Talk:Estonian Internal Security Service

message: Teinonen is not a reliable source in this matter (or most others).  He is not known for his detailed scholarly assessment; he's known for his approval of Nazi policies.
There have been some pretty colourful dudes in Estonian scout movement.  Perhaps it's regrettable that Teinonen doesn't eat cats, just pigs -- if he did, he might be as notable as Asso Kommer. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Teinonen's case has received coverage in reliable sources (such as the ones I used in my edit.) Remember: verifiability, not truth. Offliner (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much every of your sources characterizes him as a Neo-Nazi, yet you somehow failed to mention this in your summary. Why? Colchicum (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think it's relevant, you are free to add it to the article. Offliner (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree. My initial version was indeed a bit too long. It still needs refinement. Offliner (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

text: For a taste of Teinonen's opinions, the first article about him on Google is an interview headlined "Teinonen: National Socialism had many good sides".  He's notorious, not notable.  I find it hard to believe that anybody but another neo-Nazi would seriously consider adding Teinonen's opinion about police onto Wikipedia would be a good idea. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 19:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would very clearly direct you towards your own Arbcom at Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned which states "All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee. This applies both to the parties to this case as well as to any other editor that may choose to engage in such conduct." I would urge you to be very, very careful in even thinly veiled accusations at myself or any other editor being a Neo-Nazi or anything else; especially when that is further from the truth, and particularly when members of my own family died fighting that scourge. Would you like to refactor your comments? --Russavia Dialogue 19:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your and Offliner's editwarring to keep neo-Nazi material in this article speaks for itself. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 19:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I will deal with your continued accusations later in another venue. As to your assertions, whether he is a neo-Nazi or not is irrelevant. It is whether he notable enough for his opinion to be on WP? You brought up the "notorious" argument with Johan Bäckman when it was at AfD, and every link you provided only went further towards establishing his notability. Ilves saw fit to revoke the awards he received in relation to the charges levelled against him, and he is profiled in the Estonian press quite a lot it seems? The problem I have with the material, is that firstly you blindly reverted the information completely, which I abhor at the best of times and often see as disruption or whitewashing (which explains my revert of yourself), and then that after copyediting it I saw that the information was somewhat WP:UNDUE due to it's length, and thirdly because it lacked context for his opinion. Ideally, the information should be presented as "As a result of KaPo investigations blah blah blah which resulted in blah blah blah caused Teinonen to accuse KaPo of blah blah blah", and to keep it short and succinct, without delving into advocacy of one view or another. I would hope that other sources are found which can provide this information, but not speaking Estonian, this makes it somewhat difficult for myself, but it does appear that sources are out there. --Russavia Dialogue 19:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Oh, and Teinonen is neither known for being a lawyer, nor a member of the bar association. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Well add it to the article, and ensure that it is sourced. Simple as that. No other comments except to say that we are not censored and your removals are in blatant violation of this. --Russavia Dialogue 08:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong.  The way to cure a coatrack is not to hang more coats to it. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop censoring WP Digwuren. We have in articles on a Soviet war memorial it is known as a "Tomb of the unknown rapist", and heaps of other shit that we don't like to see. And this is an instance of the same thing. Just because we don't believe in his views does not mean that his views are invalid for inclusion on WP, particularly when the Estonian press themselves have carried the accusations, and to which it was sourced. --Russavia Dialogue 08:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding a section entitled Criticism and basing it on some relatively unknown Neo-Nazi's claims is very much undue. There are definitely some individual anarchists in Estonia, who claims KAPO and police, and the army, and the Estonian state are criminal organisations. Similarly, Neo-Nazis in different European countries have raised accusations that they are being harassed, stalked, persecuted by the security services of the country concerned. There are really so many such rumors that as a rule don't have any encyclopedic value. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem that Digwarrior had was the accusations were sourced to a blog. They have now been sourced to an apparent (??) reliable source. Therefore they meet the threshold for inclusion in the article. But now they are WP:UNDUE. For f' sake, make up ones mind. Gaming the system to exclude information from an article is not on. I need only show Federal Security Service (Russia) in which accusations are made, and included, based upon the same inclusion criteria as here. Are we now going to remove those accusations from all other articles as well? No, of course not, because to do so would be censorship and to engage in advocacy. Frankly, Miacek, I thought you would have known this, and would have been the last person to remove such things from an article. Should I also point out the ridiculous, that these accusations are the only things that are sourced in the article? That is definitely not how WP works. --Russavia Dialogue 09:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Additionally, the text which has been removed was not only on their surveillance of him. It was based on this surveillance, and the lack of illegality in his activities, and also that he has made accusations that they threatened his life. We are not here to judge the veracity of these claims, but to include them in an WP:NPOV fashion, which they were, and allow readers to make up their own minds. But as usual, on such topics, readers are denied even this opportunity, and that in my mind is advocacy and censorship. --Russavia Dialogue 10:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) I checked the article you linked. There's indeed a whole section of controversies. On the other hand, the article does not include some utterances mr Barkashov, D.Vasilyev or V.Anpilov have said. The question is not that whether an institution has been criticised (they all have been), but rather: how many people support a particular critical statement? how notable is the opinion of a single individual personal? Even in the FSB article I wouldn't believe someone would start a whole section based on just one minor extremist politician's 'experiences'. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The person is not important, it is that a person has been investigated for whatever, and that he was cleared, and that he has accused KaPo of threatening to kill him. This is all carried by reliable sources which are independent of the subject. Thereby it's valid for inclusion. The fact that it is sourced only strengthens the argument for inclusion. --Russavia Dialogue 10:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

text: And now it is entirely obvious that Digwarrior didn't even check the sources, because the sources which were used were  and Interfax. There was no personal blog being used at all. So I put this down to Digwarrior not assuming an ounce of good faith, and then can't even be arsed to check sources, which if he did, would have seen that it was all sourced to reliable sources. Your response? Which obviously won't be "sorry, I was wrong", is? --Russavia Dialogue 10:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of "primary" don't you understand? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of "reliable source" don't you understand? What part of WP:CENSOR don't you understand? What part of WP:V don't you understand? What part of WP:NPOV don't you understand? What part of stop being a WP:DICK don't you understand? --Russavia Dialogue 10:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teinonen is not a reliable source 

message: I've removed the section from the article, for the time being. Teinonen is somewhat notable after looking at Google, and his blog can be used as a source for his opinion, particularly as this opinion arises from the charges which have been levelled against him. I'm not saying one thing or the other, whether I agree with him or not, because I don't have an opinion on the matter, but his opinion as written was a little undue and without context. It needs to be shortened a lot. Also, it is a WP:BLP violation to claim that a person is a Neo-Nazi as a matter of fact, but it should be mentioned that he was charged for blah blah blah, and attribute the opinion that way. --Russavia Dialogue 19:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. My initial version was indeed a bit too long. It still needs refinement. Offliner (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

text: For a taste of Teinonen's opinions, the first article about him on Google is an interview headlined "Teinonen: National Socialism had many good sides".  He's notorious, not notable.  I find it hard to believe that anybody but another neo-Nazi would seriously consider adding Teinonen's opinion about police onto Wikipedia would be a good idea. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 19:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would very clearly direct you towards your own Arbcom at Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned which states "All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee. This applies both to the parties to this case as well as to any other editor that may choose to engage in such conduct." I would urge you to be very, very careful in even thinly veiled accusations at myself or any other editor being a Neo-Nazi or anything else; especially when that is further from the truth, and particularly when members of my own family died fighting that scourge. Would you like to refactor your comments? --Russavia Dialogue 19:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your and Offliner's editwarring to keep neo-Nazi material in this article speaks for itself. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 19:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I will deal with your continued accusations later in another venue. As to your assertions, whether he is a neo-Nazi or not is irrelevant. It is whether he notable enough for his opinion to be on WP? You brought up the "notorious" argument with Johan Bäckman when it was at AfD, and every link you provided only went further towards establishing his notability. Ilves saw fit to revoke the awards he received in relation to the charges levelled against him, and he is profiled in the Estonian press quite a lot it seems? The problem I have with the material, is that firstly you blindly reverted the information completely, which I abhor at the best of times and often see as disruption or whitewashing (which explains my revert of yourself), and then that after copyediting it I saw that the information was somewhat WP:UNDUE due to it's length, and thirdly because it lacked context for his opinion. Ideally, the information should be presented as "As a result of KaPo investigations blah blah blah which resulted in blah blah blah caused Teinonen to accuse KaPo of blah blah blah", and to keep it short and succinct, without delving into advocacy of one view or another. I would hope that other sources are found which can provide this information, but not speaking Estonian, this makes it somewhat difficult for myself, but it does appear that sources are out there. --Russavia Dialogue 19:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Oh, and Teinonen is neither known for being a lawyer, nor a member of the bar association. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Well add it to the article, and ensure that it is sourced. Simple as that. No other comments except to say that we are not censored and your removals are in blatant violation of this. --Russavia Dialogue 08:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong.  The way to cure a coatrack is not to hang more coats to it. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop censoring WP Digwuren. We have in articles on a Soviet war memorial it is known as a "Tomb of the unknown rapist", and heaps of other shit that we don't like to see. And this is an instance of the same thing. Just because we don't believe in his views does not mean that his views are invalid for inclusion on WP, particularly when the Estonian press themselves have carried the accusations, and to which it was sourced. --Russavia Dialogue 08:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding a section entitled Criticism and basing it on some relatively unknown Neo-Nazi's claims is very much undue. There are definitely some individual anarchists in Estonia, who claims KAPO and police, and the army, and the Estonian state are criminal organisations. Similarly, Neo-Nazis in different European countries have raised accusations that they are being harassed, stalked, persecuted by the security services of the country concerned. There are really so many such rumors that as a rule don't have any encyclopedic value. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem that Digwarrior had was the accusations were sourced to a blog. They have now been sourced to an apparent (??) reliable source. Therefore they meet the threshold for inclusion in the article. But now they are WP:UNDUE. For f' sake, make up ones mind. Gaming the system to exclude information from an article is not on. I need only show Federal Security Service (Russia) in which accusations are made, and included, based upon the same inclusion criteria as here. Are we now going to remove those accusations from all other articles as well? No, of course not, because to do so would be censorship and to engage in advocacy. Frankly, Miacek, I thought you would have known this, and would have been the last person to remove such things from an article. Should I also point out the ridiculous, that these accusations are the only things that are sourced in the article? That is definitely not how WP works. --Russavia Dialogue 09:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Additionally, the text which has been removed was not only on their surveillance of him. It was based on this surveillance, and the lack of illegality in his activities, and also that he has made accusations that they threatened his life. We are not here to judge the veracity of these claims, but to include them in an WP:NPOV fashion, which they were, and allow readers to make up their own minds. But as usual, on such topics, readers are denied even this opportunity, and that in my mind is advocacy and censorship. --Russavia Dialogue 10:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) I checked the article you linked. There's indeed a whole section of controversies. On the other hand, the article does not include some utterances mr Barkashov, D.Vasilyev or V.Anpilov have said. The question is not that whether an institution has been criticised (they all have been), but rather: how many people support a particular critical statement? how notable is the opinion of a single individual personal? Even in the FSB article I wouldn't believe someone would start a whole section based on just one minor extremist politician's 'experiences'. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The person is not important, it is that a person has been investigated for whatever, and that he was cleared, and that he has accused KaPo of threatening to kill him. This is all carried by reliable sources which are independent of the subject. Thereby it's valid for inclusion. The fact that it is sourced only strengthens the argument for inclusion. --Russavia Dialogue 10:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

text: And now it is entirely obvious that Digwarrior didn't even check the sources, because the sources which were used were  and Interfax. There was no personal blog being used at all. So I put this down to Digwarrior not assuming an ounce of good faith, and then can't even be arsed to check sources, which if he did, would have seen that it was all sourced to reliable sources. Your response? Which obviously won't be "sorry, I was wrong", is? --Russavia Dialogue 10:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of "primary" don't you understand? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of "reliable source" don't you understand? What part of WP:CENSOR don't you understand? What part of WP:V don't you understand? What part of WP:NPOV don't you understand? What part of stop being a WP:DICK don't you understand? --Russavia Dialogue 10:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from article for time being

message: Teinonen has been investigated repeatedly, for a number of suspicious activities.  Usually, a primary element of the crime has been found, but not the contextual elements making it punishable.  For example, when Teinonen undertook reprinting the book of Adolf Hitler -- liberator, it was determined that the book is by its nature inciting of ethnic hatred.  However, since the suspicion against him was based on the idea that there were causal links between publication of this book and the Bronze Nights, and such causal links could not be demonstrated, the charges were dropped with no punishment.  Similarly, it has been found that Teinonen has advocated unequal treatment of people by their ethnicity -- which runs severely against the principles set forth in the Constitution --, but since no evidence of Teinone trying to organise a revolt have been found, nor have any victims of ethnic hatred advocated by him been detected, the investigation into this matter ended without any punishment. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teinonen's suspicious activities 

message: PasswordUsername, please stop inserting WP:OR - , . Your source speaks of Nazi organization, which empathically was not the same organization as Estonian Poliitiline Politsei. The name does not make them the same organization, remember, all PolPol employees were deported and/or murdered by the occupying Soviet forces. If you want to claim the connection, find a solid peer-reviewed source - or even better, several such sources. Otherwise this claim has no place in the article. -- Sander Säde 07:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop inserting WP:OR 

message: Does the dotcom of Teinonen merit notion here, or would it constitute inappropriate advertisement of his funky ideas? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 12:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake domain 

message: From UsernamePasswords's talk page, comment on their conversation with Offliner about 3RR blocking Sander Säde (already deleted there):
: I should mention the claims used to delete content is not relevant and is Wikilawyering and vandalism: "Communists were supported by the Soviet Union, who had publicly accepted the principles not recognizing the parliamentary order, seeing terrorism as a legitimate activity." deleted according to WP:ALPHABETSOUP "Observe WP:SELFPUB: Material by the KAPO can only be used to discuss the KAPO so long as it "does not involve claims about third parties"". It makes no sense to have an article which states that Communists were targeted, and then delete WHY they were being targeted. Without the additional sentence, it makes Estonian actions appear little more than a phobia of Communists. Recall Stalin attempted to topple the Estonian government in a putsch that failed. This is nothing but deletion of relevant content hoping that appropriate restoration of content can be used to block shop. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>     </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 15:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilawyering and WP:ALPHABETSOUP to delete content 

message: I wonder if it would be possible to find a better source for Johan Bäckman's "criticism" than his now-suspended blog? Also, in sources for Ristonen, one of the sources () does not say anything about Ristonen's court case, why is it even there? Also, Bäckman's self-published book does not have anything at all about Ristonen's court case, as far as I have read it.
Furthermore, Ristonen withdraw the court case in January 2009 . I did not want to do the changes myself, as someone would probably protest.
:--Sander Säde 11:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bäckman and Ristonen: sources, court case withdrawn