![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Image:SovNarPit200705.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 21:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous editor claims that incorrect translation happened here. I would ask somebody who has command of Estonian to clarify nature of mistake. RJ CG ( talk) 15:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
With "mistranslation" I referred to your previous edit summary - "Legalese to English". This "translation" of yours was far from perfect. 213.184.32.202 ( talk) 16:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Bete ( talk) 19:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
There is too much original research in this article, and it is done in a POV way. Such as claims that the Russian media "falsely claimed" that statements were attributed to the Estonian govt press service. The referenced article says nothing of the like, in that it mentions nothing about "false claims", it states that statements were attributed to EE govt. "Falsely claimed" is original research. In addition to claims that claims were often accompanied by a photo, with a link to the photo. Linking to the photo is original research also, as it is just a photo on some website, there is nothing to state as such. There are also statements such as protestors attacking Marina Kaljurand; no such thing occurred, her car may have been attacked, but she most certainly was not. Other statements such as "due to Russia's apparent unwillingness and impotency to defend the embassy building and its staff"; "A number of video clips, usually taken via cellphone camera, have appeared on Youtube under the keyword 'eSStonia', ostensibly to corroborate the police brutality claims." (this is OR as the reference is the Youtube links themselves); the list goes on and on. The entire article is written from the Estonian POV, calling protestors vandals and pillagers for example, when the Russian POV is that it is the Estonian govt who are the vandals and pillagers. Russavia Dialogue 09:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
On May 2, a group of young people, as a sign of protest against the dismantling of the Monument to the Liberator Soldier in Tallinn, did indeed made an attempt to disrupt the Estonian ambassador’s press conference at the office of the newspaper Argumenty i Fakty. But security guards prevented them from doing so. No direct physical attack on the ambassador was recorded. As to reports of tear gas, it was the ambassador’s bodyguard who used pepper spray against the picketers. Marina Kaljurand herself confirmed this fact during a conversation at the Foreign Ministry.
Attack and attempt to disrupt are completely different things, and it is a stretch to say that they are the same thing. The same from the source of MNWeekly:
and tried to attack Ambassador Marina Kaljurand before a news conference.
Attacked and tried to attack are completely different, yet the article makes out she was actually attacked before being heroically rescued by her pepper spray wielding bodyguards.
It is omissions of fact, or misquoting sources (either deliberately or inadvertantly), such as this which gives the article an overall pro-Estonian POV. -- Russavia Dialogue 11:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
-- Russavia Dialogue 20:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
We could say they intruded the ambassador's room, and later justified it by intent to disrupt the press conference. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 10:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's a fun source: Kovalyev admits tendentiousness on behalf of Russian media in reporting on the events of Bronze Nights. As a particular example, he mentions the way Russian media systematically called the monument's relocation ('peresnos') a removal ('snos') instead. 62.65.238.142 ( talk) 12:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
As for protesters, vandals and pillagers, it went like this:
Nobody is seriously trying to claim that the original peaceful protesters were the vandals. Anybody who's seen the tapes can easily see the age difference between the original meetings and the riots. 62.65.238.142 ( talk) 12:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Not all the trials were about looting, many were about vandalism and disorderly conduct. 62.65.238.142 ( talk) 12:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Image:SovNarPit200705.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 21:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous editor claims that incorrect translation happened here. I would ask somebody who has command of Estonian to clarify nature of mistake. RJ CG ( talk) 15:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
With "mistranslation" I referred to your previous edit summary - "Legalese to English". This "translation" of yours was far from perfect. 213.184.32.202 ( talk) 16:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Bete ( talk) 19:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
There is too much original research in this article, and it is done in a POV way. Such as claims that the Russian media "falsely claimed" that statements were attributed to the Estonian govt press service. The referenced article says nothing of the like, in that it mentions nothing about "false claims", it states that statements were attributed to EE govt. "Falsely claimed" is original research. In addition to claims that claims were often accompanied by a photo, with a link to the photo. Linking to the photo is original research also, as it is just a photo on some website, there is nothing to state as such. There are also statements such as protestors attacking Marina Kaljurand; no such thing occurred, her car may have been attacked, but she most certainly was not. Other statements such as "due to Russia's apparent unwillingness and impotency to defend the embassy building and its staff"; "A number of video clips, usually taken via cellphone camera, have appeared on Youtube under the keyword 'eSStonia', ostensibly to corroborate the police brutality claims." (this is OR as the reference is the Youtube links themselves); the list goes on and on. The entire article is written from the Estonian POV, calling protestors vandals and pillagers for example, when the Russian POV is that it is the Estonian govt who are the vandals and pillagers. Russavia Dialogue 09:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
On May 2, a group of young people, as a sign of protest against the dismantling of the Monument to the Liberator Soldier in Tallinn, did indeed made an attempt to disrupt the Estonian ambassador’s press conference at the office of the newspaper Argumenty i Fakty. But security guards prevented them from doing so. No direct physical attack on the ambassador was recorded. As to reports of tear gas, it was the ambassador’s bodyguard who used pepper spray against the picketers. Marina Kaljurand herself confirmed this fact during a conversation at the Foreign Ministry.
Attack and attempt to disrupt are completely different things, and it is a stretch to say that they are the same thing. The same from the source of MNWeekly:
and tried to attack Ambassador Marina Kaljurand before a news conference.
Attacked and tried to attack are completely different, yet the article makes out she was actually attacked before being heroically rescued by her pepper spray wielding bodyguards.
It is omissions of fact, or misquoting sources (either deliberately or inadvertantly), such as this which gives the article an overall pro-Estonian POV. -- Russavia Dialogue 11:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
-- Russavia Dialogue 20:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
We could say they intruded the ambassador's room, and later justified it by intent to disrupt the press conference. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 10:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's a fun source: Kovalyev admits tendentiousness on behalf of Russian media in reporting on the events of Bronze Nights. As a particular example, he mentions the way Russian media systematically called the monument's relocation ('peresnos') a removal ('snos') instead. 62.65.238.142 ( talk) 12:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
As for protesters, vandals and pillagers, it went like this:
Nobody is seriously trying to claim that the original peaceful protesters were the vandals. Anybody who's seen the tapes can easily see the age difference between the original meetings and the riots. 62.65.238.142 ( talk) 12:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Not all the trials were about looting, many were about vandalism and disorderly conduct. 62.65.238.142 ( talk) 12:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)