Misplaced Pages

Talk:2007 cyberattacks on Estonia: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:20, 6 July 2007 editDigwuren (talk | contribs)11,308 edits →Opinions of independent experts: Hypocrite?← Previous edit Revision as of 22:29, 6 July 2007 edit undoRJ CG (talk | contribs)1,417 edits →Opinions of independent expertsNext edit →
Line 29: Line 29:
:::Have you ever seen a real computer security expert? These guys tend to be independent even when you actively try to bias them. ] 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC) :::Have you ever seen a real computer security expert? These guys tend to be independent even when you actively try to bias them. ] 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Waitaminute ... this reminds me ... . So, tell us inquisitive minds, since when has cyberwarfare been among your "usual pattern of interest", and how many "strikes" have you earnt? ] 22:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC) ::::Waitaminute ... this reminds me ... . So, tell us inquisitive minds, since when has cyberwarfare been among your "usual pattern of interest", and how many "strikes" have you earnt? ] 22:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::::It does belong to Estonia topic, if you haven't noticed. And, besides several attempts of Korps! to remove or diminish sourced opinions of leading world experts (I still notice your ''modus operandi'', but stopped to care about it), it had been pretty constructive work on touchy topic. Any more questions? ] 22:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


As an alternative I can suggest writing something like "All independent expert commented on... could not confirm Estonian accusations. None of independent experts agreed with Estonian statements". That would be equally true, but much more POV. Do you guys want to go with statement like this? ] 20:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC) As an alternative I can suggest writing something like "All independent expert commented on... could not confirm Estonian accusations. None of independent experts agreed with Estonian statements". That would be equally true, but much more POV. Do you guys want to go with statement like this? ] 20:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


:::This would be wrong, and thus, not belong to Misplaced Pages. ] 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC) :::This would be wrong, and thus, not belong to Misplaced Pages. ] 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::: Care to provide '''signed''' statement of an independent expert confirming Estonian accusations? Closest I could find was opinion of this Russian hacker guy, but he spoke more about "hints" or "delicate nudging" from somebody in the position of authority (old Russian belief that the Sun does not rise without the Czar's permission). TIA ] 22:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
:::The fact tag you removed, I replaced it with attribution and citation tags. you cant make a claim like that obscurely. Who were the experts? Wheres the source?--] 21:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC) :::The fact tag you removed, I replaced it with attribution and citation tags. you cant make a claim like that obscurely. Who were the experts? Wheres the source?--] 21:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Next time try to do a little reading before you attack something you don't like. The richly sourced content of this section is proof. What else do you need? BTW, it is considered common courtesy to sign. ] 21:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC) ::::Next time try to do a little reading before you attack something you don't like. The richly sourced content of this section is proof. What else do you need? BTW, it is considered common courtesy to sign. ] 21:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:29, 6 July 2007

WikiProject iconEstonia Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject icon2007 cyberattacks on Estonia is part of WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.EstoniaWikipedia:WikiProject EstoniaTemplate:WikiProject EstoniaEstonia
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Proposal to rename

This article may want to be renamed Estonian Cyberattack verses cyberwar. Cyberwar may seem to imply cyber attacks were exchanged instead of the incident being a one-sided attack. It should be noted a simple move is not possible since Estonian Cyberattack redirects to Estonian Cyberwarfare. MLWilson 22:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It might be better to have a name showing that Estonia was attacked, not the one who did the attacking. Perhaps Cyberattacks to Estonia 2007 or something along those lines. Current name is too ambiguous. DLX 06:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. For now I am goind to move this page to Cyberattacks on Estonia 2007. MLWilson 06:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Some new sources

Sander Säde 19:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Opinions of independent experts

I insist on using "many" independent experts, as opposed to "some" for following reasons:

1) All independent esperts who so far did not hesitate to disclose their names (i.e. are risking their reputations to support their claim) are saying that Estonian government claims can not be confirmed.
Wrong. First, the bit about "hesitate" is desinformative: most of the official experts -- those privy to the underlying data -- have not been named because of their organisations' media contact policies. Second, Linnar Viik has certainly not been "hesitating". Digwuren 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing article on Viik here. Good laugh was what I needed to finish off work week. Is associate college professor guru? Besides, if you re-read an article, even Viik did not support Paet's accusations. Probably he has a bit of a reputation to care about too.RJ CG 21:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
And I guess here he is loudly protesting that Paet is accusing the wrong guys? Digwuren 22:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
2) BBC's reference to "experts" in May 17 article most likely refers to individuals on Estonian government's or telecom's payroll.
Or Europol's payroll. Digwuren 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not question depth of their knowledge, but calling them "independent" would be the biggest shame since USSR called their elections "free".

Have you ever seen a real computer security expert? These guys tend to be independent even when you actively try to bias them. Digwuren 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Waitaminute ... this reminds me ... this. So, tell us inquisitive minds, since when has cyberwarfare been among your "usual pattern of interest", and how many "strikes" have you earnt? Digwuren 22:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It does belong to Estonia topic, if you haven't noticed. And, besides several attempts of Korps! to remove or diminish sourced opinions of leading world experts (I still notice your modus operandi, but stopped to care about it), it had been pretty constructive work on touchy topic. Any more questions? RJ CG 22:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As an alternative I can suggest writing something like "All independent expert commented on... could not confirm Estonian accusations. None of independent experts agreed with Estonian statements". That would be equally true, but much more POV. Do you guys want to go with statement like this? RJ CG 20:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This would be wrong, and thus, not belong to Misplaced Pages. Digwuren 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Care to provide signed statement of an independent expert confirming Estonian accusations? Closest I could find was opinion of this Russian hacker guy, but he spoke more about "hints" or "delicate nudging" from somebody in the position of authority (old Russian belief that the Sun does not rise without the Czar's permission). TIA RJ CG 22:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact tag you removed, I replaced it with attribution and citation tags. you cant make a claim like that obscurely. Who were the experts? Wheres the source?--Alexia Death 21:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Next time try to do a little reading before you attack something you don't like. The richly sourced content of this section is proof. What else do you need? BTW, it is considered common courtesy to sign. RJ CG 21:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Signed now, sorry. I Did read the content. And no I did not find a source where the "calling hollow" occured. And If you know who the independent researchers were, please, attribute them! Otherwise the hole section needs a rewording.--Alexia Death 21:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the redundant sentence. Let the experts speak for themselves, if it is them who this sentence referenced.--Alexia Death 21:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
OK RJ CG 21:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Categories: