Talk:Hannes Vanaküla

Classification as charlatan
The common classification of Mr. Vanaküla in recent newspaper publication is soolapuhuja, literally one who blows onto salt, metaphorically a charlatan. If anybody knows a better way to translate it than to expand the metaphor, feel free to help. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Further expansion?
Apparently, the raktobleer saga has some relevance to this article. Unfortunately, I don't know anything more about it than what I saw in the clip of Ärapanija. Anybody help? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"America"
The obvious reason for entries of this list is naming a bunch of regions associated with esoteric geography. That is why the entries are so clearly vague, too. However, it means that "America" can not be linked to USA -- it would be imprecise, and possibly amount to WP:OR.

If the list actually had a meaning, Mesoamerica would be a likelier candidate. After all, among many of the funky beliefs of the tokronauts is the idea that Mayans predicted the Apocalypse to happen in 2012, and when that passes, they will rule the Earth. 62.65.237.233 (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Claims to "Estonian paganism"
Paganism has certain generic connotations. While it is true that the Tokronauts sometimes call themselves 'Estonian pagans', and their website's name translates as 'House of pagans', Mr. Vanaküla's church can not claim monopoly on paganism in Estonia -- any more so than Antti Loodus, one of the few Christian Fundamentalists in Estonia, who maintains a website calling itself "Estonian Christian Forum", can claim monopoly on Estonian Christianity. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to claims to "Estonian paganism"
In Estonia there are pagans who are called "Maausulised", there are pagans who are called "Taarausulised" and there are pagans who are called "Estonian Pagans" (also in media) - this is written with recurring capital letter. Estonian Pagans with recurring capital letter means specific group of people not every Estonian pagan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldReporter (talk • contribs) 13:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

corpse-finding
The corpse-finding episode is potentially interesting. Unfortunately, *this* is where the newspaper's yellowness matters: Õhtuleht is known for propping up such announcements with little factual basis.

Let's give this story a little time to develop. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * More details of that episode have become public. Needless to say, it's not by half as interesting as the original yellow report.  I submit that describing it here would serve no encyclopædic purpose -- but if anybody disagrees,  is another useful news source. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 23:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with You.
 * The majority of witnesses, who were with Hannes Vanaküla at the scene of corpse-finding at the same time when Hannes Vanaküla found the dead body of Kaido Sirel, witnessed that Hannes Vanaküla found the the dead body of Kaido Sirel. And Wikipedia follows the principle of Burden of Evidence WP:BLP Wikipedia: Burden of Proof - here are majority of witnesses against one woman, so there is no question if I should write that Hannes Vanaküla found the dead body of Kaido Sirel in the article. This is fact that Hannes Vanaküla found the dead body of Kaido Sirel.
 * The fact that one woman claimed that she found the dead body of Kaido Sirel does not override the fact that Hannes Vanaküla found the dead body of Kaido Sirel.


 * By the way, media gave false information about the reward of Lost UÜ. Media wrote that the Lost UÜ had laid out gratuity of 15000 EEK for the one who gives a hint, which leads to the finding of Kaido Sirel. So there is a possibility that the woman lied to get the reward herself. By the way, the same woman searched for the dead body herself and also with her acquaintances and relatives almost every day for over three months after no results she called Hannes Vanaküla and asked Hannes Vanaküla to come and find the dead body. WorldReporter (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Following the autopsy, police has determined there's no evidence of violent death, and refused to open a criminal investigation. The delay between the person's death and his body's finding is explained through the relatively high level of waters in the autumn in comparison to early February, and the fact that it takes a while for the decomposition process to cause the corpse to float. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Violations of policies
(WP:Biographies of Living Persons, Burden of Proof, WP:Neutral Point of View, WP:Liebel, WP:Reliable Sources and WP:No Original Research in Wikipedia article about Hannes Vanaküla)

One problem is, that there is brought out sect accusations in the article, but the sources for these are not reliable WP:BLPWP:RS. These sect accusations are made without any proof (slander). If these sect accusations are brought out in Wikipedia, then readers will take these as reliable accusations because only reliable sources can be used in an encyclopedia. It unrighteously harms the personal life, the reputation, the business, the friends of Hannes Vanaküla and other people in relation with Hannes Vanaküla.

A biography of a living person is not this what some people have lied without any proof in a TV show "Pealtnägija" in which even the programmer of the TV show lied about Hannes Vanaküla (the documented proof about that fact exists) and also not this what one yellow newspaper has written about this person without any proof on the basis of this TV Show only. By the principle of Burden of Evidence, which Wikipedia follows, the burden of evidence WP:BLPWikipedia: Burden of Proof lies on the one who accused Hannes Vanaküla not on Hannes Vanaküla.

Secondly, the article is downright defamatory WP:LIBEL and is not written from a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. In the article, user Diqwuren has also implemented tagging of insulting titles such as self-declared mage, and a cult leader without a proof. User Digwuren also wrote that Hannes Vanaküla has been described as a charlatan, but he has not pointed out that media has also declared Hannes Vanaküla as a mage, a prime witch, a witch, a shaman and a clairvoyant. The source of the first reference, which user Digwuren has used to backup his claim, actually controverts the claim – actually, media decleared Hannes Vanaküla as a mage not a self-declared mage. Some text under year 2008 activties is a lie. In fact, Digwuren’s opinion that his score was not noteworthy is Digwuren’s personal opinion WP:NOR, which hid important facts. Hannes Vanaküla’s score was noteworthy as there were over 20 sensitives in the beginning of the TV show Selgeltnägijate tuleproov (Ordeal for seers). He got the seventh place and his students got the fifth and the third place. His explanations for reasons of his failure were not complicated and he did not blame russian sorceres in media. Under bibliography Digwuren has written: „Hannes Vanaküla’s zany publicity stunts, such as begging in the nude for people to buy the book, caused some media interest.“ This is also a lie. He was not nude (he was partially nude) and he did not beg – he said: “buy now, my book.“ There has been no other puplicity stunt, which has caused media interest. And naming it zany is Digwuren's individual opinion.

I could have inserted much more references but I did not want to waste my time there where the burden of evidence lies not on me WP:BLPWikipedia: Burden of Proof.

The article violates WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:LIBEL, WP:NOR, WP:RS and Burden of Evidence (Burden of Proof which is followed by Wikipedia under WP:BLP). WorldReporter (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * On 23 February 2009 11:27 user Digwuren instead of joining into the dispute over the violations in the article, about which he was informed by an e-mail, he made another edit with the article. With this edit he added a topic "political discussion".


 * The problem is that this formal inquiry, about which he wrote in the topic "political discussion", bases only on the TV show "Pealtnägija" in which the accusations were made without any proof and which is an unreliable source. In this formal inquiry, such statements as in the clause regarding the activities of Vanaküla's sect, asking whether this sect — which they characterised as an 'extremist group'  have no proof and are slander WP:BLPWikipedia: Burden of Proof as there is no proof that the group is a sect and that the group of people has been engaged in the activities described by the TV show "Pealtnägija" at all. This material about political discussion in the article is defamatory and it is Wikipedia policy to delete libellous material when it has been identified WP:LIBEL.
 * If this kind of formal inquiry is brought out in Wikipedia, then readers will take the statements of this as non-libelleous because they know it is Wikipedia policy to delete libellous material when it has been identified. It unrighteously harms the personal life, the reputation, the business, the friends of Hannes Vanaküla and other people in relation with Hannes Vanaküla. WorldReporter (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:TLDR. Your writing suggests you may have a WP:COI. If you think there is a BLP issue, take it to WP:BLPN with a concise description of the problem, including specific examples. You should also note here when you do this. Verbal   chat  18:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I made my posts shorter, but I wasn’t able to make them shorter as they are now because there are so many violations of policies in the article.
 * I haven’t noticed that in my writings, but talking about WP:COI, the fact that You are a Christian and the fact that the bible is very hostile against pagans and the fact that Hannes vanaküla is a pagan and emotional and insulting edit summaries of user Diqwuren such as removed a semi-illiterate ramble by a cultist and rv whitewashing attempt by a worshipping cultist suggest that vice versa both of you may have WP:COI.
 * I put the article to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. WorldReporter (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, WorldReporter, but why are you ranting about Christians and pagans. It would appear you're making the case that the article is a Christian anti-pagan conspiracy. Let's exhibit a bit more sense here. I've read through the article three times, I don't find anything that violates BLP (after also researching through various mainstream Estonian news articles). PetersV     TALK 23:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It violates also WP:BLP. It contains unsourced or poorly sourced controversial claims about a living person. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial claims about living people are strictly forbidden on all Wikipedia pages by the policy of WP:BLP. In addition, all articles must be neutral, verifiable, encyclopedic, and free of original research by the policy of WP:BLP. This article is not neutral WP:NPOV, not fully verifiable WP:VERIFY., not encyclopedic WP:BLP, and not free of original research WP:NOR.
 * See the first post of this section Violations of Policies and the section"Blpdispute" template. WorldReporter (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am going to propose deletion PROD
The reasons of this are:

1. The article violates WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:LIBEL, WP:NOR, WP:RS and Burden of Evidence (Burden of Proof which is followed by Wikipedia under WP:BLP), but other editors have reverted and rejected my edits.

2. The article is on the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard but as there are no sources in English, it is impossible for administrators who are non-Estonian-speakers to verify all the violations.

3. It has been called in question can I get professional help from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Estonia as I know that the main author of the liebel in the article is Digwuren (talk) who has an Estonian star and has got warm relations with WikiProject Estonia. He is one of the participants there and there are only 42 participants.

If You remove the tag PROD (If You revert my edit), then I am going to take the article to Articles for Deletion and add cleanup templates messages and other necessary template messages into the article.

The shorter description of the problem is on the biographies of living persons noticeboard under the section of Hannes Vanaküla

And my more detailed description of the violations of policies in the article is situated here under the section Violations of Policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.192.83 (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC) WorldReporter (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rather than disrupting wikipedia to make a point, I notice you've done as I've suggested and posted to the BLP Noticeboard, but if you post a more specific problem and why it is not supported then that might get more traction. Don't bother with the prod, as it will simply be removed. You should also tone down your rhetoric and move away from legal terms such as libel. Verbal   chat  13:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have proved my claims about WP:LIBEL in the article with reliable sources, so You do not have to worry about that. WorldReporter (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but your sources must be lost in your endless claims. Perhaps you might indicate something specific which can then be discussed rationally. PetersV     TALK 23:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories
. Nuff said. 62.65.236.208 (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the Americans have a saying for stuff like this. If I remember correctly, it goes somewhat like this:
 * What the ...?

Seriously. Maybe we need Category:Shameless people with weird ideas. Or Category:Elron wannabees. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 21:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In this source, there is not said that Hannes Vanaküla is a conspiracy theorist. So there is not said that Hannes Vanaküla is a conspiracy theorist in media nor in self-published sources of Hannes Vanaküla. So the classification "Conspiracy theorist" is Your personal opinion and doesn't belong to Wikipedia by the rules of Wikipedia WP:BLPWP:NOR - the article doesn't belong under the Category:Conspiracy theorists. WorldReporter (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The source is a writing by Vanaküla, headlined "The Pealtnägija show was orchestrated by IRL?" and starting thus:

In order to give a better presentation, I'm starting with the past. Everything began when Res Publica was created. This party was created by support of foreign Freemasons.

(Bold in original.) How much clearer must a conspiracy theorist get in order for WP:SPADE to kick in? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:BLPWP:NOR are official Wikipedia policies but WP:SPADE is just an essay, which contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. So the classification "Conspiracy theorist" is still Your personal opinion and doesn't belong to Wikipedia by the rules of Wikipedia. WorldReporter (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What a pathetic attempt at wikilawyering. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 09:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Adding Hannes Vanaküla into Category:Conspiracy theorists despite multiple warnings is an act of vandalism according to WP:VANDAL. You have been warned of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldReporter (talk • contribs) 14:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"Blpdispute" template.
As the article is on the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and unresolved yet and blpdispute goes on also here the article needs "Blpdispute" template and belongs to Category:Disputed biographies of living persons. With removing the "Blpdispute" template You remove the article from the Category:Disputed biographies of living persons. Removing the "Blpdispute" template despite multiple warnings is an act of vandalism according to WP:VANDAL. You have been warned of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.192.85 (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Now the previous discussion about the article is situated in the archive of BLPN (see an unresolved incident at BLPN archieve). I remind You that the incident is still unresolved and the dispute continues on the main page of BLPN. To enter additional comments edit the current BLPN main page and link to archive page for context if needed.
 * On the BLPN main page, all the discussions of the incidents which are older than 7 days are moved into the archive page of BLPN by the bot - it doesn't mean that the article is not on BLPN now and that the disbute is over now - all incidents just don't fit on the main page of BLPN and are moved to other pages of BLPN.
 * Blpdispute goes on also on the talk page of the article Hannes Vanaküla and on the user talk page of mine
 * Removing the "Blpdispute" template despite multiple warnings is still an act of vandalism according to WP:VANDAL. WorldReporter (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The dispute seems to be stale. The page is referenced only by Estonian sources that makes evaluation of the sources difficult to non-Estonians. Still it looks like all 46 members of the Estonia wikiproject seems to agree that the sources are sound. I see no reasons to suspect massive conspiracy here and there is nothing in the article to provoke division against the state or ethnic lines. If you for whatever reasons do not trust Estonians you can ask Finns or Hungarians as the languages are related. At the first glance the article seems to be well referenced. I would suggest to remove the tag unless somebody could tell what part of the article is specifically challenged. Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The incident is unresolved! So this that it seems to You that all 46 members of the Estonia wikiproject seems to agree that the sources are sound is just an illusion of Yours. To me it doesn't seem - I know by the facts and by the sources that there are violations of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:LIBEL, WP:NOR, WP:RS and Burden of Evidence (Burden of Proof which is followed by Wikipedia under WP:BLP) in the article. For example, are You blind that You can't notice libelleous text, which is unreferenced at all in the article?
 * English and German are also similar but it doesn't mean that Englishmen can understand German without studying. WorldReporter (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As a sidenote, I would like to point out that google translate has Estonian support. Not too good yet, but may help a little. Suva Чего? 16:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's helpful, thanks. I will try it Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have checked the references using Google translation and found all the claims by the article to be well referenced. I see nothing in the article that justifies putting the blp tag. Thus, I have removed it. Please do not reinsert the tag without pointing out a specific unreferenced claim there. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You lie. All these libelleous and non-libelleous claims (in Italic text) are without references and sources:
 * Hannes Vanaküla, also known as Tokroda, is an Estonian self-declared mage and a cult leader ;  While his score was not noteworthy, he caught attention by various complicated explanations for reasons of his failure, such as blaming Russian sorcerers for conspiring against him,.
 * All these libelleous and non-libelleous claims are with sources which do not back up the claims in the article:
 *  His zany publicity stunts, such as begging in the nude for people to buy the book; Hannes Vanaküla, also known as Tokroda,  is an Estonian self-declared mage   - For example, the source of the first reference, which user Digwuren has used to backup his claim, actually controverts the claim – actually, media decleared Hannes Vanaküla as a mage not a self-declared mage.
 * There are also other problems with the sources in the article.
 * BLPdispute doesn’t cover dispute over reliable sources only, it is for articles disputed on the topic of all the violations of WP:BLP (WP:BLP insist an article to be neutral, verifiable, encyclopedic, and free of original research in addition), so I add the template without the explanation as it would get too long and the explaining information exists on the BLPN (see an unresolved incident on BLPN) and here under the section of Violations of Policies and "Blpdispute" template. WorldReporter (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out concrete problems, now we can go somewhere. I have commented out the "cult leader" and "Russian sorcerers" as I could not find the source for that. I have removed "self-declared" for neutrality (I guess he is recognized by his followers and there is no official Mage certification boards anyway). Advertising in the nude seems to be confirmed by three different sources. I have removed the word zany and changed begging to advertizing to make it a little bit more neutral. I think I have addressed all the problems you have outlined so far, thus, I have removed the tag Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Birthday and birthplace unknown
As far as I can tell, Vanaküla's birthday or birthplace are not publically known. Neither appears to have been mentioned in any interview, writing or even a blog post. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 16:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is happen with articles about living people nothing wrong with this. If a person do not want to make his or her age known we should thespect the wish Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * His *age* is known. In several newspieces, it has been mentioned.  But that doesn't even give us exact year of birth. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 04:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)