Talk:Communist Party of Estonia (1990)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

notability[edit]

The party was definately a notable grouping at the time of 1990, around the dissolution of the Soviet Union. --Soman (talk) 07:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of Estonia (1990) such a thing never existed, there was Communist Party of Estonia and they never had any other names. That the party split in 1990's is another story, but the part under discussion here still was called Communist Party of Estonia nothing else. The second part, the splitters in 90's, the reformist communists renamed themselves into Estonian Democratic Labour Party. There is nothing more to this. Sorry but this here is a weird POV fork, similar to one of these originally created by the sock-puppet master User:Bloomfield (please see the edit history). If anything than the article should be redirected to Intermovement instead. --Termer (talk) 07:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. The article has been misusing sources, the source clearly says that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union: CPSU was outlawed in Estonia, exactly like in Russia BTW, not the Communist Party of Estonia (ECP)--Termer (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the source, it says "On August22, the Estonian government outlawed the CPSU, saying that the party was illegal within Estonia because it had not been registered. The government also ordered the prosecutor to begin investigations about the activities of the ECP (CPSU platform)." The "independent ECP mentioned is the party that became the EDTP. It becomes rather weird to claim that the ECP(CPSU)/EKP(NLKP) never existed, EKP(NLKP) and EKP/EDTP were two separate parties. Note that EKP(NLKP) was formed through a split from the EKP, i.e. it was a separate party from the Communist Party of Estonia. '1990' is a disambiguation, in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties). --Soman (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bloomfield did not create this article, I did. It was certainly not intended as a fork of any kind, but a separate article for a separate party. Bloomfield screwed up the edit history through some odd moves, the original edit history can be found at [1]. --Soman (talk) 08:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ECP(CPSU)/EKP(NLKP) existed the moment ECP was united with and became the regional party of the CPSU in 1940 after the Soviet takeover of Estonia. In 1990 Estonian reformist communists split from CPSU or ECP(CPSU)/EKP(NLKP) and called themselves the labor party EKP/(EDTP) but the ECP(CPSU)/EKP(NLKP) just continued it's existence like it was so since 1940. It was not a new party or a different one. Hope thats more clear.--Termer (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, there are multiple ways to look at this issue. EKP was founded in 1920. In 1940 it was unified into the CPSU, and became the regional party wing of CPSU in Estonia. After the unification with CPSU, EKP continued to regard itself as founded in 1920, and its congresses were counted from 1920 onwards, not 1940. I had previously raised, at Talk:Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union#Separate_articles, whether articles on national communist parties who were merged into CPSU should differentiate between pre-Soviet and Soviet periods into separate articles. I can't say that there was a major discussion, but the feedback at that time was that there should not be an arbitrary split between pre-1940 and post-1940 when it comes to the Baltic Communist parties.
In 1990 there was a split in the EKP. EKP broke away from CPSU, whilst EKP(NLKP platvormil) broke away from EKP. Thus there was a split in double sense. EKP(NLKP platvormil) would certainly portray themselves as inheritors of the political legacy of EKP, but that is not to say that there was an organizational continuation. EKP did disaffiliate itself, through majority decision, from the Soviet mother party. The order of the wiki articles should stress, imho, the continuation from EKP founded in 1920, merged into CPSU in 1940, and disaffiliated in 1990. What would be interesting for the improvement of this article is references on the early relations between EKP(NLKP platvormil) and the CPSU. Did EKP(NLKP platvormil) overtake EKP's role as the regional party branch immediately? What representation did the party have in the CPSU structure. --Soman (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but ...whilst EKP(NLKP platvormil) broke away from EKP is very much a misunderstanding at best. The "EKP(NLKP platvormil)" basically means CPSU's Estonian branch AKA Communist Party of Estonia that was united with CPSU in 1940. You can't brake away from yourself. You can only look at Estonian Democratic Labour Party as a brakeaway party from the "EKP(NLKP platvormil)".
RE Did EKP(NLKP platvormil) overtake EKP's role as the regional party branch immediately? They didn't have to take over the role, they were the CPSU/NLKP's regional party branch ECP/EKP, it was the Estonian Democratic Labour Party that declared independence from and broke away from "EKP(NLKP platvormil)"
What representation did the party have in the CPSU structure? They were members of the CPSU structure since ECP/"EKP(NLKP platvormil)" was a part of CPSU/NLKP.
When CPSU was banned by Jeltisn, that was the end of CPSU/NLKP and "EKP(NLKP platvormil)." I don't know how to make it more clear than that.--Termer (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notwhitstanding that there might have been differences between Estonia and Lithuania, but gives a wording similar to my argument. LKP broke with CPSU, "while the orthodox communists established their own party, LKP-TSKP (Lithuanian Communist Party on CPSU platform, pro-Moscow communists)". --Soman (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another Lithuanian example, "It also banned the hard-line breakaway Communist Party, which called itself the Lithuanian Communist Party of the CPSU Platform". --Soman (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This book gives an account of the 20th EKP congress and the following split. Some material from this text could be used in this article as well as the Communist Party of Estonia article. --Soman (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This book gives an account of the participation of EKP(NLKP) in the 1990 Soviet election. --Soman (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, also "Lithuanian Communist Party on CPSU platform" doesn't mean anything else than CPSU's regional unit in Lithuania called LCP that existed since 1940. You can't called it a new party or a newly established party since they just continued their party line and policies, kept their membership cards like it used to be etc. Unlike the others, the majority of local communists that declared the Estonian/Latvian/Lithuanian communist parties independent from CPSU and therefore where not any more "on CPSU platform". The confusion must have started from the point when the conservative communists declared that they are not going to join the independent regional Communist parties. It doesn't men that they "established their own party" since it was there already unlike the parties that split away from CPSU and became known as independent ECP, LCP. Now, once more, since all the parties "on CPSU platform" were not separate parties but parts of CPSU, these facts should belong to relevant articles and this one should be merged, redirected, etc. --Termer (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Termer, "EKP(NLKP platvormil)" is considered a Rump organization that was originally created in 1940. I suggest this article be renamed Communist Party of Estonia (1940), or Communist Party of Estonia (CPSU) to distinguish it from the original indigenous party formed in 1920. Martintg (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep it simple and list the facts in relevant articles, meaning Communist Party of Estonia as a separate party (even though it was still a part of Comintern) was established in 1920, was merged with CPSU in 1940 an became it's regional unit. In 1990 the majority of the Communist Party of Estonia declared themselves independent from CPSU and the minority declared to continue within CPSU. That was going n until CPSU was banned by Jeltsin in Russia followed by the banns in the rest of the former Soviet Union including Estonia. The bottom line, current article doesn't talk about any separate political parties, the story is a part of either Communist Party of Estonia or CPSU.--Termer (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As previously stated, a discussion on how to relate to articles on parties that were merged into CPSU was held at Talk:Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union#Separate_articles. If that issue is reopened, that would not only affect the articles on the Baltic parties but also Communist Party (bolshevik) of Ukraine, Communist Party of Armenia, etc..
That, is however a separate issue and doesn't really affect the outcome of this discussion. There are some issues that are quite clear, 1) after being merged into CPSU, EKP retained its organizational identity. Whether that had any political impact can be discussed, but 1920 was still considered as the foundation date of EKP and the numbers of congresses of EKP did not start at 1 after the merge into CPSU. 2) the 20th congress of EKP decided, by majority decision, to break with CPSU, 3) in response to the break with EKP, a minority regrouped and formed a new party in Estonia, which was known as EKP(NLKP platvormil). As I understand things, EKP(NLKP) was the name selected by the party itself, not a label attached to it by its enemies. 4) the party that continues to exist, albeit its 'activity' appears to be limited to signing declarations, is the continuation of EKP(NLKP platformil) and the '(NLKP platvormil)' denomination is not used anymore. These four point sum up my argument against deleting this article.
A question that would be interesting to enter into further details on, with references, is how CPSU reacted to the EKP 20th Congress and the formation EKP(NLKP platvormil). Was there a formal decision (in CC or PB?) on recognizing the EKP(NLKP platvormil) as the CPSU branch. Some EKP(NLKP platvormil) leaders might have already held all-union party positions and simply retained their positions, but what happened to seats in CC etc which had been held by leaders of the now independent EKP? Were they simply left vacant or filled by EKP(NLKP platvormil) representatives? --Soman (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to repeat myself once again but 3) in response to the break with EKP, a minority regrouped and formed a new party[citation needed] in Estonia, which was known as EKP(NLKP platvormil) is factually incorrect since "EKP(NLKP platvormil)" literally means CPSU branch of ECP that was created in 1940. The name in the form EKP(NLKP) existed since the letters (b) were dropped. Now in case this article is not merged and redirected to either Communist Party of Estonia or CPSU within reasonable amount of time, I have to list it for deletion according to WP:Content forking. Since I don't wish to repeat myself all over again and again: this is my last post regarding the issue. thanks--Termer (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[2], p. 86, is quite clear on the dynamics of the split. --Soman (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From my reading of the "Historical Dictionary of Estonia" by Toivo MilJan, is that the EKP was already internally split by 1988, with an Moscow oriented faction consisting almost solely of Russians agitating against the Estonian "traitors" who were advocating independence. This split was merely formalised in the 20th party congress EKP in 1990, twas a split into two factions, one independent from Moscow, the other remaining loyal to the CPSU. In the source you cite, the CSPU loyalist faction formed the majority and managed to seize the bulk of the party resources in the case of the Latvian Communist party.
In the case of Estonia, your source calls this independent party the "Independent Communist Party of Estonia", the way this article is written does not reflect this. What we should do is to rename this article Independent Communist Part of Estonia and focus this article on that independent party, while the material on the CSPU loyalist branch should be merged into Communist Party of Estonia, since their platform remained identical with that party that was loyal with CPSU since 1940. Martintg (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the last suggestions by Martintg make sense to me, just that making a new Independent Communist Party of Estonia is not necessary since it's covered with Estonian Left Party.--Termer (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a rather pov assertion to disregard the decisions or the legitimacy of the 20th EKP congress. EKP did not cease to exist as an organizational entity, it retained its organizational character after separating from CPSU. If we are to judge continuations as per 'platforms', we have several pov minefields at head (for example who is the genuine inheritor of the 'platform' of the Communist Party of Nepal?). As per the name, my understanding is that in the case of Lithuania, the name was changed to Independent Communist Party of Lithuania. I have not seen other sources on Estonia using the name 'Independent Communist Party of Estonia' (googling shows that it is used at http://www.eu-yellow.com/modules.php?name=Facts&MODE=SHOW&PAGE=Estonia%20-%20Political%20Parties and http://books.google.com/books?id=0pFGZM1Rpu4C). I'm not sure that the formal name of EKP was changed prior to the adoption of the name EDTP. One could, based on my arguments suggest a merge between Communist Party of Estonia and Estonian Left Party, however I think that is a secondary issue and does not warrant a merge, move or deletion of this article in any case. --Soman (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting passage, in an earlier article by Ishiyama: "The Evolution of the Transitional Parties

The results of the election seemed to encourage the reformist leadership of the CPE, many of whom had been elected to the legislature. At the CPE 20th Congress, held immediately following the election on March 25, 1990, First Secretary Vaino Valyas claimed that the election had demonstrated the necessity of immediately transforming the party into an organization independent of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) in order to survive under the conditions of democratic competition.(n68) Mikk Titma, the Secretary of Ideology and a leader of the Free Estonia Association, then moved for a declaration of independence from the CPSU which occurred on March 26. The delegates who opposed immediate independence then left the Congress to form their own loyalist party.(n69)" (Representational Mechanisms and Ethnopolitics: Evidence from Transitional Democracies in Eastern Europem. Journal article by John T. Ishiyama; East European Quarterly, Vol. 33, 1999.)

Note the differences in wordings, EKP was transformed into an independent organization, the opponents of independence left the congress to form their own party. I think that as clear as it gets, in stating that EKP(NLKP platvormil) was a split from EKP. --Soman (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to [3], which I don't know if it qualifies as WP:RS, Lembit Annus became a CPSU politburo member in January 1991. Notably, he's the only new PB member at the time. --Soman (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC) According to the 1986 CPSU programe "[t]he CPSU incorporates the Communist Parties of 14 constituent Soviet Republics.", denoting that (at least in theory) the CPSU had a federal character. Parties like EKP, LKP, KPU, KPB, etc., were considered as parties, incorporated into the all union CPSU. This is not the same thing as a local party branch in most countries, but a well-defined constituent unit with its own organizational character. --Soman (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Soman, you know, I don't think it's worth it for me to go on with this since you seem to believe beyond doubt that the article here talks about a separate new party that was founded in 1990. I'm aware of it that "I know because I was there when it happened" is considered WP:OR but since the subject doesn't interest me that much I'm not willing to invest more time into this, to to be able to find and bring you the facts from published sources. My motivation here was to set the things straight, fix a obvious mistake I noticed on WP, thats all. So the only thing I'd have t add, since it seems to be a subject of your interest, please look into this what I've said above more in depth and according to your findings, please correct it on WP according to the actual facts not some misleading interpretations of the events that has happened here. I would suggest renaming this article into the Split of Estonian Communist Party in 1990 or something for now so that the tag could be removed in case you think the subject deserves it's own article. Thanks and good luck!--Termer (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The paper "Fission and fusion of parties in Estonia, 1987-1999" in the Journal of Baltic Studies (Dec, 2001) by Bernard Grofman, Evald Mikkel and Rein Taagepera, goes into some detail about the splits, merges and creation of political parties, and they list 57 separate parties that emerged during the period between 1987 to 1999, and the CPE-CPSU is not listed among those 57. The authors characterise the CPE-CPSU as a proto-party. This is consistent with what John T. Ishiyama says: "the opponents of independence left the congress to form their own party", all Ishiyama is decribing is that some delegates left the congress (left the conference, not the party) with the intention of forming a party, but it is WP:SYN to go further and assert that they in fact did fulfill this intention. According to Grofman, et al, they never got further than a proto-party, i.e., they remained what Ishiyama calls a branch of the CPE that may have had an intent to create a new formal party, but they never progressed that far. I agree that this article should be renamed Split of Estonian Communist Party in 1990. Martintg (talk) 04:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is just getting more and more confused. Ishiyama/Breuning writes on page 86; "Immediately following the vote, the CPE split into two -the Indepedent CPE organization and a second CPE constiting of CPSU loyalists. Each organizations elected its own Central Committee and its own leadership." This text is also used as a source in the article mainspace. Thus Martintg's argument on 'intentions' of forming a party and synthesis falls flat, at least if we are to consider Ishiyama/Breuning as a reliable source. The fact that Gusev was the first secretary of EKP(NLKP platvormil) is sourced in the other Ishiyama text. I will thus remove the {cn} and {synthesis} tags at in the article.
At the moment, I can't access the Grofman/Mikkel/Taagepera text (published in Dec 2000, not 2001). I will go through it later today, and give my comments on the talk page. --Soman (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll give it a try once more. There is nothing confusing about Immediately following the vote, the CPE split into two -the Indepedent CPE organization and a second CPE constiting of CPSU loyalists. It literally says that has been repeated many many times here. Some members of the Estonian Communist Party declared it independent from CPSU (That part was renamed Estonian Democratic Labour Party in 1992 and Estonian Left Party in 2004). Now the other part a second CPE constiting of CPSU loyalists meaning they remained in CPE that was a regional unit of CPSU. And of course they had to elect a new Central Committee and new leadership becouse the former ones were gone with the newly declared independent one. the facts can't be clearer than Ishiyama/Breuning puts it. The question remains, from where do you get this that the ECP/CPSU was a newly founded party in 1990?--Termer (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not 'some members' who declared EKP independent from CPSU, it was the 20th congress of EKP who did so by majority decision. Thus EKP, as a party, separated itself from CPSU. Whether such a separation was valid according to CPSU statutes is debatable (and pending a reference that gives detail on the CPSU reaction to the 20th congress, we cannot really go further into such arguments without commiting OR), but EKP did have an organizational identity of its own from 1920 onwards. --Soman (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grofman/Mikkel/Taagepera does mention the EKP(NLKP platvormil), not in its extensive listing on pages 332-334, but in the table "Estonian Parties and Movements Prior to Independence (1987-91)." on page 337. The table clearly shows CPE and CPE-CPSU as two separate parties after the 1990 split. Grofman/Mikkel/Taagepera does not call EKP(NLKP platvormil) a 'proto-party'. The word 'proto-party' is used on the preceding page in the title "Three Periods of Proto-party and Party Development", but there is no indication that EKP(NLKP platvormil) would be classified as a 'proto-party'. On the whole, the article talks very little about EKP(NLKP platvormil). What it does mention is a founding date ('3/90-12/90', 3/90 is the time of the 20th party congress, but would 12/90 be the date of the 21th EKP(NLKP platvormil) congress?) and 'ends 8/91'. Regarding the end date, this is the date that the party was banned. The authors do seem to take for granted that a party ceases to exist once it loses its legal status. --Soman (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outbidding to Radical Nationalists: Minority Policy in Estonia, 1988–1993 by Lee Kendall Metcalf, published in Nations and Nationalism, Volume 2 Issue 2, Pages 213 - 234, has the following passage (my emphasis):

However, there was a split in the CPE between those who favoured independence from the CPSU and those who did not, mostly Russian-speakers. At the 20th Party Congress in March 1990, the majority decided to separate from the CPSU after a six-month period of reflection. They concluded that ‘only an independent Communist party of Estonia can efficiently participate in the political life of Estonia, change tactics in a flexible way, form coalitions and compete with other parties and movements’ (FBIS-SOV-9073: 104). Many Russian-speakers, however, were unwilling to cut their ties to Moscow. Therefore, a group decided to establish their own party still loyal to the CPSU. Initially this split was patched over by the creation of a Coalition Central Committee.

I have not encountered the mention of a 'Coalition Central Committee' in the other sources. Would be interesting to get more details on this. --Soman (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Came across the following link [4]. It is used as a ref in russian wiki, unclear if it is a RS, but seems quite exact in info. I don't know exactly how to interpret the link. The party would have recognized 20th March, 1990, as the 'first session' of the 20th EKP congress. Unclear if this relates to the main session of the congress or a session held after the walk-out. On March 26, the party holds a plenum, electing a 2-member secretariat. On June 20, 1990, the 'second session' of the 20th party congress is held. --Soman (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Soman, just wondering, has it ever crossed your mind that if someone is loyal to some party, lets say like those ECP members that remained CPSU loyalists, they might be members of that party? and once they are called the loyalist to this party, why would the make a newone? At least until the party wasn't banned??--Termer (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never stated that the founders of EKP(NLKP platvormil) would have lost their CPSU membership, http://www.knowbysight.info is indicates that EKP(NLKP) is the new CPSU organization immediately following the 20th EKP congress. I'm not really sure whether the EKP majority actually lost their CPSU memberships, either, looking at the composition of the CPSU politburo there doesn't seem to be any immediate purge after the 20th EKP congress. The problem here is that there are double party identities. CPSU was a party, which in turn consisted (at the final stage) of 15 republic-level parties. If a minority left EKP to form a new republic-level organization of CPSU (with a new central committee and organizational apparatus), then that is a new party. The notion that there was a direct continuation of the CPSU organization in Estonia, as if the 20th party congress had just passed without notice, is a version of events only the most hardcore sectors of the Soviet state propaganda machine could have coughed up. --Soman (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

so here is what I'd do, rename/move the article according to the sources CPE-CPSU, and then go: refers to the fraction of the Communist Party of Estonia that formed in 1990 through a split...etc. Another fraction was known as...or something like that. Good luck!--Termer (talk) 07:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Present status[edit]

User:Termer has put a {{fact}} tag on the intro passage 'is a political party in Estonia'. I personally feel that the concluding passage of the present article works fine. As to the existance of the party today, we can see several sources (albeit none is particularily good):

With this background, i find the present wordings are resonable. If 'is' was to be changed to 'was', the there would just be more confusion. --Soman (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is synthesis of published material to advance a position. Martintg (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of this above justifies the removal of citation tags. Although I can understand now why would it be so difficult to provide in-text citations. Since none of those sources up there say what and where exactly is this party all about. The best there is -allegedly a party with 1 member, which is a rumor at best. There is no reliable source out there that would verify the existence of such party, and one contact that was available narvaSRG@rambler.ru is on a foreign -the Russian domain? So basically it is a phantom party, it doesn't exist in any official lists, just on some random private webpages?

Since removing the citation tags without providing evidence and citation seems to me is not what WP is all about, an Encyclopedia based on facts. I urge you Soman to restore the tags and/or provide rock solid evidence in the form of intext citations according to WP:Reliable sources for the existence of such political party. Simply reverting/removing the tags by edit warring can't be accepted I'm afraid. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, 'random private webpages' is faulty. The some of the webpages mentioned are of KKE, Workers Party of Belgium and Communist Party of Finland. [7] is the institute on political parties in Estonia. solidnet is the common web portal amongst the mainstream communist parties in the world, listing there is perhaps the most authorative reference to that the party is included the their networks. Secondly, I suppose you are aware that you can live in one country and have a e-mail adress in a foreign domain. Its quite common actually. The solidnet listing also includes a phone/fax number, in estonia. Thirdly, let's look at the options here. If we are to write 'was a political party', then when did the party cease to be a political party? That would be far more OR to state an arbitrary date. I think that the present wording, clearly stating that the party has been very small since breakup of USSR and that there are claims that Misin is the only member, is the best way to describe the situation. --Soman (talk) 10:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, maybe the internet lists need to update their data, maybe it's just wishful thinking that there is a such a party. Nothing confirms it's existence other than a rumor that the party might have 1 member. the link you gave me [8] clearly speaks of the CPE-CPSU the way it has been called by reliable sources published in English listed above. Further on, the institute on political parties in Estonia web page clearly says: former parties/not registered/the party was banned after Soviet coup 1991/it might have 1 member nowadays. Is it really just me who thinks that such an approach to make up a party on WP is a bit odd? Rename the article to CPE-CPSU like the sources printed in English call it, say that the party might have one member and you have an article on WP that's in sync with facts --Termer (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But honestly speaking, does the article at present boast that this group would be a major political force? It states that it is very small, and that there are claims that it only has one member. Clearly, the party exists in some sort of form, be it that its sole activity is to attend international meetings and sign international declarations. The issue on the 'rumour' (i.e. the EVP article, a highly partisan commentary) is not whether it has zero or one member, its whether it has one member or more. --Soman (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I'm not able to get through to you: Communist Party of Estonia is ambiguous term. therefore the name should be avoided in the article and it should speak of the CPE-CPSU the way the party has been called by the reliable sources published in English.--Termer (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. either the party has 1 or more members has nothing to do with a highly partisan commentary but with hard facts supported by WP:reliable sources. so far the only sources there are speaking of the member(s) are speculative, meaning based on rumors--Termer (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, what wording do you suggest? Simply changed 'is' to 'was' doesn't work. --Soman (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It must be me that I haven't been clear enough, the article should speak about CPE-CPSU, not Communist Party of Estonia and if it is a party or was, it's not clear by provided sources. So the article should not speculate on that part at all. the oly thing we can say for sure is that according to this and that source the party might have 1 member.--Termer (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me its still not really clear what you want in regards to this article. Provide some suggestions for alternative wordings, and we can procede in the discussion. --Soman (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I don't mind repeating myself:first of all the article needs to be reamed and facts need to be sourced by reliable, third-party published sources. Currently I have been able to come up with one name, CPE-CPSU feel free to suggest alternatives that are in sync with WP:Verifiability.
Alternative wording: CPE-CPSU refers to...(Since we can't speculate either the party exists or not we can't use "is" or "was") According to (this and that source) the party still has one member. The party is listed as Communist Party of Estonia on those (the list of communist partisan websites). etc--Termer (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yury Mishin has died in a traffic accident in Russia in 2011. This fact may be of consequence to the party's current status or existence. The party is not officially registered in Estonia or never has been. But the official status of its namesake in the 1920s and 1930s was similar. This complicates the situation of determining the party's status. -- Ohpuu (talk) 08:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Book[edit]

[9], page 174 gives some interesting insight. I don't have time to edit the material right now, but it mentions that the CPE(CPSU platform) announced its own dissolution on August 27, 1991 (i.e. five days after being banned), and that CPSU considered both CPE and CPE(CPSU platform) as its Estonian referents during 1990. --Soman (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Communist_Party_of_Estonia_(1990)&oldid=1206761922"