Talk:Popular Front of Estonia

Occupation as POV
Petri Krohn has removed reference to 'occupation' from the article, declaring it "POV". This is incorrect.

The Soviet Union's involvement in Baltic states between 1940 and 1991 is considered to be occupation by the international community pretty consensually. (See, for just one example, the Stimson Doctrine.) Furthermore, it is also consistent with the generally accepted definition of military occupation.

As of early 21st century, the only groups to deny this involvement as an occupation are a number of extremist groups, and the government of Russian Federation. While the latter's support to the idea may make this idea a notable WP:POV, it is clearly wrong to refer to this POV as it were factual.

I have reinstated the reference, and removed attempts to weasel out of 'occupation'. If anybody wants to cover it as a notable POV, be my guest; however, I can not let false claims stand. Digwuren 19:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see my comments here: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Occupation of Baltic states. -- Petri Krohn 01:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I did. I found nothing of relevance in there besides reiteration of your POV, this time with a fancy conspiracy theory thrown in.
 * I will probably not comment on this reiteration, but if you push me, I'll discuss the conspiracy theory. Digwuren 10:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Organisation-specific WP:POVs
In summary for, Petri Krohn argues that since the Popular Front of Estonia had views that were inconsistent with the idea of Estonia having been occupied by Soviet Union, the background of this article should not refer to the occupation. This is an interesting argument, but unfortunately wrong. The background description is factual, which means it is about facts, not about views of any particular organisation -- even if it's the organisation in question. Thus, since the occupation was factual, PFE's views on this matter do not matter. At the very most, they may be explicitly stated as PFE's WP:POV, if it fits into the narrative and has sufficient notability and relevance. Digwuren 23:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Petri Krohn has repeatedly, both here and elsewhere, replaced references to occupation with euphemisms such as "incorporation into the Soviet Union", apparently under the pretense of the word 'occupation' constituting hate speech. I consider this vandalism of the silly kind, analogous to a Klansman going through articles and replacing references to black people with references to human-shaped creatures of highly light-absorbing skin. Digwuren 14:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is important to point out that calling occupation an occupation is no more WP:POV than calling a cigar a cigar. Digwuren 20:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)