Talk:Mart Laar

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: "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..." . 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)
replies: text: 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. 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Geopolitical reorientation

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

text: Fun fact: the Amish people *do* tend to call everybody outside their community "English". ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estonian AND RUSSIAN history??? 

message: I added this to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mart_Laar --Staberinde (talk) 11:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That is just the opinion of one single writer, compared to the dozens of other writers who haven't mentioned at all because they think it irrelevant. Newspapers generally disclaim any endorsement of opinion peices they publish. Therefore undue weight is given to a single author's opinion. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 08:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I can refer to thousands of writers who haven't mentioned theory of general relativity. Therefore, it is just the opinion of one single writer (Albert Einstein), hence irrelevant and should not be mentioned in Wikipedia. Yeah, your argument makes sense. --Oop (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: However I can cite hundreds of writers that mention the theory of general relativity years after Einstein formulated the theory, but you can only cite one single writer that mentions the shotgun event ten years after it occurred. So notability test fails. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are are not following. There are two over 10 year links in current pages: photo 8 and this. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

text:  "you can only cite one single writer that mentions the shotgun event ten years after it occurred" - this is absolutely baffling. In the context of scandals, this is very often mentioned, see thishttp://www.delfi.ee/news/paevauudised/eesti/suhtekorraldaja-reformierakond-on-nagu-mitmekordne-olumpiavoitja-kelle-vorm-pole-avalikkuse-meelest-kindel.d?id=65377018, thishttp://www.ap3.ee/?PublicationId=2e993fb4-ae36-450b-8373-29a71cfd08ac, thishttp://www.epl.ee/news/eesti/taismahus-laari-sonad-eesti-riigi-rundajad-lastakse-maha-seda-garanteerin.d?id=56247236 and thishttp://www.ekspress.ee/news/paevauudised/eestiuudised/reformierakonna-asutajaliikme-pihtimus-veel-kord-erakondade-rahastamisest-ausalt.d?id=64770022. 5.43.56.51 (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Well I think it should explain what he said in his deleted posts, that's actually the important part. Everyone hears "regarding ACTA" and assumes that he's a supporter of ACTA, two editors right here above already assumed that. To be fair/balanced, we have to note what he said, and also that other people's posts contained questions that he never answered when the posts were deleted (I assume that's why they were upset/suspicious). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

text: This is not right because facts we know have been altered in "after his Facebook page moderator deleted posts regarding ACTA". Nobody knows who is this moderator or moderators, if he/they actually exist and if he/they deleted anything. Fact is that Mart Laar told us so, no more. I do not think any politican words can be asserted to be facts and put in like facts. Add this to picture and yes I insist on not trusting any word he said because this "fact" is not verifiable. We can verify only fact that posts did disappear. Too many known real people saw this and posted screenshots. I think current text is very good because it explains event as it is and it is up to reader to decide how to perceive it. You understood "Facebook page moderator deleted posts", someone else understood "He made lame excuse" but until we do not have fact, we should not write neither of these POVs to main article. I agree that whole case is ridiculous and theoretically should not get attention. But in real life people were worried of factual censorship and this ridiculous answer was given by high profile politician on government press conference. Video exists in sources. So this is verifiable and notable but also ridiculous. But in rest we should not make any assertions who told us truth. Otherwise next is writing in article that Mart Laar is liar. No! Also some people assume that he got stroke and cannot participate in internet life. I think administrator should get stroke then? No! We get nonsense. I insist on NPOV and keeping facts and sources. I also think "running out of space" sentence was relatively messy even in Estonian, so let's make this translation as best we can and it is up to user to decide what room it was - disk, facebook, internet or something else. I believe current text is good and it already became better with edits made. I fully agree with Jeraphine Gryphon here too. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Staberinde's concise wording. So much text has been given to this that it dominates the "Media relations" section that now it appears to be the most important event in his entire career. So while you think the paragraph is balanced the section no longer is. You can not say the solution is to simply expand the section later, WP:BLP does not permit this, the article and its sections must be balanced at all times. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It never was balanced then until this problem was not in or out. Whole article is unbalanced, so lets delete it :). Please tell how big share of text it should be in your opinion? 10%, 20%? I can try to fix if we get sort of consensus on percentage. Or maybe just headline should be changed to something else? Tõnu Samuel (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you not able to accept other people's arguments? Staberinde offered wording that is of appropriate weight in comparison to other events. I said I agreed with his wording. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see argument here: "Article is bad, unbalanced" and I ask: "how you think we can improve it?". Any proposals? I do not see proposal. Now if you say "Staberinde offered wording that is of appropriate weight in comparison to other events" then ok, I missed this point. I expected that you have own idea which is even better. Proposed sentence is not good enough because it blames poor administrator as fact and assumes Mart Laar words are fact without hesitation. Current wording is maybe longer in number of characters but more neutral in content. I propose to include more data in article. One idea is to take http://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mart_Laar#T.C3.B6.C3.B6kohad or similar part in.  Tõnu Samuel (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Press about credibility of Mart Laar:  Mart Laar's lie was exposed, Mart Laar muddled and lied, Today, 16 years ago Mart Laar lied about roubles deal, Prime Minister Mart Laar lied about facts on shooting and so on. Assuming that Mart Laar said "admin deleted" does not mean this is final truth. So we should have kepp it explained with his words and clear indication that he explained that way. This is really NPOV. I think both shooting and FB cases are short and NPOV. Now lets make effort on inserting good things. Can you find them? If yes, please insert. If no, then this person has no more good to tell and article is balanced and fair. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There exists a presumption of innocence. No matter Laar's track record in other events you cannot extrapolate that to the ACTA event and assume Laar is lying about who administers his FB page, that is a violation of WP:BLP in the absence of any published evidence to the contrary. Staberinde is very experienced and knowledgeable of policy, therefore his text is the best summary of the events. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 10:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Yes we should not assume anything! I just try to explain that it is wrong to include any assumption in but keep it in way "Mart Laar explained this:" and then exactly what he said. Proposed text assumed that living person, admin is liable and anything what politician said if fact. If we take his words as fact then next is Jürgen Ligi about speech of Mart Laar: he lied and muddled. This is not fact, this is what someone said about it. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

text: In current wording I agree with your edit. If same data was written with less words - why not. I think this is the main value of any encyclopedia - lot of quality data in little size. Thanks. I check it more carefully for possible smaller changes but I am happy with outcome for now. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:   Arbitrary break 

message: Looking for help writing orders into article. Unsure how to translate "Riigivapi II klassi teenetemärk" or if it should be kept as is. Also possibly better sources can be found. Tõnu Samuel (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's "Order of the National Coat of Arms 2nd Class". The official list of decorations he has received from Estonia is located here. Based on the categories, he has also received the Knights First Class of the Order of the White Rose of Finland. —Quibik (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Orders

message: Are there any objections in putting this information in the body of the article? Mart Laar's books are used extensively for some of the military history articles, such as Battle of Tannenberg Line and I believe it's important to reflect inherent biases in these sources. Here are additional sources: Nordic, Central, and Southeastern Europe 2015-2016, European Conference on Information warfare and security.
Separately, rehabilitation of Waffen-SS in Estonia caused a controversy within the European Union. I can flesh out this some more. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If any of that info is controversial then you probably need to use extra good sources. (Honestly I'm not sure if I can recognize what's controversial or not so I'm just hoping you'll do it right.) The Algemeiner article sounded suspiciously biased/passionate about the subject at hand. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right-wing politician and historian