Talk:Congress of Estonia

message: Ive left the POV tag in place but PLEASE! reach a consensus before any more reverts/edits.--Alexia Death 12:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert waring 

message: Petri Krohn has repeatedly attempted to attach a number of weird WP:POVs into this article.  I'm listing them here, as I did with Bronze Soldier of Tallinn (see Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn/Archive 4#Weird manipulations).
* He has attempted to claim that not providing automatic citizenship to extralegal immigrants of 1940-1990 "was", "meant in practice" or otherwise amounted to disenfranchisement, and "restrictive" as citizenship laws go.  While this WP:POV has sometimes also been pushed by the local ethnic Russian representatives, and the government of the Russian Federation, he has not referred to these sources, which indicates private WP:POV, possibly WP:OR.
* He has attempted to assert that such "disenfranchisement" compares to the Nuremberg laws.  (See also User talk:Petri Krohn#Congress of Estonia.)  This is done most disingenously; first, "combining" the number of the "disenfranchised" in Estonia with that of Latvia to make the count bigger, then wrongfully supertaxon-classifying both events as "disenfranchisement", and discarding the important distinctions based on illegality of Soviet occupation, and non-ethnic nature of this "disenfranchisement" process.  Apparently, he has attempted to convey the Nazi connotations of the Nuremberg racial purity laws onto Estonian restoration-era citizenship policies, in attempt to sneakily deliver the non-supportable position that Estonian policies were, and by extension, are Nazi-minded.
* Apparently in attempt to support the idea of "disenfranchisement" and the Citizens' Committees' criteria for citizenship (which later became the recognised base for citizenship of the Republic of Estonia) as peculiar, unsupportable, or a whole-cloth invention, he has repeatedly inappropriately added double quotes around "citizens of Estonia" in the context of voting eligibility.
* He has repeatedly replaced "Estonia regaining independence" with "Estonia separating from Soviet Union".  While it was I who first introducted the latter wording, I consider it a poor choice, and the first wording is a better summary of the events.  Repeatedly reverting to the second amounts to pushing an occupation denialist WP:POV.
* He has repeatedly attempted to refer to post-WWII immigrant residence in Estonia in 1990 as "legal residency", although this legality is at the very crux of the primary question faced by Congress of Estonia, and got resolved differently.  Such a sneaky attempt to recognise Soviet Union laws as valid in Estonian territory amounts to pushing a Soviet imperialist WP:POV.
Digwuren 08:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird manipulations by [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] 

message: I have tentatively restored the later developments on citizenship, as I feel it's tangentially connected to the article, and important to understand the general narrative and what might be felt as easter-egg discrepancies between the current laws and the original citizenship laws, especially since the original citizenship laws didn't get published on Estlex and thus, aren't available on the current legal repository at eRT.  (I wouldn't have added citizenship issues to the article in the first place, though.)  I feel unfirm in my position, though.  What are the opinions of other editors on the subject? Digwuren 09:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizenship: later developments 

message: Petri Krohn has expressed concern that describing Russian citizenship laws in this article may be irrelevant.  I disagree, as history has shown several editors would incorrectly conclude that Estonian citizenship law contributed to statelessness if the availability of Russian citizenship wouldn't be pointed out. Digwuren 15:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text was inserted under elections of the Riigikogu. The relevant issue here is disenfranchisement, not the possibilty to apply for foreign citizenship. -- Petri Krohn 23:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, relocate it to a better place.  Don't push obscure pet POVs.  Even bots' patience is bound to end eventually. Digwuren 23:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are the one who wants to discuss Russian citizenship, you find a better place for it (possibly in some other article.) Please do not use it for censorship/blanking, as you are doing. -- Petri Krohn 23:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean, like this? Digwuren 23:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I see you already found a better place for this point-of-view. I have no objection to this. -- Petri Krohn 23:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of [[Russian Federation]]'s citizenship 

message: Petri Krohn has repeatedly reverted to a bad version without bothering to discuss it.
This has gotten quite disruptive.  I have applied for protection of the page. Digwuren 16:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: This is so cute. Anyone with the slightest scent of common sence will know that statements like "more than 50%" can refer to anything from 50% + 1 unit to 75% or more, but "more than 38%" is almost never more than 38%+1 unit. Statement kinda sorta defends it's purpose. RJ CG 14:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More than 38%