Talk:Soviet deportations from Estonia

Structure and references

I have restructured the article, and created articles for June deportation and March deportation. Unfortunately, the exact structure of these articles' interrelations is not clear for me at the moment; the {{see}} links should probably become into some more asymmetric pairs.

One approach that I can think of would be a regional distinction: the subarticles would concentrate on general aspects of the time-delimited deportations while this particular article would discuss general aspects of the geography-delimited deportations. Digwuren 17:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it worth expanding to cover Latvia and Lithuania as well? After all, these Soviet operations affected them at the same time, it would be unreasonable to have three different articles for this. Colchicum 10:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I know nothing about Estonia's copyright law, but if this is free, it would be good here.Colchicum 10:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Spelling Errors?

I replaced the word entenced with sentenced in the legal status section. I just wanted to bring this to your attention in case entenced was correct.

Thank you. Indeed, 'sentenced' is the correct word. Digwuren 08:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki

No other article on this subject, even in Estonian Wikipedia?Xx236 08:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

et: is unfortunately half-dead. There is et:Küüditamine#Küüditamised Nõukogude okupatsiooni ajal, though. DLX 08:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Link for future: Economist: Name them and remember. -- Sander Säde 19:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Deportations were like a family picnic

English, Estonian. So lovely that friendly Soviets gave Estonians a chance to have a picnic in Siberia. -- Sander Säde 11:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Estonians declared as class enemies

Aadu Must has claimed to have found a Politburo directive from between 1937-1939 declaring Estonians along with some other nationalities as class enemies. If this is correct it would give additional and even more sinister meaning to the deportations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.196.42 (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Soviet deportations as crimes against humanity

Georgian Daily 30 March 2009: Soviet Deportation of Estonians in 1949 was a Crime Against Humanity, Memorial Concludes by Paul Goble:

“ Tallinn, March 30 – Memorial, one of Russia’s most widely respected human rights organizations, has concluded on the basis of a detailed examination of the evidence and of international law that the Soviet deportation of more than 20,000 people from Estonian 1949 was a crime against humanity, for which there is no statute of limitations. ”

Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Obituary as a source

There's a tradition throughout the civilised world to refrain from speaking about the vices, mistakes and crimes of the recently departed. Thus, when obituaries are used as sources, they need to be taken by a particular grain of salt, and critically assessed. Where reasonably possible, obituaries should not be used as sources for anything else that the person has died. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not an obituary. It's a news report. Are you claiming the BBC is not a reliable source? Whitewashing comes to mind here. If we can insert claims of Soviet war memorials being called "Tombs of the unknown rapist", then we can certainly include sourced, neutrally worded information from a reliable source. Wikipedia is not censored, and to whitewash this information which complies with every WP:POLICY is to engage in advocacy. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend you to mention the Tomb of the Unknown Rapist in an article on rape, for example. Relevance matters. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

True, but the information which was inserted IS on this subject, and is relevant, and fully sourced. However, I am more concerned about your unsourced addition of information into this article, which very likely is original research on your part. I would like to see a source that these deportations have been considered as genocide by the European Parliament. And I mean explicitly states, not an OR'ish synthesis of what an editor thinks it includes. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What do Nazi war criminals have to do with the Soviet deportations? This is soapboxing. Colchicum (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Soapboxing by who? The BBC? Because they are the one's who made the link, not I. And everything is suitably attributed as required by policy. I'll quote an essay I read once: "There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict WP:BOLD. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.[1] Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information." --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

By who?! Was it the BBC who put the link in the article Soviet deportations from Estonia? But I don't care. What is important is that, editorializing in obituaries aside, "Nazi war criminals" (there should be many after 65 years, 40 of them being under the Soviet rule, but it doesn't matter again) have nothing to do with the topic of this article. Moreover, there is a policy that discorages making repeated reverts when there are objections on the talk page. Colchicum (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Nazi war criminals aren't included now. They indeed can be viewed separately. ellol (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Colchicum (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Obituary? It is a news report. Additionally, even if it were editorialising on the part of the BBC, this requires attribution, which was clearly done within the article, and which has been removed by Digwuren as being irrelevant. Yet, his unsourced info is not being challenged at all. Why's that? --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously because we are KAPO agents, didn't Bäckman tell the world? Colchicum (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in KAPO or Backman, I couldn't think of anything less interesting for me than those 2 topics. But the question still stands I guess, why is sourced information being removed, whilst unsourced information is allowed to stay unchallenged? Hmmmm..... --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's better ask Digwuren. Colchicum (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, he's been asked, will just wait for an answer from him, with some sources of course. --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, it's because of my rugged handsome looks. Oh, and it might have something to do with the fact that it has been in the real recent news and isn't irrelevant or controversial. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Then please supply them in the article, and it needs to explicitly state what you have inserted. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There's the wonderful slogan of WP:SOFIXIT. You don't like the lack of sources? WP:SOFIXIT, they're easy to find. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am mindful of WP:3RR, and I know that if I were to add or to the article that I would be reported for 3RR in an instant. However, I will note your intriguing and absolutely revealing attitude in relation to WP:V. You know that you don't add information to WP without a source to verify it. To do so is to engage in original research and you know that's not on. Sources please. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

For instance I see nothing at [2] or the motion (3.5mb Word document) which includes your unsourced assertions. So just where did you get the information that this has been recognised as genocide or a crime against humanity? --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how anybody could accuse you for reverting if you're only adding information (perhaps the same link you had) which has never been in the article before. However, I do understand your concern, it seems that you were considering different kind of approach for improving that article... Ptrt (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)