Talk:Alfons Rebane

message: Involvement of the Estonian SS Legion in War Crimes in 1941-1945 and the Attempts to Revise the Verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal in Estonia"... While I haven't read that one, I have read the equivalent Latvian one and it is replete with errors and misrepresentations. I expect the Estonian one is cut from the same cloth. Just a FYI. Vecrumba <SMALL>      TALK</SMALL> 03:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that the document published by the Russian Foreign Ministry? --Martintg (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Side comment on Russian ministry "documentation" 

message: I just reviewed the latest change by PasswordUsername: "subsequent public commemmoration of Rebane's war service have been protested by the American Jewish Congress" against the cited source and it doesn't match. Page 66 actually states "The American Jewish Congress protested against the re-burying with state honors of Alfons rebane". --Martintg (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That refers to the Russian Jewish Congress. Also, the general protests of the Russian Mission to the United Nations as far as Rebane being lauded as a freedom fighter by Estonians. The current sentence has ambiguous grammar, but I rewrote it as you objected to the "rehabilitation" wording. (Rebane was obviously not recognized as a positive figure in any way in Soviet Estonia, so why did you feel that it was POV to talk about the rehabilitation of his reputation in post-1991 Estonia?) --PasswordUsername (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification failed 

message: The last line of the lead "and triggered protest against historical revisionism from the Russian Federation." with reference to the document published as a protest by the Russian Federation  is synthesis, because there is nothing in that source that states that the reburial actually triggered the publication of this document. It should be removed. --Martintg (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the claim like Involvement of the Estonian SS Legion in War Crimes in 1941-1945 and the Attempts to Revise the Verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal in Estonia can stay as long as it's pointed out that the legion was excluded from the Verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal as a conscript unit and nobody is seeking to revise such verdict anywhere including in Estonia. In fact many soldiers from the "Estonian legion", that was actually a division, were instead serving as prison guards during Nuremberg Trials. For example Nuremberg Tribunal Guard Company 4221 was entirely put together with soldiers from ex Estonian Waffen-SS division who ended up guarding war criminals in Nuremberg.--Termer (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that no where in the document Involvement of the Estonian SS Legion in War Crimes in 1941-1945 and the Attempts to Revise the Verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal in Estonia is it mentioned that Rebane's reburial is historical revisionism. --Martintg (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the article clearly refers to Rebane as a "Nazi criminal", it says "Estonia have been seeking to heroize the Nazi criminals since mid 1990s", it complains about the reburial and the entire piece is called "Attempts to Revise the Verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal in Estonia". So it's is clear to me at least that the Russian mission to the UN thinks that the reburial of Rebane is directly linked to general, what they think is "historical revisionism in Estonia". Since all possible relevant POV-s are represented, I can't see any problems having it included even though strictly speaking it's not according to WP:RS but a primary source that would need a conformation to avoid WP:OR concerns.--Termer (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triggered protest 

message: Preserving here by providing this link; pls see edit summary for rationale. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure why you keep removing units from the infobox, or where you got the idea that regimental sized units shouldn't be in an infobox. The infobox doc explicitly allows units down to company size. --Nug (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox edit 

message: Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "Undue opinion by an expert on SS uniforms". --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  August 2019 edits