Talk:Jüri Uluots

Petri_Krohn's weird manipulations
It has come to my attention that according to the theory of Petri Krohn's existence, a former entity called Petri_Krohn has started to blatantly push pet WP:POV legal theories into this article without even bothering to present as pretext the theory of Petri Krohn's notability. I have reverted. Digwuren 22:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And again in. Digwuren 23:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And. Digwuren 01:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

TotallyDisputed
There was tag on the article, with link "see relevant discussion on talk page". Since there is nothing here, I removed it. Please don't reinstate it unless you have at least some talk here, backed up with sources. Word-mangling and "I don't like it" are not reason for tagging the article. DLX 03:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

POV
The article was POV. Biased to an Estonian nationalistic view and anti-sovjet. Also deleted irrelevant text about the recognition of the entrance of Estonia in the Sovjetunion. That is part of the history of Estonia, but not of this biography. Otto 06:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What exactly is "an Estonian nationalistic view and anti-sovjet" in the article? The fact that Soviet occupation was illegal is only disputed by Russia, see Resolution of European Parliament from 1983 "the fact that the occupation of these formerly independent and neutral States by the Soviet Union occurred in 1940 following the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact, and continues." and European Court of Human Rights: "After the German occupation in 1941-44, Estonia remained occupied by the Soviet Union until the restoration of its independence in 1991.". Whether it is relevant or not in this article is a different matter - it does clarify, though, that the Soviet government was illegal - and therefore shows the legal continuation of Uluots' government. DLX 08:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * An Estonian nationalistic view is talk about a puppet sovjet government. The Sovjetunion was de facto the governing entity so the point of view of Russia is to that respect more relevant then the opinion of the European Parliament, that before 2004 had no control neither jurisdiction over the area. Your POV to call the situation an occupation is a political, not a juridical opinion. The arrest of the ECHR you mentioned recognizes the jurisdiction of the Sovjetunion "It is noteworthy in this context that the Soviet Union was a party to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 by which the Nuremberg Charter was enacted."
 * Both sides, also the sovjetview should be mentioned in the article. As it is, the article is biased and one-sided. Revert warring is not a proper way to solve a dispute. Otto 08:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I find your descriptions of relevance rather quaint. You might want to familiarise yourself with Notability so your further arguments would be of higher quality.
 * Unfortunately, the Soviets didn't like publishing their crimes, so apart from a few archivals, there is no WP:RS regarding their WP:POV. Digwuren 08:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The talk page is for exchange of arguments and opinions, not for insults. The way you abuse it a talk page doesn't work. Please take note of Civility. Otto 09:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The European Parliament in 1983 had no power over foreign policy, in fact it had hardly any power at all. It is interesting that the supporters of the Baltic occupation myth can find no other documents to support their POV. -- Petri Krohn 19:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Having power is not required to accept the statement as a confirmation of occupation. The fact that you personally have a mind block in seeing history as it was does not mean others do. Go Google "occupation of baltic states", you'll get plenty. Will this link do for you? There's plenty more available from Google. Please keep your pet theories and OR out of Wikipedia.--Alexia Death 20:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it will not: it is a Wikipedia mirror. -- Petri Krohn 01:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Petri is right. The EP can not "confirm" that the Baltic states were occupied. The EP can only take a political position. Alexia, the insults you mix with your arguments vandalize the discussion and are a breach of Civility. Otto 20:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Im sorry if my statements seem incivil. It is not intentional. I just do as I see my peers, ie Petri Krohn do... However. Political entity making a statement stating this happened is good enough. I admit that the answers.com page is unsutiable because its a mirror(just discovered it), but please, Occupation of Baltic states has plenty of sources. As to "confirming"... Well I cant do that, that would be OR. I have to base my statements on souces and what they say.


 * Well, I'm kind of new here at Wikipedia but I keep seeing 2 usernames Otto and Petri Krohn pushing the Soviet-Russian POV in articles related to Estonia. What's up guys, why do you hate a nation of just 1 million so much?--Termer 10:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Requests for comment/Petri Krohn might be an interesting read for you.--Alexia Death 11:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Oskar Uluots
Regarding Jüri Uluots, I've known his brother Oskar Uluots personally. I was just a kid, he lived in the neighborhood at the countryside where I spent the summers. All those stories he had about the Estonian Army and how big mistake it was not to resist the Soviet invasion in 1940. He was one of the few Estonian officers, if I'm not mistaken, one of the 2 that returned alive to Estonia in the 50-s, that were arrested and deported to Siberia in 1940 by the soviets. One more chapter from the history of Estonia I think that is not covered yet in Wikipedia, the story of the Estonian officers arrested and deported after the Soviet occupation. Found a short coverage on the Internet in Estonian in case anybody has a chance to use it --Termer 10:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Johannes Vares
Should Vares be listed as the successor of Jüri Uluots here? This may be seen by some as a contradiction, as though with Uluots the Prime Ministership forked, and may thus be confusing.

Perhaps, adding a clarifying comment would help. Digwuren 08:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point Digwure, just that the thing is, even though Vares-Barbarus was chosen by the Soviet Andrei Ždanov to be a prime minister of Estonia, not by the elected Estonian Parliament, he still originally took the position of the prime minister of the Republic of Estonia. But basically you're right on, he was a quisling of Estonia.--Termer 06:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * He was a quisling in the sense that he was a local who approved (well, initially) the Soviets' ideas. Then again, he didn't have independent power; all of his prime ministerial power flowed from the Red Army. Digwuren 11:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Estonia in exile 1939 - 1945 is a mistake. according to the Estonian Constitution, Uluots became the legal President of the Republic of Estonia after the Soviet takeover in 1940. Therefore there was no way he could have been Prime Minister exile in 1939. Will look up some references published internationally and rewrite this section about Uluots and Barbarus ASAP...--Termer 07:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed the boxes, hope it makes more sense now. What was that "government is in Tallinn" all about anyway...didn't make much sense.--Termer 08:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Biased article
As I have explained above the article is POV and biased. I have removed some of the worst parts regarding the rhetoric about puppet regimes, but still the article is an attempt to stress the POV of legal continuity of the prewar Estonian State in stead of being a biography. Otto (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * no reasonable explanations have been given to your removal of the sourced facts from the article. In case you think there are POV issues in the article, please address it by adding alternative viewpoints pr. WP:YESPOV. The elimination of article content cannot be justified  on the grounds that it is "POV" in your opinion. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Termer, as I explained above and earlier in the paragraph "POV", this is a biography. This is not a place for views about Estonia while it was a Soviet republic. You are not showing good faith in asking for an alternative viewpoint I have given already on this talk page. In stead of discussing the content you reacted with hate speech. By putting words in my mouth as you did 23 June 2007 you loose your credibility. You insist on putting your POV about the status of Estonia in the article and accuse editors who present another view on the talk page of "hate of a country". That is a ridiculous and insulting accusation. You have been put 8 January 2008 on formal notice by administrator Thatcher based on WP:DIGWUREN. Now you again ignore my arguments and start revert warring. Otto (talk) 07:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have never put "my POV" into any article but always have edited wikipedia according to reliable secondary sources. Please do the same and there is not going to be any problems. For my personal comments in 2007 I apologize, didn't know the rules of wikipedia back then. Hope you can catch up with this as well and avoid commenting on contributors like you just did. and of course please remember not to remove sourced material from wikipedia pr WP:YESPOV only because you consider something to be POV. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 05:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nazi collaborators category
The subject of this article does not belong to that list, as collaborationism is treason of cooperation with enemy forces. Germany and Estonia were not enemies at the time. Estonia stayed neutral throughout the war, as declared over the radio by the Estonian Government in Exile on 18 September 1944. A neutral country has no enemies, wherefore there can be no cooperation with enemy forces. -- This is your opinion, disagreed. He cooperated with Nazis. All civilized world condemns this regardless motives. Timurite (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll have to source your opinion with relevant analysis. Let me point out that theConclusions of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. Phase II - The German Occupation of Estonia, 1941 - 1944, which are the only work by an international commission to identify Nazi criminals in Estonia, does not condemn Uluots and therefore disagrees with your opinion. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * All civilized world? Please source your claims. Otherwise, stop pushing extreme POVs.--Vihelik (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Uluots has been often labeled as a Nazi collaborator by his political opponents. Wikipedia however is not a place for political battlegrounds.--Termer (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)