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The claim made in 1917 was that they were illegal, thus by definition, not democratic. -- Petri Krohn 12:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Technically, the Parliament can be said to have acted illegally by not sending laws to Russia to be ratified, which would justify the dissolution of the Parliament. However, even if the dissolution was illegal, it would only make the dissolution undemocratic, not all elections that have been arranged since. There is no basis to call the elections of 1917 undemocratic any more than all the elections in Finland since that.--Kelstonian 19:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's sad to see that FCW still raises these one sided discussions. These edit wars are most frustrating and we all should try to keep in mind the results of the true historians. Those who are interested in FCW should check the list of References and the other scientific literature of the war published and READ them first and then make statements. I will not fall into long explanations concerning the discussion above; the question of conservatives versus and non-socialists may seem difficult but it is finally simple: the main power struggle was fought primarely between the socialists and "true" conservatives (the most powerfull part of the former estates of the class society), the latter had most to loose and the first mentioned most to gain. As the destruction of the Finnish society and the fight for power deepened part of the non-socialists (e.g. agrarian party, young finns) turned against the socialists. The question whether the elections were democratic or not is not as important as the fact that in the conditions of the Finnish society in 1917-1918 they (and the political "game" involved) served mainly as a means for struggle of power and the state. In 1917 the Finns were not, and simply could not be "mature" for true democracy and parliamentarism after a very long period of the former political system. We have to check all the changes made during this edit war and try to correct them first, but if the war continues without a true knowledge of the history, we just have to take off the FA-status of this article. --Ilummeen 09:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are absolutely correct that the initial struggle was between conservatives and socialists. But as socialists managed to antagonize moderate non-socialists (liberal young finns, agrarians), the parliamentary road for their demands was closed. Also it provided much needed mass to the war effort of the senate, which was critical in the opening stages of the conflict. The decision of moderate non-socialists to support senate changed the conflict from conservative vs. socialist to non-socialist vs. socialist. --Whiskey 09:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The guy's right... democratic legitimacy, or at least the perception of it, was a major factor in the White victory in Finland. I suggest checking either Mawdsley's "The Russian Civil War" or Richard Luckett's "The White Generals" for more information. Both are extremely well-written and worth the read. Bottom line is that the senate was elected and that this mattered for the amount of support that the Whites recieved in Finland. Compared to lack of legitimacy that other White forces struggled with, this Kelstonian guy's point is well-taken.

An issue of credibility

I find the credibility of user Kelstonian (talk · contribs · count) equal to zero. His contributions before this article, about 10 in all, have mainly been POV pushing attempts, with an anti-socialist, possibly anti-European POV. It is possible, if not likely, that he is a sock puppet of another (banned?) user. His user name suggests he is from Kelston, New Zeeland (or from Kelston, England), but he might as well be the infamous "Kven user". I suggest we find his sock master, if any, and take appropriate action. -- Petri Krohn 04:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You make false accusations in this personal attack. Please read and abide by WP:PA. It applies to everyone.--Kelstonian 14:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not making accusations, I am just voicing my suspicions. Saying that you are a liar, would be a personal attack, saying that I do not find you credibile is not. If you want to have some credibiliy, contribute something substantive. Come back here after a thousand more edits. -- Petri Krohn 18:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Harvard style references. Are you sure, you have only made 10 edits in Wikipedia before this article? -- Petri Krohn 06:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Political bias

The article is politically biased

1. claiming that all non-socialists including liberals were conservatives
2. implying that all supporters of a monarchy were against democracy
3. claiming that co-operation with Germany led to the loss of independence and that Finland became independent in 1918 (again?) after the German defeat in WWI
4. hiding the fact that the Senate had support of the Parliament elected in free and fair elections
5. claiming that Germany invaded Finland even though German troops were invited by the Senate

These issues should be solved to achieve a neutral point of view.--Kelstonian 16:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain the bias in a single sentence? As a non-Finn, I have to say that I can't see any bias in the article, particularly as there were so many factions. Which one is it biased towards? It seems to me that the article doesn't approve of anyone in this war. It shows, very subtly, I think, that both right and left were divided into smaller groups with various agendas. Note the complexity in a paragraph like this one:

The Conservatives and moderate non-socialists disagreed strongly on the best system of government for Finland to adopt: the former demanded monarchy and restricted parliamentarianism; the latter demanded full-scale democracy and social reforms. A new Senate, with a monarchist majority, was formed by J.K. Paasikivi, but with most Social Democrats excluded, it was not representative of the country as a whole. A major consequence of the 1918 conflict was the break up of the Finnish worker movement into three parts: moderate Social Democrats, left-wing socialists in Finland, and communists acting in Soviet-Russia with the support of the Bolsheviks.

At least five shades of opinion are covered there, possibly six or seven (it shows that even in such an unrepresentative parliament, there was a minority of non-monarchists). So it seems to me that the article goes out of its way not to paint things in black and white.

You have two choices: you must either request sources for information which you think isn't true, or you must submit alternative sources on this page for comparison. Those are the only ways to effectively challenge an article on Wikipedia. Asking for the article to be de-featured is beside the point. qp10qp 17:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is biased against the Senate and non-socialists for the reasons that I've listed. You probably agree that liberals shouldn't be called conservatives even if they don't support socialism. All non-socialists are lumped together as conservatives to push a socialist POV. The Senate of late 1917 included Young Finns, who were liberal. The other examples of bias I gave are clear to anyone familiar with Finnish history. Please specify which item you are unfamiliar with if you want further explanation.

Even the paragraph you included has problems. It implies that monarchies (e.g. Britain) and countries with restricted parliamentarism (e.g. USA) are not full-scale democracies. This is done to vilify conservatives supporting monarchy and restricted parliamentarism as being against democracy.

Governments in Western countries are typically formed by only some of the political parties represented in the parliament; the other parties form the opposition. Emphasizing that the Senate wasn't representative of the whole country because Social Democrats were in the opposition, is pushing a socialist POV.

So, even the paragraph you thought was fair is biased. Many other paragraphs in the article are far worse.--Kelstonian 18:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

For claim 1. see chapter February revolution 2nd paragraph, claim 4. see chapter Battle for leadership 1st paragraph and chapter October revolution 1st paragraph, claim 2. see e.g. Vares 1998, claim 3. see e.g. Upton 1981 II page 480, Keränen 1992 page 108 and chapter Bitter legacy, claim 5. see e.g. Upton 1980 II pages 118-121. I'm so much involved with the writing of this article that I cannot respond more to these claims. We need an "outsider" who knows the history of 1917-1918 perfectly and can estimate these questions as objectively as possible. --Ilummeen 19:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Replies to Ilummeen's replies

1. Calling various non-socialist factions by almost proper names in one paragraph doesn't justify calling them all Conservatives everywhere else.
2. I doubt Vares implies that all monarchists were against democracy. They certainly weren't.
3. The idea that Finland became independent December 1918 is certainly unusual and I very much doubt that any serious historian would make such a claim.
4. The support the Senate had from the Parliament should be mentioned in the lead paragraph as it briefly was before my edits were reverted. Now this point is hidden and watered down.
5. If Upton claims that Germany invaded Finland, he is denying the legitimacy of the Senate and is, therefore, biased against the non-socialists.--Kelstonian 20:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

For the conservatives versus moderate non-socialists see chapter Brothers in arms 3rd paragraph and chapter Bitter legacy 2nd paragraph and start reading the history books, thank you kindly. The txt does not say (or mean, hopefully there are no missunderstandings due to the language) that Finland complitely lost its independency because of German invasion, but clearly the country was less independent than without germans or russians in the country, and the full independency was reached after germans lost the war. It is clearly shown in the txt that the indenpendence day of the Finns is 6th December 1917. E.g. Upton shows the "requests for help"-policy that the germans used invading east europe (written in the txt in chapter German invasion), the russians used the same method in 1920's as they took the east european countries back to USSR. You make this "discussion" quite interesting. You can ofcourse have your own opinions of monarchy versus democracy, but it's clear that system planned by the monarchists in 1918 would have been less democratic than the one that was built before 1918 and after the defeat of the germans. --Ilummeen 21:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No matter how much I read history books it will not transform Young Finns into conservatives, let alone Conservatives. They were in the Senate both at the start of 1917 when it was led by Tokoi and at the end of 1917 under Svinhufvud. In fact, there was no Conservative Party in Finland in 1917, which may come as a surprise to people who have read the current version of the FCW article. There were conservatives but no Conservatives.

If the presence of foreign troops precludes full independence, then Finland has never been fully independent. There are foreign troops guarding embassies (e.g. US marines), there were German troops during WWII, Russian troops in Porkkala after WWII etc.

The intervention by German troops was an invasion only if the Senate that invited them is considered illegitimate. In that case all of its actions are also legally void including the declaration of independence. That would mean that Finland is still de jure part of Russia. We cannot consider the Senate led by Svinhufvud legitimate in all other Wikipedia articles and illegitimate here. If the Senate of December 1917 was illegitimate, you can call the German intervention an invasion, but then you have to remove Finland from the list of independent countries and consider it part of Russia because there has never been a legitimate declaration of independence. What you can't have, is the Senate illegitimate here for POV reasons and legitimate everywhere else. I hope all this repetition makes you understand the dilemma you face.--Kelstonian 00:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You can turn things upside down as much as you wish and read the txt as you want, but there are no major problems with moderate non-socialists versus conservatives in the txt if you read it carefully and know the history of 1917-1918. We can "open" the conservative/non-soc. side with the exact names of the parties but it will not change the large picture. As a specialist of the Young Finns you know that they were split during 1907-1916 to liberals (e.g. Ståhlberg, "varpuset") and conservatives (e.g. Castren, "pääskyt") part of them being very conservative. The "varpuset" were social-liberals while the "pääskyset" were economic-liberals and conservative, some very conservative, with less interest in the social questions. In addition, the varpuset orientated to Entente while pääskyt to Germany. The "old finnish party" members were strong conservatives or moderate conservatives. The most moderate one was infact the Agrarian party. Ofcourse during the split between the Finns, the Svinhufvud senate was the legimitate political leader of the White Finland as was the Peoples Delegation in the Red Finland. The problem of these two governments of a minor nation was that they had low relevance for Germany and Russia, which acted according to their own plans and for their own benefit. The Reds and Whites needed help against each other, and both of them caused severe risks to and decreased the sovereignty of the Finns by leaning to Germany or Russia, which utilized the situation of the Finns. In 1917-1918 Finland resembled in part Korea, Vietnam, Jugoslavia 1990's or Libanon in 1980's: a split and thus weak nation under the effect of major countries. The power of the Tsar had kept the split of the Finns under the carpet and it became open after destruction of Russia, and the breakdown of the Finnish society with loss of control wastly deepened all problems. Foreign troops guarding embassies compared with the facts of 1918 is really odd. The "help" from outside was especially dangerous as both Germany and Russia were among the strongest powers of Europe and in practice small nations like Finland would be unable to prevent their effects. In 1918 Russia was too weak to hold Finland, but it rose again 1920's-1930's. Germany was still stronger in 1918 and thus a bigger risk for the Finns. Historians have shown that Germans did not come just for a short "help visit", they planned quite other things. In the White Finland, according to Vares 1998, e.g. J.K. Paasikivi's opinion was that a small country like Finland could not stay independent between Russia and Germany. So they had to choose between "power circle" of the two mighty nations and Paasikivi's choice was ofcourse Germany. It truly was a choice and decision of a legimate senate of Finland, but it also truly decreased the sovereignty of the Finns. And infact the conservative part of the Youngs Finns were the most "German-minded" of the Finnish politicians; as P.E. Svinhufvud said: With God and Hindenburg we'll survive". It is quite typical in history, that you can see foreign troops in the capital cities of minor, split nations that cannot take care of their own things. This seems to be a fact that some Finns just cannot see. It is a fact that Russians in Porkkala and Germans in Lapland after and during WWII decreased indenpendecy of the Finns as did YYA-agreement between 1948-1991 also (just like the autonomy of Finland changed during 19th century). The future will show what happens with EU. The sovereignty of the Finns was largest during 1920-1939 (until november 1939) and immediately after the collapse of USSR in 1991-1992. In a way the history of 1917-1918 shows the natural weakness of a nation that had been under the rule of other countries for hundreds of years and that the Finns were not "mature" for democracy and parliamentarism after a long period of autocracy, combined with the shock and chaos due to the collapse of the society. --Ilummeen 08:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your civil behavior but you seem to miss the point. Since everyone seems to agree that not all non-socialists were conservatives, why insist on calling them that? What's wrong with the term non-socialist? The term Conservative with a capital letter should definitely not be used since there was no Conservative Party. In none of the English language literature have I seen the non-socialists of 1917-1918 lumped together as conservatives.

Your stance on the legitimacy of the Senate led by Svinhufvud seems contradictory. If I understood you correctly, your view is that it was the legitimate government of Finland in December 1917, lost its legitimacy in southern Finland some time in January 1918 and perhaps regained it later. That's a peculiar view not seen in standard texts on Finnish history. Such a stance is very difficult to justify with legal arguments.

The only place where I've seen the German intervention called an invasion is this article. For example in From Grand Duchy to a Modern State in the English translation of Seppo Hentilä's text, it is called an intervention, as it should be.

There are several books in English on Finnish history. I'll include some of them as sources. That way English speakers can check the accuracy of what's written here. It's probably also good to use established translations found in those texts for Finnish terms. I already changed the Protection Guards to Civil Guards used e.g. in From Grand Duchy to a Modern State and David Kirby's A Concise History of Finland. It is also used in this abstract of a dissertation in the University of Tampere--Kelstonian 23:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

See and read my comments in chapter ""Democratically elected" and other POV pushing" and chapter "Political bias" (more txt added to my last comment of "political bias" on 19th January 2007). --Ilummeen 07:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

FAR nomination removed

Please follow the instructions at FAR; I've delisted the nomination, which is archived here. Pls approach FAR 3 months after article's promotion date if issues aren't resolved. Thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The Finnish Civil War in Literature

Should we add a section on the description on the FCW in literature? Or should this be covered someplace else? Books like Hurskas kurjuus by Frans Eemil Sillanpää and Under the North Star by Väinö Linna have been crucial in forming an understanding of the war, maybe more than any work by professional historians. -- Petri Krohn 19:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea, but we should notice that Linna's role was important in OPENING the discussion in Finland toward a more neutral and history science based view. When his books were published there was a lot of missleading, politically coloured writing against them. But on the other side, after they became largely accepted, as often happens, Linna's text finally became the only "story", even the only "true history" and finally almost "a bible" that could not be critizised. Since 1990's some young historians and writers, not afraid of these "giants", have opened new discussions, which are fortunately now based on historical facts. I think that you can add the info in this article, unless it is now changed to aspects of legitimacy and legal aspects by an active user. It is certain that e.g. I have made misstakes in my writing, but still I think that at least the large view is near correct in this subject of multiple levels and views. If we start looking history only from the legal point of view e.g. also World War I and the revolt of Russia in March 1917 were "illegal", even if via them Finns got independence and large parts of Europe changed markedly. --Ilummeen 15:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"Achieved sovereignty"

The lead stated that Finland "achieved sovereignty" on 6 December 1917. I changed this to "declared independence" because, as the article makes clear, it took quite some time before Finland became actually sovereign. Mikko H. 12:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:Ilummeen, that the FCW decreased rather than increased Finnish sovereignty. So, from the point of view of this article, Finland achieved sovereignty between December 1917 and January 1918. -- Petri Krohn 05:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Voting percentages?

When mentioning the parliamentary elections of 1916 and 1917, should the voting percentages be discussed? In 1916 it was 55,5% and in 1917 69,2%. As a result some historians (at least Vihavainen) have argued that the parliament elected in 1917 better represented the Finnish people and thus undermines the socialist claims of the time that the dissolving of the old parliament was somehow 'anti-popular' move. Mikko H. 12:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is already too long and in some respects too detailed. In the English article the main thing is to show the large view, so those voting-% and even the number of seats are unnecessary. It's clear that during the power struggle between the left and right there were several political claims and accusations against each other; the right claimed that the left made a coup d'etat by the Power act, and the left that the right made a "counter-coup d'etat" with the Provisional government in August 1917. The left claimed that the formation of private civil guards during summer 1917 was a militant act against the parliament with socialist majority (the left forming the worker guards). In late autumn the right claimed that the red guards were a militant act against the parliament with bourgeois majority, the civil guards as it's army, etc., etc....., the major factor being that the Finns were unable to make compromises in 1917-1918. --Ilummeen 06:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Reading help

how do you pronounce Pehr Evind Svinhufvud, audio would be sweet but just phonetic spelling would work SpeakThings:Mellerbeck 04:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My Swedish is really bad, but I quess: Per (or a with dots Pär) Evin Svinhuvuud, in Finnish you mainly pronounce the letters as typed (i is i not ei or ai), but in Swedish -er may be -är. Somebody with better knowl. might help you. --Ilummeen 05:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Or if you're English try Pear ( as in the fruit) Svin Hoof-Vood the last syllable to rhyme with wood.;) Jatrius (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Prose degradation

I thought I'd check the text over before it goes onto the main page. All featured articles are apt to deteriorate slightly over time, but I feel slightly dismayed at the amount of degradation to the prose since the article became featured not so long ago. A few errors of English are understandable, but many of the changes to the language have not just degraded the prose but reduced the clarity. I find I can't simply go through and copy-edit because I am not clear what meaning is intended at many points by the changes. I should say that I don't care a jot about who were conservatives, agrarians, or whatever, but too often what has been removed from sentences is the syntactical logic of parallelism and matching parts. For example, I think we can say "social democrats and conservatives" or "Social Democrats and Conservatives" (the former referring to general groups, the second to named political groups), but we cannot say "Social Democrats and conservatives".

Anyway, I've decided to compare how some passages and sentences looked on November 29 and how they look now. I hope colleagues Ilummeen and Pudeo may be able to comment. I hope to copy-edit the parts I'm concerned about according to their suggestions:

Then: The war was fought from 27 January 1918 to 15 May 1918, between the forces of Finland's Social Democrats led by the Red Peoples Delegation of Finland, commonly called the "Reds" (punaiset), and the forces of the conservative Senate, commonly called the "Whites" (valkoiset).

Now: The war was fought from 27 January to 15 May, 1918, between the forces called the "Reds" (punaiset) led by the People's Deputation of Finland under the control of the Finnish Social Democrats, and the forces called the "Whites" (valkoiset), led by the Senate of Vaasa representing the Senate of Finland formed by the bourgeois parties.

• The balance of the sentence has been interfered with here and the parts no longer match: we've got "under the control of" on the one hand and "representing" on the other. We have the A led by the B under the control of the C; against the A led by the B representing the C formed by the D. The result is impenetrable prose. Could someone explain what is meant by all these extra terms with which the construction is now overloaded?

Then: The Reds were supported by Bolshevist Russia, while the Whites received military assistance from the German Empire and Swedish volunteers.

Now: The Red Finland forces were supported by Bolshevist Russia, and the White Finland forces by the German Empire and Swedish volunteers.

• What was intended by the change here? If "military assistance" is omitted, the German Empire and Swedish volunteers can no longer be combined in this way, because the implication must then be "political support". The support of Swedish volunteers could hardly be mentioned in the same breath as the support of the German Empire, unless we are to read "Sweden" there.

Then: The Social Democrats on the left and Conservatives on the right competed for the leadership of the Finnish state.

Now The Social Democrats on the left and conservatives on the right competed for the leadership of the Finnish state; the leading political position shifted from the socialists to the conservatives and bourgeois in 1917.

• I've raised the question of capital letters already. What is meant by "the leading political position"? If merely "leadership" is meant, we should say that. "from the socialists to the conservatives and bourgeois" unbalances a sentence which began with two elements and now ends with three. Are these "conservatives and bourgeois" political groups or groups of groups? And are they mutually exclusive or do they overlap?

Then: An atmosphere of political violence and fear grew among the Finns. Fighting broke out in late January 1918 after the Conservative senate named the White Guards as the official army of Finland and the Red Guards rose against them.

Now: An atmosphere of political violence and fear grew among the Finns; turmoil of the general strike in November 1917 led, as a major political turning point, to a military escalation. Finland achieved formal sovereignty on 6 December 1917, but the civil war broke out in late January 1918; the bourgeois Senate named the White Guards as the official army of Finland and the Red Guards rose against them.

• I find this almost impossible to understand now. What is it trying to say? The language is strange. Why "turmoil"? The word should have a definite article at least and start a new sentence. We need to separate political turning points from military escalations and not force a sentence to say too many things at once. The general strike, it seems to me, has been mentioned elsewhere and doesn't have to be intruded into this sentence. The sentence gives the impression that military action broke out sooner than it did. Is this bourgeois senate the same as the conservative senate? I'd like to cut all this new stuff back out, but would any important information be lost?

Then: The legacy of the war was that the hegemony of Russia was diminished in Finland and the political system transferred to monarchy.

Now: The legacy of the turmoil was that the hegemony of Russia was diminished while the hegemony of Germany increased in Finland, and the political system transferred to monarchy.

• Why "turmoil" now? "Turmoil" really doesn't work here; it is not a structured enough state of affairs to produce a legacy; the legacy was produced not only by turmoil but by the war as a whole, including deliberate acts of government and diplomacy.

Then: After the defeat of the German Empire in World War I, Finland became an independent democratic republic.

Now After the defeat of the German Empire in World War I, Finland became a fully independent democratic republic, orientated to West Europe.

• By adding such clunky qualifiers, the whole sentence becomes unnecessarily complex for me as a reader. What is the significance of "fully" here? (You're either independent or you are not.) What does "oriented" mean in this context? What was "West Europe"? (Is "western Europe" intended?) Did it include Germany? Does this mean "democratic Europe"? What is gained here except fuzziness?

Then: The left comprised mainly Social Democrats, covering a wide spectrum from moderate to revolutionary socialists; on the right, the Conservatives were even more diverse, with far rightist and moderate groups, an economic conservative party, a Swedish party, a moderate ("centrist") agrarian party, and some radical activist elements included.

Now: Social Democrats covered a wide spectrum from moderate to revolutionary socialists. The right was more diverse, formed by cadre parties with the heritage of the class system and the first period of Russification. The members of the Old Finns party and the Swedish People's Party (representing the Swedish-speaking minority), were rightist or moderate conservatives. The parties of the right included some radical activist elements which gained increasing relevance, with the radical socialists, as the ensuing power struggle between the two sides contributed to a breakdown in Finnish society during 1917-1918.

• If they include a "wide spectrum" of opinion, how can the right be "more diverse"? (the problem arises because "even" has been cut.). What does the following mean: "formed by cadre parties with the heritage of the class system..."? I don't think English speakers will recognise the term "cadre parties". What does "with the heritage" mean? ("political descendents of"?}. "The members of Old Finns party... Who are these all of a sudden? That whole sentence really says nothing understandable to me in this context. "with the radical socialists": what's this sub-clause about? "gained increasing relevance"? Is this saying that both the radical activist elements and the radical socialists came to the fore during the ensuing power struggles? If so, "activists" needs to be explained: in English, that term, without a capital letter, is vague enough to apply to workers for both left and right. The passage seems to have turned into an opaque shambles. No mention of the bourgeois parties here; or are these cadre ones the bourgeois ones?

Then: In theory, the Senate’s cabinet consisted of a broad coalition, containing six Social Democrats and six Conservatives; in practice, with the main political groups unwilling to compromise and the most experienced politicians remaining outside, the cabinet proved unable to solve any major local Finnish problems.

Now: In theory, the cabinet consisted of a broad, and in Finnish conditions historical coalition but in practice, with the main political groups unwilling to compromise and the most experienced politicians remaining outside, the members of the Senate proved to be "scapegoats" and unable to solve any major Finnish problems.

• What does this piece of not-English mean: "in Finnish conditions historical coalition but in practice..."? What is meant by "Finnish conditions"? As opposed to what conditions? Is the intended meaning "unprecedented in Finnish history"? You can't prove to be a "scapegoat"; you are used as a "scapegoat". The last part combines two uncombinable elements.

Then: Both the Finnish Conservatives and the Russian Provisional Government opposed the "Power Act" because it reduced their political power.

Now: The Agrarian Union and part of the bourgeois politicians most eager for Finnish sovereignty, including many activists, supported the socialist's act; but both the Finnish conservatives and the Russian Provisional Government opposed the "Power Act" because it reduced their political power.

• The added part here is incomprehensible to someone unfamiliar with the minutiae of Finnish political history. "part of the bourgeois politicians"? Does this mean "Some of"? The word "bourgeois" confuses me again here. Which socialist are we talking about here (I've forgotten who the leader was at this point) Or does this refer to the socialists in plural? The conservatives haven't been named here, for once.

Then: In order to force political concessions, the Social Democrats called for a general strike on 14-19 November. At this moment, Lenin and the Bolsheviks, under threat in St Petersburg, urged the Social Democrats to seize power in Finland; but the majority of Social Democrats were moderate and preferred parliamentary methods, prompting Lenin to label them “reluctant revolutionaries”. When the general strike appeared to be successful, the “Workers’ Revolutionary Council” voted by a narrow majority to seize power on November 16 at 5 a.m. The supreme revolutionary “Executive Committee”, however, was unable to recruit enough members to carry out the plan and had to call the proposed revolution off at 7 p.m. the same day. The incident, "the shortest revolution", effectively split the Social Democrats in two, a majority supporting parliamentary means and a minority demanding revolution. The repercussions of the event had a lasting effect on the future of the movement, with several powerful leaders now staking positions within the party.[19]

The Finnish Parliament supported the Social Democratic proposals for an eight-hour working day and universal suffrage in local elections on 16 November 1917. During the strike, however, radical elements of the Workers’ Security Guards executed several political opponents in the main cities of southern Finland; and the first armed clashes between Protection Guards and Workers’ Guards broke out, with thirty-four reported casualties. The Finnish Civil War would probably have started at that point had there been enough weapons in the country to arm the two armies; instead there began a race for weapons and a final escalation towards war.[20]

Now Instead the Social Democrats aimed at asking for an independence manifest for Finland from the Bolsheviks, but the uncertain situation in Petrograd prevented the plan. In fact, Lenin's demands and pressure on the Finns was an empty gesture as he had to ask for help to St. Petersburg from the reliable Russian troops located in Finland. The socialists decided to call for a general strike on 14-19 November 1917 due to the loss of parliamentary power in the October elections; the moderate socialists aiming at forcing political concessions, while the radical minority urged for seizing power. The strike was a success with 84 000 workers joining it and giving socialists a comprehensive control over major industrial centres in the country. Finally, the “Workers’ Revolutionary Council” voted by a narrow majority to seize power on 16 November at 5 a.m. However, the supreme revolutionary “Executive Committee” was unable to recruit enough qualified leaders to carry out the plan, and had to call the proposed revolution off at 7 p.m. the same day. The incident, "the shortest revolution", effectively split the Social Democrats in two, a majority supporting parliamentary means and a minority demanding revolution. The repercussions of the event had a lasting effect on the future of the movement, with some powerful leaders now staking positions within the party, and the party leadership losing part of its authority and ability to control the labor movement since the turmoil of the strike.

The new Finnish Parliament, partially as a consequence of the pressure of the general strike, ratified on 16 November the laws of an eight-hour working day and universal suffrage in local elections, but due to the increasing split between the Finns, a purely bourgeois cabinet was appointed on 27 November 1917. ...

• What's an "independence manifest"? Was Lenin asking these troops to help him or the Finnish bolsheviks? Why did he ask for help to St Petersburg? (Was he not there already?) Why "reliable troops"? Were there "unreliable troops" in Finland? ("demands and presssures was" is wrong English.) The earlier version made a clear link between the strike and Stalin's urging: that made sense, but now the order of events is unclear to me. "The repercussions of the event had a lasting effect on the future of the movement, with some powerful leaders now staking positions within the party, and the party leadership losing part of its authority and ability to control the labor movement since the turmoil of the strike.." As far as I can see, this makes a horrible mess of what was precise before, the addition being entirely redundant as well as in bad English.

The modifying clause that follows "but" in the last paragraph above seems to me nothing to do with what came before. I am having to guess the connection. What is the link between this "bourgeois cabinet" and these laws? Did politicians rebel against the laws?

Then: The Social Democrats had supported independence since spring 1917, but now they could not use it for the direct political benefit of their party and had to adjust to Conservative dominance in the country.

Now: The Social Democrats had supported independence since spring 1917, but now they could not use it for the direct political benefit of their party and had to adjust to conservative and bourgeois dominance in the country.

• "Bourgeois" dominance is added, as if to distinguish ot from conservative dominance. But we've never yet been told what the difference was and so we are in the dark about this addition.

Then: As a result, the Finns came away with Lenin’s concession of sovereignty on December 31.

Now As a result, the delegation of the Senate, led by P.E. Svinhufvud, in Petrograd came away with Lenin’s concession of sovereignty on 31 December, 1917.

• Is this change because Finns don't believe these people deserved the name Finns? It's certainly a mighty uglier sentence now. The article mustn't suddenly call this city Petrograd unless it intends to do so throughout.

Then: The Conservatives and their activists feared that the groups of radical workers seen during the strike would threaten the security of the former estates, so they resolved to use any means necessary, including armed force, to defend themselves.

Now: The conservatives and the activists realized that the groups of radical workers seen during the strike really threatened the dominance and security of the former estates, so they resolved to use any means necessary, including armed force, to defend themselves.

• "The conservatives and the activists..." makes no sense on its own unless the "activists" are defined. In English, the word "activist" means nothing on its own unless we know what cause they are activists for. If "activist" had a capital A, we might assume it was a political group. But if, like "conservative" and "bourgeois" it remains a general term for a group of groups, then it gives no political information. I remember raising this before, and must have misunderstood what was intended.

Then: At the same time, the conservative Senate and the Parliament decided on 12 January 1918 to create a strong police authority, an initiative which the Worker's Security Guards saw as a step towards legalizing the White Guards.

Now: At the same time, the Svinhufvud's Senate and the Parliament decided on 12 January 1918 to create a strong police authority, an initiative which the Worker's Security Guards saw as a step towards legalizing the White Guards.

• We can't say "the Svinhufvud's Senate", which is non-English. We could say "Svinhufhud's Senate" or "the Svinhufvud Senate".

Then: A section of the Conservatives had always been against democracy; others had approved parliamentarianism at first but after the crisis of 1917 and the outbreak of war had concluded that empowering the common people would not work.

Now A section of the conservatives had always been against democracy; others had approved parliamentarianism at first but after the crisis of 1917 and the outbreak of war they concluded that power of the common people should be reduced.

• I wonder why the sentence has been turned from a good one into a clunky one (I see no difference in meaning). If this is to stand we need a comma after "at first" (because a comma should precede restatement of a subject and is omitted for a compound predicate—a principle little grasped on Wikipedia), and we need an article before "power".

Then: The German government promptly decided to teach Russia a lesson and, after inviting “requests for help” from the smaller countries west of Russia as an excuse for aggression, attacked Russia on 18 February. Finland had duly asked for help on 14 February.

Now The German government promptly decided to teach Russia a lesson and, after inviting “requests for help” from the smaller countries west of Russia as an excuse for aggression, attacked Russia on 18 February. Representatives of the Vaasa Senate in Berlin asked for help, according to the advice by the German leaders, on 14 February. The Finns agreed to pay all costs of the German expedition coming to Finland.[42]

• Is this another issue of not wanting Finland to seem responsible for anything done in its name during the war? I think the result is clunky, but can be made smoother even with this extra information, by changing the order so that the cart doesn't come before the horse (the "had" form would be hard to make elegant over two sentences).

Then: A major consequence of the 1918 conflict was the break up of the Finnish worker movement into three parts: moderate Social Democrats, left-wing socialists in Finland, and communists acting in Soviet-Russia with the support of the Bolsheviks.[49]

Now A major consequence of the 1918 conflict was the break up of the Finnish labor movement into three parts: moderate Social Democrats, led by Väinö Tanner, and left-wing socialists in Finland; and communists acting in Soviet-Russia with the support of the Bolsheviks.

• See how small changes can wreck a sentence? Why is this one group suddenly required to have a leader's name? It should be none or all, for balance.

Then: On 9 October the monarchist Senate chose a German prince, Friedrich Karl, brother-in-law of German Emperor William II, to be the King of Finland—and Finland became a monarchist state.

Now: Finally, the monarchist Senate and the incompletely represented parliament, under the pressure by Germany, chose a German prince, Friedrich Karl, brother-in-law of German Emperor William II, to be the King of Finland on 9 October 1918—and Finland became a monarchist state.

• The sentence has been murdered by commas. Could we say "the unrepresentative parliament"? We also require "under pressure from Germany". Does the movement of the date mean that he became king on that day rather than that they chose him on that day?

New: He was supported by a defender of the Finnish republic Santeri Alkio, the leader of the Agrarian Union; and there were politicians among the moderate Finnish conservatives too, such as Lauri Ingman, who in the end backed up the democratic means.

• What does "who in the end backed up the democratic means" mean? Does it mean, "who in the end backed democratic decisions"? Or perhaps "who supported a return to full democracy"? It's difficult to tell.

New: Kajava faced the horrors of the Battle of Tampere at the age of nine years as "crippled fledgings of the destroyed nests of his hometown, wearing the coats of their dead fathers".

• It's a shame to see this uncited addition to a well-referenced featured article. It's very problematic as it stands because the reader can't even tell whether this is a quotation from Kajava or from something written about him (if this was by him, why does it say "his" hometown, instead of "my")?

Well, I have asked too many questions for anyone to reasonably answer. I will try to copyedit as much of this as I can tomorrow because I think it would be a shame to go on the front page with too much of the above in place.

qp10qp 00:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

These were mostly added because of the recent "NPOV-problems", Talk:Finnish Civil War#Political bias as they were brought up by user Kelstonian. See also the edit notes, should help. I can't comment more on the questions, but generally seems the changes had some idea, but of course you should atleast fix the grammar and language. --Pudeo (Talk) 00:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think the edits have brought anything of value to the article. In most cases I would revert to the older version. I also propose a systematic use of "Conservative", with a capital C. -- Petri Krohn 01:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I support the systematic use of the word "non-socialist" as opposed to "Conservative". In my experience the word "Conservative" is normally used in English to refer to some specific conservative party, so it can be misleading. I also believe that the word "non-socialist" better highlights the dividing line, which left liberals and social reformist agrarians on the same side as conservatives. --Jouten 15:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am going to try to turn the additions into better English wherever I can. But if I do not understand them, I will have to take them out. People may appraise them on this talk page, and if I make a mistake, they can try again themselves, hopefully taking my comments into account. qp10qp 02:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

When the article was edited by RelHistBuff last autumn he decided to change non-socialist term that I had mainly used to Conservatives. Later I have gone through the most relevant history books written in Finnish (listed in the Bibliography of this article also) and found that 90-95 % of them use term bourgoise and only few non-socialist, I quess mainly because the latter is considered non-NPOV. In the latest, and very higly valued publications of Ph.D Vesa Vares dealing with 1917-1918 the term conservative (small c !) is mainly used. Vares is the main historian today studying conservatism in Finland. Term bourgeoise is NPOV and a general expression for the right (non-socialist), conservatives were perhaps more on right of them and those closer to the political center were called liberals. For English reader's this is of course difficult as their are used to a simple Conservative-Democrat or Conserv.-Labour division and thus cannot see the multiple levels of Finnish freedom and democracy. The major fight for power was between socialists and conservatives. I'm truly negatively surprised that qp10qp wakes up now for the changes that I had to make due to to the politically biased right-wing user Kelstonian already in January 2007. You joined the discussion with Kelstonian in the disc. page and saw clearly what he was aiming at. I was left almost alone defending the original form of the FA-article with my bad English. The only thing that I thought was a proper change by Kelstonian was small c instead of C in conservatives as there truly was no conserv. party in Finland 1917-1918. It's obvious that you knew already in January that e.g. Social democrat vs. conservative was a wrong expression, why did you not react when I decided to to change all Conservatives to conservatives in Jan ??!!. It's most redicilous that now all these changes are made in haste a night before the art. is on the front page. It is certain that there will be now more misstakes even in the hist. facts. Still you had the time in January, all of February and most of March to correct my many misstakes in English. My honest goal is to make a NPOV-article, but I'm not a professional historian, so I'm uncertain of myself and therefore I made all those changes to avoid "socialist non-NPOV" that I was accused by Kelstonian. These experiences of Wikipedia have been most frustrating to me; first attacks by politicians and then by editors. Im really hurt for words shame and murder of the txt used by qp10qp. I have decided to stop all writing here; freedom of Wiki may be nice but disasterous if responsibility is not involved in the work. I'm truly afraid how the artcile looks tomorrow 26th March. --Ilummeen 17:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Re Vesa Vares, a spot of googling revealed a couple of instances in which he has used the term "non-socialist" when writing about the Civil War era:

"Activism, Normalization or Noli Me Tangere? The view of the Finnish non-socialist circles on the political role of Russia in 1917-1922" [2]

"...declaration of independence 4.12.1917, accepted by the non-Socialist majority of the Parliament on 6.12.1917." [3] (PDF)

As such, I'm not sure he can be cited in favour of using the word "conservative".

Also, it's entirely true that in Finnish-language writing the term "porvarillinen" ("bourgeois") dominates. The issue, however, is whether the best translation for that term is "conservative" or "non-socialist". I'd argue for the latter, since liberal and centrist parties certainly are counted as "bourgeois". --Jouten 21:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks qp10qp for the edist. If there is something factual and relevant now missing from this article, it could be moved to Finnish Socialist Workers' Republic, that article needs expanding. -- Petri Krohn 19:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Ilummeen, a colleague I revere as the exceptional brain behind this outstanding article, I admit that I should have kept my eye on this article all along and I apologise for not doing so. On the other hand, there is no need to overreact since my edits today are a combination of restoring text to that which won it FA status and working into the text the information added since then where I feel it doesn't blur the clarity of the writing. When I said that a sentence had been murdered by commas, this was just a figure of speech and not a reference to the whole text. The expression "it would be a shame" is quite a mild idiom in English and is not intended other than mildly.

I too have checked out some sources to find out about the names of the groups and parties, and usage varies. But what I must make clear is that the use of terms such as "conservative, bourgeois and activist" without capitals invites the readers to interpret them simply as generalised groups and not as political groups—which is fine in some places but not in others. My reading tells me that "bourgeois" is never used with a capital in this context and refers to a broad range of groups which may or may not overlap or subsume others. Some books, however, use both a capital C and a small c for conservatives. At present, the article follows this principle, with bourgeois as a general term and conservative either as a specific political group with a capital or a political tendency without. I would ask Finnish editors to realise that the general readership of this page is not going to be interested in tiny nuances of Finnish groupings, particularly when they are so difficult to understand; what an encyclopedia needs is language which generalises as accurately as possible. We can all understand the difference between right and left and what moderates and conservatives are; too much detail beyond that and the article will become obscure.

By the way, on the question of non-socialist versus conservative, I have made no comment or edit, because I know nothing about that. My edits today preserved the use of the words conservative and bourgeois, despite my concerns in the above list of remarks, and so that should not be much of an issue either. It depresses me though that after so much close reading of this article, I still don't really know what the latter term means precisely.

The Finnish language dictionary "Suomen kielen perussanakirja" (2004) by Haarala et al. defines the term "bourgeois" ("porvarillinen" in Finnish) as "right-wing or centrist". A bourgeois person ("porvari") is described as a "member or supporter of a right-wing or centrist party, a non-socialist". That's the current definition of what the term means in political contexts. --Jouten 22:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's very interesting; many thanks. The word, being French, is usually vague in English, and it would be perfectly possible to be socialist and bourgeois or liberal and bourgeois (think Tony Blair). I will use this information to add a phrase of clarification to the article, because many English-speaking readers would never think of reading the generalised term "bourgeois" as "right wing or centrist". qp10qp 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, it's perfectly possible to be liberal and bourgeois (according to the Finnish political meaning). The liberals in the Young Finnish Party for example were certainly considered to be bourgeois. The historical political divide, which was brought to focus in the Finnish Civil War, was between parties that had their roots in the labour movement on the left and parties ranging from liberal to conservative in the bourgeois camp. --Jouten 10:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I note that Ilummeen's edit summary insisted on the word "Manifest", but I must tell him that such a word does not exist in English except as an adjective or a list of customs goods, and so I feel I was justified in cutting it from the article. Perhaps (I can't find this in the dictionary) the word has a special meaning in relation to this subject, but the general reader can't be expected to know that. All specialist words on Wikipedia should be explained in articles or they will be meaningless, as this one was to me. qp10qp 21:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

On the precise point, Ilummeen says this in his edit summary: "Plans of application of a Manifest for independency by the socialists in November is a historical fact that cannot be missed in txt!"

I am taking this seriously, because I trust Ilummeen entirely on this and only cut the sentence because it wasn't clear, not on grounds of accuracy. If it's important, we must find a way to say it.

"Instead the Social Democrats aimed at asking for an independence manifest for Finland from the Bolsheviks, but the uncertain situation in Petrograd prevented the plan."

Does it mean something like: "Instead, the Social Democrats intended to ask the Bolsheviks for a written commitment to Finnish independence"?

qp10qp 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suspect he meant to use the word "manifesto". --Jouten 10:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Aha! (May I say your comments and edits are exceptionally helpful.) I have found a book on Google Books (Hentilea et al) which uses that word: "As their counter-proposal, the Social Democrats put forward a manifesto entitled “We demand” which among other things asked for Finland's freedom to be safeguarded by an agreement with Russia." Put like that, "manifesto" makes sense (I had dismissed the possibility of "manifesto" because you don't plan to ask for a manifesto from someone else, as the article had suggested).

Does that then refer to this part in the article: "The Senate, led by Pehr Evind Svinhufvud, proposed Finland's declaration of independence, which the Parliament adopted on 6 December 1917.[22] Though the Social Democrats voted against the Svinhufvud proposal, they decided to present an alternative declaration of independence containing no substantial differences."

If so, then it will be extremely easy to dovetail the detail about the manifesto into the article. But the way things stood before, as may be seen from the extract I quoted in my list of objections higher up, left it unclear what this "manifest" related to or what moment in the sequence of events it occurred.

Unfortunately, no other book that I can access through Google uses the expression "manifesto" in this context or goes into any detail about precisely where this fitted, so I'd be grateful for any clarification before making a restorative edit based on Hentilea. qp10qp 15:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The material is now back in place with a coherent wording. qp10qp 21:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Finnish Civil War/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article has been indentified as a featured article. It has also passed an A-Class review. --Pudeo (Talk) 17:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 17:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)