Talk:Rein Lang

Here's a quote copied from Adolf (drama):

Prevent Genocide International^[1]:

Digwuren 01:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Mikkalai may be mistaken about the content of the referred article of Postimees. The article is not a report of the supposed controversy; rather it is a report of the skewed reports in Russian media. Thus, the mention of spin is not a summary of the Russian-language article cited; it is a summary of Postimees, analysing the Regnum's article. Digwuren 00:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I see. Opinion added. But there is no reason to keep the misquite, because Estonian media has its own "spin": Russian text says: "a huge flag with swastika was used a decoration of the stage, Eesti Eskpress reports today", i.e., it was quoting Estonian sources. If it is a Russian misquote, you are free to point this out, as a confirmation of the Russian "spin". `'Mїkka 01:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It was referring to Eesti Ekspress, not citing it. It would seem most of the Russian media's spin was actually a fault of Nochnoy Dozor (advocacy group), who fed it distorted data. Unfortunately, I can't source it in this case. The Eesti Ekspress' article was very laconical, and only listed four main facts. Digwuren 09:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So if The eesti Express did not say "spin", then the sentence with this word goes away. `'Mїkka 18:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You're being thick. Eesti Ekspress reported on the party. Nochnoy Dozor run to Russian media with it. Regnum did the spinjob, followed by others. Postimees reported on Regnum et al's spin.

It's obvious that Eesti Ekspress couldn't report on the spin, because the spin only appeared after Eesti Ekspress' article. Digwuren 18:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You are mistakenly crediting Nochnoy Dozor for all the publicity around this case. rus.delfi.ee reported it independently of Dozor, quoting Express. Amid laughable campaign of arrests and deportations of Nashist kids wearing plasch-palatka capes by Estonian authorities, Russian media bit into "costumed ball in nazi-themed beer hall" story as trained Jack Russell into it's victim. Contrast was too startling to avoid.RJ CG 18:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If no one is quoted as "spin", you cannot use this loaded generalizing term. The quoted REGNUM article carefully avoids any exaggeration. I have no doubt that some yellow press was happy to make noise, but again, calling it "spin" is your opinion, unless you quote someone. `'Mїkka 19:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a translated quote from Kesknädal:

(Alas, some of the wordplay and references are lost in translation.) Digwuren 19:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It reminds me that nobody has explicitly mentioned on this talk page that the pre-suicide monologue is not the whole play, but only its first act. RJ CG has, once again, chosen to repeat Russian media's spin as fact. Digwuren 19:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I requested the quotation about "spin" in Russian media. `'Mїkka 19:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

How about the headline of the EPL's article: "Vene meedia haaras Rein Langi sünnipäeva mõnuga hambusse"? Digwuren 19:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The article lists several russian media uncritically propagating news, kind of broken telephone. I don't see any particular "spin" described. Lang, as a politician, did a stupid thing IMO. Next time he will think better. BTW, please keep in mind that not everybody in English wikipedia reads Estonian. `'Mїkka 19:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The play had been planned on months in advance. If he had cancelled it, do you have any doubt Russian media would have been all about "Estonian minister of justice refuses to see an anti-fascist play!"? Digwuren 21:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The headline translates as "Russian media gleefully started spinning on topic of Lang's birthday party". There's another, less charitable translation involving the image of old women making up nasty rumours, but because I'm so civil, I won't present that one. Digwuren 20:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of the Russian media in question has also made assertions that Lang blocked the legislation regarding prohibition of occupation symbols. This is untrue; Lang initiated it. It fell through in a parliamentary commission that considered it too onerous for constitutional freedoms. I guess this should be mentioned in the article. Digwuren 20:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Despite my numerous requests to provide any source but article of Lang himslef calling "Adolf" anti-fascist, he just reverts my edits with false accusations of vandalism. Digwuren, would you be a man and try to present your hollow lies and false accusations to arbitrage comission at last instead of peppering my talk page with warning and repeating resorting to name-calling? RJ CG 16:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Quotation of a review by Prevent Genocide International is provided above. And there are more in Adolf (drama). Digwuren 16:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Quotation of review does not contain word "anti-fascist". And statement "there are more in Adolf (drama)" is plain lie, as there are none in any English-language articles linked to page which contain word "anti-fascist". This is WP:OR on your side. I was right to assume that Korps!Estonia will intervene to cover it's member from 3RR punishment. I was also to assume that Digwuren obviously understand how false his hollow accusations of vandalism are, as he chose to call in Korps instead of standing behind his accusations. RJ CG 16:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop this... It is getting ridiculous. A mockery of something is always against the thing it mocks. An intelligent person does not need everything spelled out to him. --Alexia Death 16:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The aim is to lay bare the evils of fascism: its flimsy justifications, its perverted utopias. In a time when political theatre is in the poorhouse, Adolf is a call to arms. It is educational, but also divisive: you can be guaranteed a healthy discussion in the pub afterwards, if not a healthy fistfight.

Quote from BBC link. It spells ANTI-FACIST loud and clear...--Alexia Death 16:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The words "Separation of Church and State" appear nowhere in the United States Constitution. Guess how many constitutional scholars consider this a sufficient basis of not considering it a solidly established constitutional principle? Digwuren 16:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You forget that US Constitution has a number of amendments, including the one that addresses the issue.A power of American Constitution is that it is not cast in stone. `'Míkka 18:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You are being thick. But I repeat myself. Digwuren 19:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

is not a good source. When the minister's term will run out, this will likely have a biography of a new person. A temporary solution would be adding a remark of download date, but in long term, a more stable source will be necessary. Digwuren 15:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I sourced this to the fact that Rein Lang is a current minister of justice. And that should change anyways when he is not anymore. The second reference was accident. Suva 15:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A new one is brewing. Postimees today printed Langi nõunik toimetas ministri kohta käivat artiklit Wikipedias. The headline translates as Lang's advisor edited a Wikipedia article on the minister, and it details yesterday's events. Digwuren 19:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is understandable, I always thought that the "Artificial Birthday Controversy" section was given too much weight compared to the rest of his short biography that it can be misleading and damaging to his reputation. I don't know what the libel laws are in the USA, I could be wrong but in Australia it may be sufficient to prove a person's reputation was damaged regardless of whether the underlying facts were true or not. Martintg 20:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Australian libel laws, developed after old English laws, are actually notoriously draconian. American laws are much more lenient. For the record, so are Estonian laws (although it merits notion that Lang himself has pushed for harshening them).

As for the 'too much weight' problem -- yes, so it was. But I believe you can imagine how foul RJ CG and Mikkalai would have cried if this removal had attempted without the support of the OTRS ticket.

The uprising scandal, actually, is more about the behaviour of Gerog112, who is presumed by the journalist to work at the Ministry of Justice, than about the excessiveness. (Take a look at User talk:Gerog112 for a taste.) Digwuren 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Australian libel laws are indeed draconian. A recent high profile Australian High Court case Gutnick v Dow Jones regarding internet defamation established the precedent that Australian residents can sue US based companies running US based websites for defamation. So I am not surprised that Wikipedia is sensitive to this issue, hence the OSTR ticket. Martintg 23:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In , Peeter Marvet (of Tehnokratt) has recruited Alexia Death to talk about the issue on radio this weekend. Presumably, the broadcast will also be available through Web. Digwuren 22:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully Alexia will have memorized core Wikipedia guidelines/rules both backward and forward by then ;) Sander Säde 09:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Its a radio show, so I can cheat a little *thinking what to put in notes* ;) What I hope most from this show is some new editors already aware how things work here... --Alexia Death 09:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I hope from this whole mess as well - some new Wikipedia editors with a basic understanding of both WP process and rules. Do call for more editors to join and participate - with explanation that if Lang's birthday controversy was too "prominent", then not deletion but expanding of the rest would have been a wise course... ;) Sander Säde 10:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ooooh, I always wanted to be on the radio :-p --Deskana (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Interview with Peeter Marvet in Kuku: Sander Säde 10:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And now, Eesti Päevaleht has an article: . Digwuren 11:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Minut, too -- a kind of Estonian version of Slashdot -- has a post: . Digwuren 13:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And delfi.ee: . This one is a shortened version of the EPL article. Digwuren 17:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Mikkalai has repeatedly, as RJ CG before him, attempted to remove the sourced classification of spin as spin, in violation of WP:SPADE. Furthermore, he has misclassified and rephrased the Prince Harry incident, in an attempt to create a false analogy, and claimed that this originated in the Russian media. This is incorrect; the original similarity (*without* this distortion) appears in the first (very laconic) article of Eesti Ekspress.

Then insert the correct phrasing and reference about prince. I saw it in Russian media, hence I quoted what I saw. I invented nothing. `'Míkka 17:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Consequently, I have reverted. I cite WP:BLP, too. Digwuren 17:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding "interesting", so it reads "interesting distortion", isn't WP:NPOV, as it's your opinion that it's interesting. I don't find it interesting. I find it a distortion. --Deskana (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also "a critically acclaimed" sounds wrong. There used to be award winning, witch is a sensible and true statement.--Alexia Death 18:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ive put these changes in. hope this meets with your approval.--Alexia Death 18:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I can compromise to 'award-winning'. Digwuren 18:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

After some research I inserted a more specific term instead of "spin": wikipedia has the article artificial controversy. I hope this make you happy. `'Míkka 17:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not! These concepts do not replace each other. While spin was the process, a manufactured controversy was the outcome. Replacing concise 'spin' with something artificially long such as 'partook in generation' is not constructive, and I suspect, is only designed to avoid linking to the Wikipedia article on 'spin'. Digwuren 18:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I would dare to say the comparsion with prince harry is very unappropriate. This is an encyclopedia, not tabloid. Hey! Let's add "Prince Harry is nazi too!" to every WW2 related article in wikipedia? Suva 06:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It merits notion that the original article of Eesti Ekspress contains at least one clearly verifiable factual mistake. It states that Vanemuine "last" played Adolf (drama) on autumn of 2006. In fact, its last scheduled play was on 4 April 2007. Digwuren 07:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Mikkalai is continuing his crusade. However, it seems he's missed out on a much more striking similarity between Mr. Lang and Mr. Hitler: they both had heads, with one nose, two eyes and two ears. I wonder why that is? Digwuren 14:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop this "artificial birthday" nonsense. Reword the heading, or, better still, quote reputable sources who find this controversy artificial. Because a different point of view is entirely possible. And I am NOT a member or even supporter of Rahvaliit. I support NPOV. AdaHeidelberg 09:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Birthday is not artificial. The controversy is, after all if was entirely a result of misrepresentation of facts. Digwurren has provided you with the explanation of the term. --Alexia Death 10:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It turs out that the "articficial controversy" was started by Estonian media and only later was "spun" by Russian media. Some editors insist on deleting the corresonding referenced text. Please explain. `'Míkka 14:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You're mistakenly thinking that the controversy is "Lang watched an antifascist play. Prince Harry went to a birthday party wearing a Nazi armband." This is emphatically not the case, but this is the essence of the Ekspress article.

The artificial controversy was born when Regnum spun the original report into "Lang watched a play with Hitler in it! There was a large Nazi flag! When Prince Harry did that, outrages rose to the highest heavens!".

Now that the artificiality of the controversy is fully explained, but the incident's section in the article is essentially, a summary, citing this piece of the artificial controversy constitutes a violation of WP:UNDUE. Save such details for Rein Lang's Adolf incident. Digwuren 14:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to my point. My point is that the "artificial controbersy" (note that I do not object this term) was started in Estonia, not in Russia, and this is an important point. `'Míkka 14:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No controversy was claimed nor started by the Ekspress article. If by "started in Estonia", you mean to implicate the Nochnoy Dozor activists, go ahead, but don't forget to add reliable sources. Digwuren 16:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Please explain what was written in Ekspress. Russian newspapers refer to it. Please provide the original source, translated in English, if necessary. Rissan press wrote: "The newspaper <Eesti Ekspress> reminds that three years ago a scandal occurred in Europe after UK Prince Harry came to a birthday party dressed in Wehrmacht uniform with a swastika on his sleeve." Is the quote correct? What is the political affiliation of Ekspress? `'Míkka 16:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a quote, but it's close. The Ekspress' artile dedicated exactly one sentence to the Prince Harry incident, and this, by and large, represents that sentence. No claims of controversy; not even claims of similarity; 'reminded' is misleading summary. In Ekspress' framing, it constituted an impassionate 'You might be interested in this possibly related story' remark. (Such remarks commonly appear in Estonian news reports; in electronic news, though, they're rapidly overtaken by automatic keyword-based 'related story' suggestions.) Regnum's story is reasonably faithful in *that* aspect, but by the ITAR-TASS' "aegis" story, this had "become" an important international precedent applying to Lang's choice of theatres.

Broken telephone at its best. Digwuren 18:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you apparently know this history better, I would take you to your own suggestion and write the Rein Lang birthday incident and replace the corresponding pieces in Rein Lang and Adolf (drama) with a link in the "See also" section, both to avoid unnecessary duplication and remove the undue weight. `'Míkka 18:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to, but I'll wait for the wikigate incident to wind down first. Digwuren 18:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is a proven way of dealing with such incidents: to move a controversy into a separate article, so that the related edit wars do not cteate an obstacle for editing the main article. `'Míkka 19:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is hereby protected due to edit warring. Please discuss the matter below then contact me to request unprotection. --Deskana (banana) 23:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it confusing that Russian position is presented through Estonian eyes. Accordingly, I split the Russian accusations (based on the report of an Estonian newspaper from Estonian response, therefore letting each side to speak for themselves. Also, comment about Nazi banner being an element of the play is necessary. Overwise it becomes completely unclear where all "Nazi flag" accusations are coming from. RJ CG 13:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In it's present form article completely misses calls for Lang resignation made by Parliament fraction, although it mentions statement by informal group Nochnoy Dozor, which mostly include individals who are denied Estonian citizenship. This is as POV-ish as it comes. Unless some Estonian contributor will explain why one have to be here and another doesn't (I mean, except your zealous efforts to present this as attack by wile T...lad), in the next 24 hours, I'll restore reference to calls for Lang's resignation. RJ CG 13:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

SO? --Alexia Death the Grey 15:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What looks irrelevant for you may be pretty relevant for others. Velliste is as Estonian nationalist warhawk as they come, so I guess if it is allright to use political accusations in an article, it is allright to explain to a reader who is author of those statements. Problem is, anyone remotedly interested in region's affairs knows Zhirinovsky, for example, but Velliste is relatively unknown. BTW, could you comment why calls for Lang's resignation from Estonian parliament fraction should be ingored in the article but one from Dozor should be there? RJ CG 16:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That relevancy cannot be established sensibly, because its a POV matter. Right now it looks like you are inserting some random stuff to make a WP:POINT. You are free to put any quotes to Vellistes article. As to the whole Adolf thing I will not get into the that argument again.--Alexia Death the Grey 17:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, it's easy to establish ir-relevance by noting that there isn't any supposed "struggle to gain independence" for Velliste anymore, and hasn't been for 16 years. Or 13 years, if you count withdrawal of Russian army from Estonia as the starting point. (By the way, who celebrated the anniversary yesterday?)

Anyway, to declare Mr. Velliste "warhawk" is beyond ridiculous. Even back in 1980s, his positions involved, for example, promoting the newly reanimated discipline of history, rather than proposing, say, an armed overthrow of the Soviet government, as one might think from RJ CG's remarks. In context of severe Russification campaigns and a push for bilingual schools, the idea of national identity has a certain flavour, and it's quite different from the flavour of national identity ideas in 1930s' München -- the flavour that, apparently, RJ CG is so fond of.

By the way, Wikipedia doesn't appear to have an article on Elsa Gretškina. It should. Digwuren 10:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for another childish personal attack regarding my apparent fondness toward national identity ideas in 1930s' München. I will wear it as a badge of honour. RJ CG 18:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

On the related note, is badmouthing one who has no way to asnwer just your personal lack of common civility or is it a trait you had been taught in school? RJ CG 18:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you notice your own behaviour sometimes? Like the last comment? Suva 19:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

RJ CG has dozens of times attempted to claim that Adolf (drama) features a "pre-suicide monologue by Adolf Hitler". I find it fascinating that he's so many times parroted Russian propaganda sources instead of trying, say, to switch to claiming that it features "Adolf Hitler" -- which is just as accurate (that is to say, just as misleading). Something to meditate on ... Digwuren 13:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

My edits , , are part of one revert in a hopeless attempt to understand what is enraging other editors. RJ CG 20:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how badmouthing of Russian coverage as "spin" is relevant and official document of European parliament is not. It is for sure inconvenient for pushers of "vile Russia hounding honest and blameless Estonian" story, but I was under the impression that WP is supposed to be NPOV. MEP request is pretty Encyclopedic material, much more so than opinionated articles from Estonian media so often used as sources here. RJ CG 14:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can find plenty of parties and whoever who found it inappropriate for Rein Lang to watch the drama. Even Estonian skinheads ironically complained that it's evil to watch anti-fascist drama. The drama has won several awards and is highly respected anti-fascist piece. It is notable that some people got into the spin of media portraying it fascist, but I don't think any list of people who got in the spin and people who actually have seen the play is necessary. As I said. The incident is throughly analyzed in this article and it doesn't need more balancing or unbalancing. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 14:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should wait, if something comes from this. That particular Greek communist has a history of making Nazi accusations, see a list of his questions. As far as I can tell, by far most are baseless and have gone without any further notice. -- Sander Säde 15:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I quote: "It should be pointed out that Rein Lang exhibited similar tendencies in the past, since he undertook to remove the antifascist monument of the Red Army soldier from the centre of Talinn; and he opposed demonstrations marking the popular victory over fascism on 9 May 2007, describing them as an attempted coup." So, Pafilis' POV is that the Soviets are anti-fascist heroes and that Estonia should celebrate its liberation (not occupation) by the Soviet Union. This is certainly suspiciously (!) identical to the official Russian line as opposed to expressing some non-POV EP concern. Therefore presenting with no additional context (implying it is some objective European Parliament action) is not in keeping with the actual content and it should remain deleted as completely anti-Estonian biased. It is irrelevant at best, again, remaining deleted. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 06:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. His denouncement of the Ukrainian Museum of the Occupation is classic pro-Soviet claptrap. There's nothing to develop here. (The Lang motion has been tabled, by the way.) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 06:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Russian press has a way of presenting fake hypothetical questions to politicians, and then performing contextoctomy on the results to make it sound like the politician had a particular POV. It works especially well if the politician in question is relatively remote from the actual issues, for this improves the chance of his not noticing the slanted question or the fakeness of the hypothetical question on time. While I am not entirely familiar with Pafilis' general outlook on world politics, his supposed statement is sufficiently anomalous for me to consider it suspicious, unless it, and its relevance to Rein Lang, is backed up with considerably better evidence than we have right now.

Considering how much I hate baseless accusations, I of course have a source; alas, it's in Estonian: . Those who don't understand Estonian will have to do with another related yet distinct interesting incident: . 泥紅蓮_凸凹箱 07:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

RJ CG's contention and edit (regarding reputable) is a classic case of practicing "reputable by association". By the same logic, Tatyana Zhdanok declaring the moon is made of cheese would be a declaration by the European Union that the only question remaining regarding the composition of the moon is whether it's Kolbasny or Poshehonsky cheese. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Digwuren, "artificiality of this particular controversy is well-established by sources". I can't agree with this. In fact, I can see at least two different controversies here: 1) whether or not Lang expressed pro-Nazi sentiments by the choosing to celebrate his birthday in this manner and 2) whether or not it was responsible behaviour for a minister to enable an opportunity for Russian media to mention Estonia and Nazis in one sentence, right after the notorious bronze soldier incident. Apparently all references to this other side of the controversy (like Rahvaliit's calls for Lang's resignation) have been deleted from the article. I find this simply not right. This is an encyclopaedia, not information war. I find that the heading of the section should be just controversy and in the article there should be references to sources who find i artificial or not. -- 88.196.103.139 12:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It was actually passed, although 800SE (http://web.riigikogu.ee/ems/plsql/motions.show?assembly=10&id=800&t=E) failed same text was re-introduced as 913SE (http://web.riigikogu.ee/ems/plsql/motions.show?assembly=10&id=913&t=E) and passed without much discussion. http://www.epl.ee/?artikkel=307863 spells out some real problems. As I participated in the process I'd be happy if somebody more neutral could correct the sub-section that appears to miss the point ... Peeter Marvet —Preceding comment was added at 22:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)