| Revision as of 19:14, 3 June 2007 editPetri Krohn (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users37,089 edits →POV: European Parliament in 1983← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:23, 3 June 2007 edit undoAlexia Death (talk | contribs)1,658 edits →POVNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| ::::The talk page is for exchange of arguments and opinions, not for insults. The way you abuse it a talk page doesn't work. Please take note of ]. ] 09:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | ::::The talk page is for exchange of arguments and opinions, not for insults. The way you abuse it a talk page doesn't work. Please take note of ]. ] 09:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::The ] in 1983 had no power over foreign policy, in fact it had hardly any power at all. It is interesting that the supporters of the ] can find no other documents to support their POV. -- ] 19:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC) | ::The ] in 1983 had no power over foreign policy, in fact it had hardly any power at all. It is interesting that the supporters of the ] can find no other documents to support their POV. -- ] 19:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::Having power is not required to accept the statement as a confirmation of occupation. The fact that you personally have a mind block in seeing history as it was does not mean others do. Go Google "occupation of baltic states", you'll get plenty. Will this link do for you? There's plenty more available from Google. Please keep your pet theories and OR out of Misplaced Pages.--] 20:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Johannes Vares == | == Johannes Vares == | ||
Revision as of 20:23, 3 June 2007
 | Estonia Unassessed | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
Petri_Krohn's weird manipulations
It has come to my attention that according to the theory of Petri Krohn's existence, a former entity called Petri_Krohn has started to blatantly push pet WP:POV legal theories into this article without even bothering to present as pretext the theory of Petri Krohn's notability. I have reverted. Digwuren 22:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
And again in . Digwuren 23:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
And . Digwuren 01:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
TotallyDisputed
There was {{TotallyDisputed}} tag on the article, with link "see relevant discussion on talk page". Since there is nothing here, I removed it. Please don't reinstate it unless you have at least some talk here, backed up with sources. Word-mangling and "I don't like it" are not reason for tagging the article. DLX 03:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
POV
The article was POV. Biased to an Estonian nationalistic view and anti-sovjet. Also deleted irrelevant text about the recognition of the entrance of Estonia in the Sovjetunion. That is part of the history of Estonia, but not of this biography. Otto 06:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- What exactly is "an Estonian nationalistic view and anti-sovjet" in the article? The fact that Soviet occupation was illegal is only disputed by Russia, see Resolution of European Parliament from 1983 "the fact that the occupation of these formerly independent and neutral States by the Soviet Union occurred in 1940 following the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact, and continues." and European Court of Human Rights(): "After the German occupation in 1941-44, Estonia remained occupied by the Soviet Union until the restoration of its independence in 1991.". Whether it is relevant or not in this article is a different matter - it does clarify, though, that the Soviet government was illegal - and therefore shows the legal continuation of Uluots' government. DLX 08:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- An Estonian nationalistic view is talk about a puppet sovjet government. The Sovjetunion was de facto the governing entity so the point of view of Russia is to that respect more relevant then the opinion of the European Parliament, that before 2004 had no control neither jurisdiction over the area. Your POV to call the situation an occupation is a political, not a juridical opinion. The arrest of the ECHR you mentioned recognizes the jurisdiction of the Sovjetunion "It is noteworthy in this context that the Soviet Union was a party to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 by which the Nuremberg Charter was enacted."
- Both sides, also the sovjetview should be mentioned in the article. As it is, the article is biased and one-sided. Revert warring is not a proper way to solve a dispute. Otto 08:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I find your descriptions of relevance rather quaint. You might want to familiarise yourself with Misplaced Pages:Notability so your further arguments would be of higher quality.
- Unfortunately, the Soviets didn't like publishing their crimes, so apart from a few archivals, there is no WP:RS regarding their WP:POV. Digwuren 08:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- The talk page is for exchange of arguments and opinions, not for insults. The way you abuse it a talk page doesn't work. Please take note of Misplaced Pages:Civility. Otto 09:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- The European Parliament in 1983 had no power over foreign policy, in fact it had hardly any power at all. It is interesting that the supporters of the Baltic occupation myth can find no other documents to support their POV. -- Petri Krohn 19:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Having power is not required to accept the statement as a confirmation of occupation. The fact that you personally have a mind block in seeing history as it was does not mean others do. Go Google "occupation of baltic states", you'll get plenty. Will this link do for you? There's plenty more available from Google. Please keep your pet theories and OR out of Misplaced Pages.--Alexia Death 20:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- An Estonian nationalistic view is talk about a puppet sovjet government. The Sovjetunion was de facto the governing entity so the point of view of Russia is to that respect more relevant then the opinion of the European Parliament, that before 2004 had no control neither jurisdiction over the area. Your POV to call the situation an occupation is a political, not a juridical opinion. The arrest of the ECHR you mentioned recognizes the jurisdiction of the Sovjetunion "It is noteworthy in this context that the Soviet Union was a party to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 by which the Nuremberg Charter was enacted."
Johannes Vares
Should Vares be listed as the successor of Jüri Uluots here? This may be seen by some as a contradiction, as though with Uluots the Prime Ministership forked, and may thus be confusing.
Perhaps, adding a clarifying comment would help. Digwuren 08:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Categories: