Talk:Erna Raid

Merger into Germarn army as infantry division.

It may be worthy of mention, because it marks the end of recce group, but it needs a date and it certainly CAN NOT contain statements of things that are NOT known.--Alexia Death 18:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes stuff which wasn't said is as important as stuff which had been pronounced. We're obviously dealing with very partial source. He goes to great length to explain that core Erna unit (68 men) did NOT swear an allegiance to Nazi. But he's very modest about those other 445 volunteers swore an allegiance too. This is what you call "gaping hole in evidence" and I think this hole should be surrounded with red flags to prevent anyone from falling into it. What do you think? RJ CG 18:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It think a lot of things. And one of those is that Wikipedia as an ensyclopedia still needs a source, not an ambiguous statement about what is not known, even more since this merger ends the activities of the recce group and replaces it with a new unit with different purpose.--Alexia Death 19:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Previous participants?

Maybe somewhere should be listed all states~(like China) that have participated in Erna raid through years?--Staberinde 18:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Martintg appears to have done a good job on that topic. Digwuren 01:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Establishment year

Currently, the competition is categorised under Category:1995 establishments after the year it went public. Should it be recategorised under Category:1993 establishments after the year of the test run, or Category:1994 establishments after the year of the first competition? Digwuren 01:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda

Before RJ CG, a well-known Estophobe that can't even read Estonian language asks -- yes, [1] specifically quotes Aaviksoo mentioning "defamation campaign from deceptive Russian propaganda machine". Digwuren 02:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What language your comment is in? Estonian? It does not make sence in English. Only part I could decifer is personal attack, childish name-calling and politically-driven accusation in same time, but has very little substance supporting your witchhunt crusade. Would you be so kind to re-phrase question you have? By the way, do you really consider Aaviksoo impartial in this row, so you cite his words as Allmighty's writing? RJ CG 13:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Russian accusations

On insistence of Suva I'd like to explain my edits of "Russian accusation" sections.

• 1. Header was clearly POV with "artificial" and stuff. Any number of Estonian sources calling accusations "artificial" can not change it, as Estonian POV is different from Russian. I changed section header to "Russian accusations" as strictly factual. Yes, kiddies, that's what Russians are saying. Decide for yourself, are they accusations valid or completely without merit.
• 2. Statement "has in its reporting of it distorted its purpose" adds nothing to an explanation of Russian accusations and as POV as it comes. Let Russians talk for themselves, without Estonian interpreters. Nation of Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy is perfectly capable of speaking it's mind without Estonian guides minding it's every step. Accordingly, changed to factual statement of Russian accusations.
• 3. Calling Foreign Minister of Estonia Urmas Paet "some analyst" is as close to distortion of truth as possible. He's an Estonian official (and therefore can not be impartial in this row). Duly changed.
• 4. "engaged in a systematic propaganda campaign". One more example of pushing Estonian POV in this row. Changed to "sharply criticized". They may be as wrong as it comes, but let reader decide.
• 5. Russian claims that Erna is part of coordinated campaign. This is simple factual statement of Russian accusations. Nothing to discuss here.
• 6. Claim of Aaviksoo. I changed "recalled" to "claimed" for several reasons. 1st, Aaviksoo, not being member of original group, can't "recall". 2nd, his claim is in direct contradiction with other documents. Erna's assignment was to gather data. It possibly (it all depends on POV and neither Laar nor group's vet can be considdered impartial for obvious reasons) turned to saving civilians by ebb and fow of war.
• I'd like to conclude that I will be happy to see point-by-point fact-based refutal of Russian accusations outlining Estonian POV, but I would like to see it as a separate section, not as dstorted edition of Russian accusations. RJ CG 13:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR

The section "Recent official Russian accusations of glorifying Nazism", reads as an editorial, and contains unreferenced material that makes the section to be violating WP:NOR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's more helpful. I will change it a bit so it doesn't sound like an editorial, but I'm not 100 percent sure what you mean. Can you indicate where you believe parts of it are unreferenced with the "cite" inline tag. Thanks again. Martintg 01:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I added some links to articles in both Russian and English clarifying both past Russian displeasure with Erna Raid and accusations made in 2007. Accordingly, I removed [[WP:OR]] template as now almost every word in this section is sourced. RJ CG 15:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)