Talk:Mart Laar

Untitled

Intgr, I'm not sure why you're so irritated with my clarification that big part of "War in the Woods" took place after WWII. And I do think that cheap shot about "workers paradise" belongs in serious article, unless you want to give it clear POV twist. 206.186.8.130 15:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this edit looks OK. I had your IP memorized from your preceding edit. I was not "irritated", it's no use getting angry at vandalism. -- intgr ^#%@! 19:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Geopolitical reorientation

The statement "However, Estonia is still one of main routes for Russian transit trade. More than 85% of the cargo volume of Estonian Railways comes from Russia and goes forward to transit." is highly POV. First, statement "Estonia is still one of main routes for Russian transit trade" describes Russian orientation, not Estonian. Second, the transit share is very moderate in Estonian GDP (if you would like to get some economic indicator about geopolitical orientation, just look the external trade or FDI statistics. You can't take a railway company business as an indicator of the geopolitical orientation, because if you have so small railway network (only several hundreds kilometers) the railway companies have to have business with neighbours. It's a big deal for the company, but really not very important for the national economy. This is just another myth cultivated by (mainly Russian) media that Estonian economy is dependent of Russian transit. And third, what this has to do with Mart Laar? I will delete this statement as irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.54.229 (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"It's a big deal for the company, but really not very important for the national economy." Normally statements about "big" or "not so big" deal need to be supported by serious sources. For example, certain someone (Estonian Academician, nor less) described as "leading expert in Estonian transit" is of opinion that transit takes 25-30% of the Estonian GDP: “Transit means not only cargo flows, but what is manufactured and exported on the basis of Russian raw materials at Ida-Virumaa. Transit is financial resources and logistics as well..." [1]. I guess, weighing opinion of 80.235.54.229 against opinion of Academician Michael Bronstein, it is possible, in accordance with WP:RS, prefer an expert's opinion to IP's one. RJ CG 14:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Mihhail Bronštein has not very much credibility anymore. He likes to call himself "transit expert" and "expert of Russia", but these claims are not supported very widely. This Regnum news just refers to Bronštein's opinion and don't gives any explanation how these 25-30% are calculated. On the other hand, the Bank of Estonia's analysis provides quite different figures.[2] And Russian raw materials are sold to Estonia by world market prices, so it's not really advantage anymore to use Russan import. By the way, I don't understand why this section is included in this article - what this has to do with Mart Laar?80.235.55.51 16:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am severely disappointed that Bronstein does not have a lot of credibility among anonymous wikipedians from Estonia, but his opinion undoubtedly falls under WP:RS. Feel free to refute it, though, based on reliable sources. As to " why this section is included in this article" - I don't understand it too, I did not included it here and I witnessed couple of dogged attempts from Estonia to remove anything opposing this rather controversial POV from an article. Feel free to remove it completely, if it is more to your liking. RJ CG 17:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't knew if Regnum is RS or not. I think it could be reliable as an opinion and not as a fact. But in this case, why Bronštein's opinion about Russian transit should be included in the article about Mart Laar?80.235.55.51 17:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I could have my reservations regarding their Russian version, but I'm pretty sure that English version deals with published information correctly enough. I.e. their facts are true, but not necessarily complete. Although any media, Internet or otherwise, can be accused of latter sin. RJ CG 21:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Couple of points. First, "However" is a word to avoid and second, if you have a sourced dissent opinion about Estonian economy, you can add it to the corresponding artice if you like, why should it be here? Oth 16:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

why should it be here I hope I explained it to the anonymous author. As claim of "Geopolitical reorientation" is there, it can be supported or refuted by WP:RS. RJ CG 17:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Estonian AND RUSSIAN history???

Could you please mention a single work of Laar that focuses on Russian history? 90.191.81.145 (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the one who wrote the phrase actually thought of 'Soviet' history. This person may just not tell the difference between the two. Which is a pity. I wonder if (s)he knows that there is also a difference between Russian people (as a nation) and the Russian ethnos. Well, after all, we are all Russians who lived in the USSR to some of those 'inside the iron curtain' western people. It's like calling people from UK and the USA 'English'. As far as I really AM an ethnic Russian, and a citizen of Russia I really dislike when ignorant people just call everyone from the former USSR republics 'Russians'. We should fix the article.194.85.148.66 (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Dmitry

Fixed the text. Martintg (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Fun fact: the Amish people *do* tend to call everybody outside their community "English". Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Loads of roubles

Back in the Soviet occupation era, Russia circulated roubles instead of hard currencies in Estonia.

Fast forward to 1992, Estonia performed a currency reform, exchanging the roubles for crowns. For some reason, Russia took the position that the roubles were supposed to be given, for free, back to the Russian central bank.

However, as people familiar with the last days of USSR remember, the rouble inflation of early 1990s was rather peculiar: it involved *at once* both shortage of roubles, and the fast-shrinking value of the roubles that existed. Of course, the most severe problems were in areas that had fallen into disfavour with the central banking system -- such as the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, back then ran by Dzokhar Dudayev. Dudayev had been stationed in Estonia -- there's even a memorial plaque on the building in Tartu where he served as an air force officer -- and knew quite a number of Estonian politicians, administrators, and businessmen.

It turns out that people close to the currency reform managed to broker a deal to sell the useless rouble banknotes to Ichkeria for US dollars, a real currency. Such a deal was useful for both Estonia -- which at that time still had severe shortage of foreign currency, and actually listed "Estonian forests" in the balance sheet of Bank of Estonia -- as well as the fledling Republic of Ichkeria, which still used Russian roubles as its currency but due to the displeasantries with Russia was quite unable to get them from Russian central bank.

However, an opposition party managed to spin the effort as a shady deal with immense possibility to anger Russia -- some even claimed it constituted a theft of Russian-owned roubles, although of course they'd never explain how come Russia's roubles were in Estonia's bank vaults --, and coupled together with a few other vague accusations, Laar's cabinet fell. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the roubles were meant to be sent back to the issuing authority (you're joking with "how come Russia's Soviet roubles were in Estonia's bank vaults", right?), but were instead secretly sold to a group of militant separatists, this pretty much fits the "shady deal" description, no? I understand that Laar's associates were later acquitted in court, because Ichkeria was recognized as part of Russia, and the court ruled that selling the money to any Russian institution would have been impossible, because no such institution would pay a dime for the roubles. Neato. By the way, are there any Estonian sources to support the above? I did a little search there, but it seems that the West (English) doesn't give a damn about the issue (I could only find a bit on the arms from Israel thing), while the East (Russia) only mentions this as a passing reference to the "corrupt Russophobic Estonian government," bent on helping out every enemy of Russia out there. -Illythr (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You must be new to macroeconomy. Cash is not "given back to issuing authority" when it is no longer needed. Since cash was bought in the first place, in exchange for goods and services, it's normally *sold* back when it is no longer needed. And if the issuing bank does not want to buy it at a reasonable price (as in, pay out the gold if it's a gold-backed currency), there is nothing wrong in seeking another (or higher) bidder.

Your understanding of the court proceedings seems rather implausible. Why would acquittal depend on whether Ichkeria was "part of Russia"? Sorry, that just doesn't compute. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if you're really unaware of this or this is a misunderstanding of some sort, but during the time Estonia has been part of the Soviet Union (as the Estonian SSR), the currency that circulated on its territory was Soviet roubles. Once a new currency was introduced into the newly independent economy, these roubles were no longer needed. They were then withdrawn from circulation and supposed to be sent to the original issuer's economic heir, Russia, for processing. This has nothing to do with goods and services - the roubles were simply leftover Soviet money that was now useless to the new state.

After reviewing the sources, it seems I was indeed incorrect - this was not the reason for acquittal, but an argument of one of Laar's henchmen, who had used it in his defence.

PS: I am extracting all this information from the sources I have provided. I have otherwise no personal knowledge of this affair and have previously considered it an obscure anti-Estonian urban legend (the "Estonian government helping Chechen rebels" line seemed too much like a low-grade conspiracy theory. Well, whaddayaknow.) If you can source the claim that Estonia was under no obligation to return the roubles - all the better, but please don't do it without providing sources (or removing existing ones just like that). --Illythr (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no source for such an obligation; your demand for a source about lack of this obligation is absurd. It wouldn't have made any sense to give the roubles -- still legal tender in Russia and several other ex-USSR countries -- to somebody for free. The trials you might have heard of were -- unlike what you might have heard of -- about administrative violations in large-scale transfer of large amount of cash (as they were transferred as diplomatic mail rather than export of cash), and about a delay in retransfer of the dollars paid for the roubles, which led to significant interest being paid to the people in charge of the mission. The acquittals were due to lack of necessary components of the alleged crimes.

A source is [3]. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me reiterate: You're correct in that the rouble cash was mostly useless to Estonia after the monetary reform. However, there was no reason whatsoever to deliver that cash to Russian bank. Don't forget that Bank of Estonia didn't get the cash for free, either -- it had just bought it from people in exchange for the newly issued EEK cash. It is common throughout the Western world to dispose of unneeded state property -- which the old cash was at this time -- by selling it to highest bidder, although the circumstances are usually more prosaic than in this case. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't ask somebody to provide a source supporting the non-existence of something else just like that, would I? Let's read one of these sources: [...] In accordance to a signed agreement with Russia, Estonia took upon itself to give the cash rubles collected during the money reform to the Central Bank of Russia. [...]. So you see, I'm not asking you to prove a negative, but to find something that reliably contradicts existing, sourced information. The source you have provided does not contradict the above sentence (if Google translated it right).

I heard that the trials were mainly about whether Laar and Co (just the Co, AFAIR) had overstepped their decision authority or not, and that it was judged that they did not.

The bank "bought" (it itself uses the word "exchanged" [4]) the roubles with the money it just issued and "fixed" to an arbitrary value itself. Right. --Illythr (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't be referring to the agreement of rouble transfer that Vähi signed before Laar's PMship? The one that the State Comptroller's Office condemned as irresponsible and unlawful? Nope -- illegal agreements can't be considered as sufficient basis for giveaway of billions of roubles. It might have made a heck of a bribe to the then-reigning Soviet authorities, sure.

As for the SUR->EEK exchange, nobody was forced to exchange their cash. I retained a few of my hard-earned rouble banknotes as memorabilia myself. (There's no need to remind you that they lost all financial value in a few short years.) It just so happened that BoE's rate was among the best available rates, and while SUR kept falling, EEK managed to brake the inflation down to a manageable level.

Remember: events from this era are generally poorly understood by the general public. A lot of rumours circulated, some better, some worse. Some of these rumours were politically motivated. It was an era so hectic there was even no Internet! Taking a random thing you read or hear about anything from the early 1990s Estonia is likely to mislead you. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 13:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't got the slightest idea - the source just says "signed agreement" without elaborating. If you can provide another source that does elaborate on the situation (including the "agreement declared illegal" thing) - excellent. Otherwise, deleting sourced information based on own opinion is a Bad Thing.

nobody was forced to exchange - The governmental source disagrees with you there: The monetary reform took place on 20 June 1992. The Estonian kroon was declared the sole legal tender in circulation and Eesti Pank the only regulator of monetary relations in Estonia.

Indeed, that's why I never took this thing seriously until I found some Estonian official sources referring to it. Are you saying that Vähi, as the leader of the state, signed a binding agreement that was later unilaterally declared illegal? This Russian source seems to partially confirm this, providing a different rationale by Vahi. --Illythr (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my point: you haven't got the slightest idea. You don't even understand how Estonian legal review works, yet you believe you can assess what should be in the article and what not. It's even more curious that you began by wearing your lack of understanding as a pride, as though it gave you some sort of aura for neutrality. SOUR at its finest.

Unlike you, I understand what happened. I have read countless of different sources, from different biases, on this topic. I've discussed it with people who were in the Parliament when it became a government-falling affair. I can reasonably well assess which aspects of the affair were prominent, which ones were minor, and which were just distractions. And you, who have perhaps read two or three random writings, have the guts to call my informed assessment "own opinion is a Bad Thing"? Has Wikipedia sunk so low as to call understanding of the topic at hand a "Bad Thing"?

State Comptroller's Office does not "declare illegal" anything. It is not a part of the judiciary branch. Instead, it condemned the rouble transfer agreement. And before you claim it must have been political: no, State Comptroller is an independent apolitical government agency. And, of course, the Parliament (Supreme Soviet at that time, Riigikogu slightly later) never ratified the invalid agreement.

Oh, and the fact that only EEK was legal tender didn't mean you were forced to exchange your cash. After all, many individuals and companies still attempted to do business with former USSR, and roubles were worth something in these transactions. And, of course, some people preferred to exchange their roubles for USD or FIM or SEK instead. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 04:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Your source is bad. It's not about the events, it's about how some Russian politician might attempt to use the events to discredit another Russian politician in elections of 14 years later. To that effect, it namedrops Siim Kallas, even though he has nothing to do with the narrative. And even so, it's fraught with errors such as this:

“ Что же касается незаконной денежной эмиссии, то, согласно российскому законодательству, ЦБ обладает монопольным правом на проведение денежной эмиссии. ”

No emission; all these roubles had already been emitted by Soviet authorities. It was not bogus cash; it was real cash emitted under the different practices Soviets had been using to emit cash. This kind of obfuscation might be understandable in the speech of a shady lawyer or a shady politician; it most definitely does not belong to an encyclopædia. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 04:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, you did get one point right - your informed assessment, a.k.a. unsubstantiated opinion does not permit you to delete sourced information you don't like. As long as you don't present at least one reference to support your claims (the one you did provide says nothing on that issue; come on, I'm not picky, any Estonian newspaper article will do, as long as it's a major one). Additionally, for all your claimed knowledge of the situation, you have demonstrated a lack of basic understanding of what was going on back then (I still don't know if you were joking with "how come Russia's roubles were in Estonia's bank vaults" or with the claim that the transfer from roubles to kroons was a purely voluntary thing - perhaps you missed the word "sole" in "declared the sole legal tender in circulation"? Or do they accept, say, SEK at every grocery store in Estonia?).

You started off well enough, lacking only a reference to your initial assessment. When I asked you to provide it, I got a lecture on how much Wikipedia sucks for a wise and knowledgeable person such as yourself. For my part, I don't feign any knowledge here, and am merely trying to get this article (and you) to adhere to one of the fundamental Wikipedia regulations - verifiability. No luck so far.

The Russian source I found there was an attempt to substantiate your claims for you, partially, at least. It describes two affairs in one package, the one about Kallas is the other, unrelated one. The parts about an illegal emission or lack of the Central Bank's approval for the shipment of such an amount of money are interesting, but beside the point. I brought it in only because it confirmed at least part of what you say. --Illythr (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyhow, thanks to Termer for fixing the stuff right up! Any objections to leaving it as it is now? --Illythr (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP violation

Devoting a section to an obscure event is clearly giving undue weight, which in turn is a BLP violation. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 09:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This was not an obscure event, as you can see from the sources it was widely covered in the media, and was a major event animating party relations in the country. You should probably read up on the rules, because the portion is detailed in a neutral way, and is an important insight into Laar as a politician and person. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 09:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree to Grammarxxx in reasons given. I want to add that shooting into photo of political opponent by sitting PM from real firearm is dangerous sign of aggression and this is why seemingly small event got so much attention. All information is well sourced, more can be easily found in Google in case of doubt. I agree that possibly quality can be made better with small fixes but vandalizing full data out is really wrong. Also I cannot agree with any article in Wikipedia which is written like advertisement only. BLP has nothing to do with this. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

+1 for keeping these facts. But people, do not call edits "vandalism" if it's not 100% clear they are vandalism. Per WP:VAND: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism" -- intgr [talk] 09:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

To me it is vandalism because just blanked out whole stuff instead of fixing it to be more "improved". I am not mind-reader but does not look good faith to me either but forcing own POV by anonymous 87.208.192.123. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope, in terms of English language coverage of the life of Mart Laar, this event does not rate a mention. Given the prominence this event is given in this 22k article it is clearly being given undue weight. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts and as WP:BLP states are biographies to be written conservatively. The fact that you want to add the text to show "a dangerous sign of aggression" as you state shows that this text is being added contrary to BLP policy. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 09:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

So if that particular section is "too prominent", instead of removing the section, perhaps you could just expand the rest of the article?

Also, there is no requirement for the sources to be in English or event itself to be mentioned in English newspapers. As can be seen from the linked articles, the event was very widely reported in Estonian press and as such, most certainly notable.

--Sander Säde 10:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that both scandals (shooting the image of Edgar Savisaar, which promted Mart Laar's resignation as prime minister; deleting questions on ACTA from Mart Laar's Facebook page) are notable. I can see no reason for deleting these sections in the article.

Also, I suspect there might be a conflict of interest that has triggered this edit war: the party attempting to delete these sections may have a conflict of interest. Deleting questions on Mart Laar's Facebook page (which he himself seems not to manage) is, as a technique, very similar to the practice of the anonymous user from the IP address 87.208.192.123 in this article. I would seriously like to know if there is a conflict of interest or not. -- Ohpuu (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

As for Tõnu's statement that it is a "dangerous sign of aggression," that is their own viewpoint they concluded by reading the section and articles, although the section itself is neutral. And for your attack, accusing that "The fact that you want to add the text," the truth is they want to keep it because it's relevant, you're here trying to get it removed by saying its partisan. And FYI, because I'm certain you're only partially familiar with BLP rules, you're not going to have it removed here. This is not a roll call vote (though if it was it'd still remain); it is going to stay here because it's neutral and relevant. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 10:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The article is what it is, and this text is still being given undue weight. I've been editing wikipedia since 2007 and am quite familiar with WP:BLP which states:

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

Dredging up obscure events from over ten years ago and given such prominence in order to show a "dangerous sign of aggression" as clearly stated by the editor inserting this text demonstrates an apparent intention of harming Mart Laar's reputation, which is contrary to wiki policy. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about facts. If politician made something and this act is inserted into Wikipedia, it NOT intention to harm reputation but intention to provide neutral view. It was not neutral to keep only positive thing in and negative out. If you do not understand why sitting PM should not shoot photos of opposite party leader, I understand you. It took me some time too. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Editing wikipedia since 2007 eh? Seeing how your account only shows edits from today, I am now certain you are either a, liar, or a sock puppet, which I will be certain to bring up in an investigation if it calls for it.

And as for "dredging up obscure events from over ten years ago," it doesn't matter when the events happen, they happened because of him and will be included in his article, and as for how it could harm his reputation, seeing how he's no longer Prime Minister, and that it occurred over ten years ago, I'd say any damage is already done. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 10:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Be my guest and start a sock puppet investigation, your knowledge of WP:SOCK appears to be as deficient as your knowledge of WP:BLP. The article already cites several reasons why he lost his Prime Ministership including an arms deal and a currency scandal in one sentence. Mentioning the "target practice" incident in its own separate section gives grossly undue weight in comparison and it thus remains a BLP violation. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

To people who want to start throwing their weights around, I can say I've been a Wikipedian since 2004, an admin on my home WP since then, a chapter's board member since 2011 - and all this has absolutely nothing to do with the actual arguments on the subject. That said, I can assure these two scandals have been relevant issues in Estonian politics. The saying about "no room in Facebook" became a target of widespread ridicule (from articles and caricatures in all major newspapers to a couple of web-based games) because it fell into the general context of anti-ACTA protests and the general denial of there being any problem at all with ACTA by most leading politicians. The main target of the reaction was the prime minister, but Laar as the leader of a coalition party was also significant. Now, the "target practice" incident was one of the issues influencing Laar's career in long term. Yes, it was not THE single reason why he had to leave his post. But it was certainly relevant, especially because he tried to deny it for a long time. It is also relevant as an example of a manipulated attack on him, because the whole thing was outed not at the time it happened, but much later; the exact motifs for the delay are still disputed. To sum it up: if you think these themes get an undue weight, you're welcome to write a short summary and expand the aother parts, but outright deletion of criticism is not a fruitful tactics for cooperation in Wikipedia. --Oop (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no mention why Laar stepped down in 2002. Arms deal (1993) and currency scandal (1992-1993) have nothing to do with Laar's second government (March 1999 - January 2002). Shooting scandal was one of the largest political scandals of the past 20 years (along with Savisaar's taping scandal, the power plant privatization, and Israeli arms deal). Laar was caught in a web of lies (much like Clinton), which damaged him much more than the shooting itself. Dailies such as Äripäev called for his resignation. He did not resign, but the coalition remained under immense pressure, which caused its breakdown less than a year later as a result of this and many other scandals (keywords: Mihkel Pärnoja, Toivo Jürgenson), none of which are mentioned in the article. Currently, the article simply states "He remained in the post until he stepped down in 2002" without giving any explanations. The arms deal and currency scandal should be expanded as well, since they have played very important part in his public image and thereby in his political career. 37.28.201.153 (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Good! Now please insert all this into article but do not vandalize what others have done. Calls for resignation after shooting scandal included also ex-PM Mart Siiman and of course leader of opposition Edgar Savisaar. Why all these claims about intention to harm Mart Laar were needed? Tõnu Samuel (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You may be confusing me for 87.208.192.123. :-) 37.28.201.153 (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops, you are right. Sorry 8) Tõnu Samuel (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I just want to add that, despite my complete removal of sentences earlier, all I really think is that the incidences should be written about in a neutral tone/manner. In the first version of the edit it simply quoted what Laar said, without any explanation why the event was significant or worth mentioning. So it just came across as "no explanation needed, it's hilarious as it is".

I think this incident and the "shooting" incident should both be written about, but with several good refs and a neutral tone, and they don't get their own sections because that would give them undue weight; we're only summarizing what the sources say and should be careful not to let our opinions influence us. And of course I'd favor explanding the rest of the article as well but I personally won't volunteer for it.

(I'm Estonian, yes, but I'm too young to have any strong opinions on Laar. I'd say I'm fairly neutral in my possible biases, and I'm more interested in upholding Wikipedia's policies than anything else.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Specifically I think the "Shooting scandal" title should be removed as quickly as possible, it's overly sensationalistic and gives the wrong impression. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

To make sure no-one gets insulted Jeremy Clarkson has proposed to make TV show where people do not talk. If we start to remove everything, we can delete Wikipedia at once. You seem now to have some idea how to improve it, please do! Till now main forces were attempts to delete anything which can be inconvenient for people who did it. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a TV show, this is Wikipedia and BLPs have a higher standard than regular articles and any contentious material is to be removed per policy. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Proper name would be "shotgun scandal", a literal translation of its Estonian name (pumppüssiskandaal). 37.28.201.153 (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Digwuren (87.208.192.123) here: both the picture shooting and the Facebook stuff deletion are non-encyclopedic trivia. They might potentially become relevant if used to highlight some significant points in his biography (i.e., excessive aggression, support of [UPD: or opposition to] ACTA or the like, as noted by noted by multiple reliable secondary sources), but not on their own, as vague implications. The Facebook deletion in particular is a prime candidate for a "Trivia" section entry, which is a definite no-no for BLPs. --illythr (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

In the deleted posts he claimed to NOT support ACTA, by the way. Also, I don't agree with you. If several good sources talk about an incident then we can and should include it, especially as they're relevant to him as a politician and public figure (i.e., it's not trivia about his personal life). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that the guy is of the generation before the Internet and thus understandably not all that tech-savvy, and the fact other people administer his Facebook page, the whole thing is a silly press beat-up that is irrelevant to Laar's biography. (Ps, I'm not Digwuren). 87.208.192.123 (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is why it has a single paragraph in the "Relationship with media" section. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

"generation before the Internet" is not correct in best of my knowledge. Older IT people remember time when government Unix server had "guest" account and with "who" command one could see Mart Laar reading mail. He is not IT professional but he is early adopter and user of Internet. It is style of politicians to play fool and make "I did not knew" look. Remember Gorbachev after case when army attacked civilians. He also did not knew anything.

I vote for expanding other parts of article. Person is notable and even songs have longer description. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If several newspapers/tabloids mull over some amusing/embarrassing moment of some public person's life and then forget about it the next year, no, we don't. Of all the links provided, I see only one that's not from 2001, and that's the tabloid (there's also Laar's blog entry, where this "shotgun scandal" appears only among the comments). Are there any overview sources that mention this incident as part of his biography? --illythr (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I would actually separate the two topics here. On the Facebook space scandal, he must have not have any idea what was going on while he must have understood what he was doing while shooting at his arch rival's photo. I agree that the Facebook space scandal has received undue weight mainly from the computer generation and tells us only about his lack of webmedia skills, while the shooting scandal talks about his somewhat wreckless character. That said, even the latter should be presented only in a wider and deeper context perhaps based mainly on biographies, just as Illythr has suggested. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

1. The Facebook space incident is mainly relevant because Laar took a (somewhat) pro-ACTA stance and when the protests grew, these statements were deleted. Due to his denial ("maybe we ran out of space"), it turned into a botched PR incident. So, it could very well be summed up in a single sentence, but in my opinion, it should be mentioned. 2. The shotgun or "target practice" scandal was a much larger issue, and one of the factors leading to the end of Laar's second government, so it deserves mentioning as an explanation why it happened. 3. And yes, we should use relevant sources. (Although in the coverage of political scandals, tabloids traditionally have a relevant part.) --Oop (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Facebook incident is only relevant to the article ACTA controversy in Estonia and not a biography because a moderator deleted the material without Laar's knowledge in any case. The target practice incident should be published in a secondary source that places it into a biographical context, a mention in a tabloid and a blog comment is insufficient for in inclusion here. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Mart Laart claims that someone else, mysterious admin deleted it without his concent. Same man also claimed that there was not shooting incident. 114.175.22.136 (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)