Talk:Arnold Rüütel

Untitled

The Presidium of the Supreme Council was the collective Head of State of the Estonian SSR. Andres 22:48, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

The doctorate mentioned here is not a PhD but a still higher degree. Andres 22:48, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The way he got this degree is also worth being explained to the public!--Constanz - Talk 07:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Party Affiliation

This article states only that he is a member of People's Union of Estonia, but he was also a member of CPSU until 1991 or so, wasn't he? Can we figure out when joined a the CPSU and when did he quit the CPSU, was it before the soviet coup attempt of 1991 or not.

Peanut butter

Another big neutrality problem with this article is that it neglects to address Rüütel's opinions on peanut butter. This debate has focused too much on Estonian politics (of little import to most Wikipedia readers) and not enough on Rüütel's peanut butter preferences, or lack thereof.--Teutoberg 18:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I still think the article is not NPOV enough; it doesn't try to report in some segments, but rather to criticize Rüütel. (And one can find an Estonian daily newspaper comment pro or against anything Rüütel said or did.) Especially as he is pretty much gone now, I think a more objective tone is surely in order. Clossius 12:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering the shit Rüütels 'Centrist' flunkeys threw on Ilves in www.kesknadal.ee, some of the numerous-numerous critcism on comrade Rüütel - this appalling remnant of a totalitarian regime - should be covered.Constanz - Talk 15:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox.[1] I take it you don't like Rüütel; that is fine, but it really doesn't matter here. I think we need to strive for a NPOV article on Rüütel, rather than use this for the payback for perceived wrongs during the election process. Do you think this will be possible at all, or do we have to go to conflict-resolution procedures right away? Clossius 15:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, NPOV does not mean that differing opinions are to be removed, and in some cases it requires pointing at majority POV. Feel free to remove inaccurate text or obvious bias.

I do, I did, but you reverted that. Clossius

do we have to go to conflict-resolution procedures right away? - may-be you shouldn't start with your unfounded aggressiveness immediately, eh?Constanz - Talk 16:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aggressive at all; conflict-resolution is the opposite of aggressiveness. But as your first statement and your summaries suggest, you have very strong opinions here; you just do not like Rüütel. My question is simply, can we try to find a working solution all can live with, or do you insist on your view? If the latter, I do not want to start revert wars, but take this to the level it then belongs. Clossius

You decided to remove Rüütel is supported by People's Union and Centre Party. Throughout the presidential election campaign, Rüütel has been criticised for not having participated Riigikogu round and not taking part in debates; his career as one of the communist-era Estonian SSR's leading functionaries has been severly criticised as well. which of these facts do you find not NPOV? Criticised he was, just like Ilves, and the accusations actually supposedly uncovered his certain participation in repressing a scientist(read the article, in case you speak Estonian - as you suggest.)Constanz - Talk 16:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The first two sentences, or their information, is still in the article, of course. Removed is only "his career as one of the communist-era Estonian SSR's leading functionaries has been severly criticised as well", for which one article in a weekly newspaper is not good enough. I also don't think this was a key criticism; his "commie past" was not really a main issue in the process; it is more an issue for you. :-) If you have an AP or BBC or scholarly source for that this was a main concern of the story, I'll let it stand, of course. The scientist suppression as an incident you can put in, with precise citation etc., of course. Clossius 16:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Constanz, I think your reversal again, which includes removing the POV label, update information, periodization of the presidency, sequencing, etc., is a form of vandalism - plus the contents conflict over the incriminated passage. Let me ask you whether, if I let the - very cheesy, and POV - passage you want there in the text and change back the others, you will remove the update changes again. Clossius 16:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

1. in case every addition you disagree with is immediately labbelled vandalism, i'm afraid a co-operative project like wikipedia is not your cup of tea.

2.if you think a broader coverage of recent disclosures on Rüütel's participation in repressions is needed, then pls add material, instead of removing. Eesti Ekspress is as reliable source for Estonians as the BBC for English-speakers. If you aren't aware of the issue, pls keep away from editing it.

3. your 'NPOV' suggestions are the only ones so far. You have been the only contester so far.--Constanz - Talk 06:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

As is clear from your comments, you are interested in gradstanding and soapboxing against Rüütel, whom you perceive as a "commie leftover"; your point is not to present decent articles on Estonian politics. EE is not comparable to the BBC (it's a private weekly newspaper); also, on the English wikipedia, foreign-language sources that are not checkable for most users are only occasionally okay, and not if there are alternatives. You haven't added anything, by the way, just removed things, including update infomation - because you did not like part of the changes I did (removal of party-political grandstanding), you also removed, several times, update information, such as that Rüütel's term will expire. This is a classical case of vandalism. And for the NPOV, why should others add there, once one has the label. Once again, Wikipedia is not about grandstanding and soapboxing; quit using it for your own views, laudable as they might possibly be. Clossius 06:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know why adding information known and accepted by majority of our people should be 'soapboxing'. On the contrary, removing factually accurate stuff (of which you obviously are unaware of) may qualify as attempts to hide criticism, to censore the page or whitewash. I know your way of arguing from Fatherland Union article - no sources, but a lot of ambitious beliefs.Constanz - Talk 06:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"Our people" is a strange criterion. Anyway, it seems that, in spite of your extremely offensive and unfriendly mode of speech, you at least don't revert updates anymore, and what you did now is finally getting close to Wiki policy (such as adding Taagepera, who however is not only a political scientist but also an old political enemy of Rüütel, and the founding chairman of a political party that opposed him even now). Still, the entire point of your changes is not to inform, but to preach against Rüütel, and whether that is laudable or not, it's not Wiki. I therefore asked to have it checked (that is why we have these mechanisms here); if the admins come out on your side, then of course I accept that and the POV warning can be removed. Clossius 07:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, let us see, it would be nice if you have abandoned by now your somewhat skeptical relation towards wikiguidelines like neutrality and adminship. Anyway, you still haven't commented how pointing out critical facts or intepretations on a stateman could be against wiki - see articles on other politcians for comparison. Your failure has been so far that you haven't bothered yourself to add any facts in favour of the guy - in case you think the article has too many critical stuff.--Constanz - Talk 08:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You create an undue bias by adding multiple party-political accusations into the biography, even after the election. That's against policy. And why should I add positive things to Rüütel? I am not a Rüütel supporter, I just object to your attempts at slander based on personal bias. Clossius 08:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The term Slander recommends lying and/or fabrications. None of the additions here qualify as such (so far, you have not endeavoured to prove the contrary). One cannot rely wholly on your interpretation (i.e claims). Constanz - Talk 08:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Just your amassing of negative stuff (of a guy who after all got just less than 50% of the vote) is creating an undue bias. And no, one cannot wholly rely on my interpretations, but one can certainly rely - from your track record - on the fact that your edits are based on personal dislike, which means that you should finally recuse yourself for that. Clossius 08:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

WEll, surely record shows smth. However, you have neither pointed out any direct connections to current dispute neither have you specified, which sentences are fabricted or what? also, I have tried to broaden the article as a whole, unlike you.Constanz - Talk 09:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I've put in the changes according to yesterday's elections, you just have added campaign material against Rüütel. It's okay that you oppose him, but this should not bias your activities as an editor. Clossius 09:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Not wholly campaign material - it was part of critical historical debate over some aspects of Estonia's past.Your still not tired of arguing with other editors you find on the web? May-be have a good walk to calm down?Constanz - Talk 09:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not really emotionally involved here; I just find it a pity that you abuse Wikipedia for your personal-political biases in Estonian politics, thus misinforming the readers here. And I am still not sure why you keep trying to personally insult me. Clossius 09:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think your accusations have any basis, at least two other contributors have edited my version, probably approving of it more or less. I don't think one should always rely on a person like you - every now and then indulging in accusations like 'bias', 'political soapboxing', accusations which hardly reach a level beyond original research. The level you took thge issue has been somewhat positive regarding my continous contributions here.--Constanz - Talk 05:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have really nothing left to say to you. As regards the "accusations" of bias and soapboxing, I think this article speaks for itself, and that's it.Clossius 05:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, you haven't tried a constructive approach on the article/recent broadening of the text. I have excluded some citations from debate time (Ilves' standpoint); and I've been supported by users Ief and Everyking. Don't see how it's all 'form of vandalism' (content dispute is not vandalism), 'attempts at slander based on personal bias', 'soapboxing' etc. Could you drop such personal attacks?Constanz - Talk 05:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

References

Birth date

The year is one year earlier 85.253.151.191 (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Arnold Rüütel, poliitik ja põllumajandusteadlane, Eesti Vabariigi president 2013.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)