Talk:Estonian Internal Security Service

Teinonen is not a reliable source

Teinonen is not a reliable source in this matter (or most others). He is not known for his detailed scholarly assessment; he's known for his approval of Nazi policies.

There have been some pretty colourful dudes in Estonian scout movement. Perhaps it's regrettable that Teinonen doesn't eat cats, just pigs -- if he did, he might be as notable as Asso Kommer. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Teinonen's case has received coverage in reliable sources (such as the ones I used in my edit.) Remember: verifiability, not truth. Offliner (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much every of your sources characterizes him as a Neo-Nazi, yet you somehow failed to mention this in your summary. Why? Colchicum (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think it's relevant, you are free to add it to the article. Offliner (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed from article for time being

I've removed the section from the article, for the time being. Teinonen is somewhat notable after looking at Google, and his blog can be used as a source for his opinion, particularly as this opinion arises from the charges which have been levelled against him. I'm not saying one thing or the other, whether I agree with him or not, because I don't have an opinion on the matter, but his opinion as written was a little undue and without context. It needs to be shortened a lot. Also, it is a WP:BLP violation to claim that a person is a Neo-Nazi as a matter of fact, but it should be mentioned that he was charged for blah blah blah, and attribute the opinion that way. --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. My initial version was indeed a bit too long. It still needs refinement. Offliner (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

For a taste of Teinonen's opinions, the first article about him on Google is an interview headlined "Teinonen: National Socialism had many good sides". He's notorious, not notable. I find it hard to believe that anybody but another neo-Nazi would seriously consider adding Teinonen's opinion about police onto Wikipedia would be a good idea. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I would very clearly direct you towards your own Arbcom at Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned which states "All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee. This applies both to the parties to this case as well as to any other editor that may choose to engage in such conduct." I would urge you to be very, very careful in even thinly veiled accusations at myself or any other editor being a Neo-Nazi or anything else; especially when that is further from the truth, and particularly when members of my own family died fighting that scourge. Would you like to refactor your comments? --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Your and Offliner's editwarring to keep neo-Nazi material in this article speaks for itself. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I will deal with your continued accusations later in another venue. As to your assertions, whether he is a neo-Nazi or not is irrelevant. It is whether he notable enough for his opinion to be on WP? You brought up the "notorious" argument with Johan Bäckman when it was at AfD, and every link you provided only went further towards establishing his notability. Ilves saw fit to revoke the awards he received in relation to the charges levelled against him, and he is profiled in the Estonian press quite a lot it seems? The problem I have with the material, is that firstly you blindly reverted the information completely, which I abhor at the best of times and often see as disruption or whitewashing (which explains my revert of yourself), and then that after copyediting it I saw that the information was somewhat WP:UNDUE due to it's length, and thirdly because it lacked context for his opinion. Ideally, the information should be presented as "As a result of KaPo investigations blah blah blah which resulted in blah blah blah caused Teinonen to accuse KaPo of blah blah blah", and to keep it short and succinct, without delving into advocacy of one view or another. I would hope that other sources are found which can provide this information, but not speaking Estonian, this makes it somewhat difficult for myself, but it does appear that sources are out there. --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a source for the accusations at http://www.ekspress.ee/2009/03/19/eesti-uudised/40473-teinonen-kapo-ahvardas-mind-surmaga-kapo-kommentaar. I wouldn't object to them being included with WP:UNDUE in mind, and with some context. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Not only is the latest version WP:SOAP, it's grossly incorrect. "Spreading Nazi propaganda" is not a criminal offence under Estonian law; hence, it is not a basis for surveillance. It is merely a very bastardly thing to do. Instead, Teinonen was surveilled under suspicion of creating a persistent community based on racial and ethnic hatred. Among other things, by the way, the surveillance determined that Teinonen propagated fascist ideas among aggressive youth and other potential recruits in various places throughout Estonia. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 07:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Teinonen is neither known for being a lawyer, nor a member of the bar association. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well add it to the article, and ensure that it is sourced. Simple as that. No other comments except to say that we are not censored and your removals are in blatant violation of this. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. The way to cure a coatrack is not to hang more coats to it. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop censoring WP Digwuren. We have in articles on a Soviet war memorial it is known as a "Tomb of the unknown rapist", and heaps of other shit that we don't like to see. And this is an instance of the same thing. Just because we don't believe in his views does not mean that his views are invalid for inclusion on WP, particularly when the Estonian press themselves have carried the accusations, and to which it was sourced. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding a section entitled Criticism and basing it on some relatively unknown Neo-Nazi's claims is very much undue. There are definitely some individual anarchists in Estonia, who claims KAPO and police, and the army, and the Estonian state are criminal organisations. Similarly, Neo-Nazis in different European countries have raised accusations that they are being harassed, stalked, persecuted by the security services of the country concerned. There are really so many such rumors that as a rule don't have any encyclopedic value. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem that Digwarrior had was the accusations were sourced to a blog. They have now been sourced to an apparent (??) reliable source. Therefore they meet the threshold for inclusion in the article. But now they are WP:UNDUE. For f' sake, make up ones mind. Gaming the system to exclude information from an article is not on. I need only show Federal Security Service (Russia) in which accusations are made, and included, based upon the same inclusion criteria as here. Are we now going to remove those accusations from all other articles as well? No, of course not, because to do so would be censorship and to engage in advocacy. Frankly, Miacek, I thought you would have known this, and would have been the last person to remove such things from an article. Should I also point out the ridiculous, that these accusations are the only things that are sourced in the article? That is definitely not how WP works. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the text which has been removed was not only on their surveillance of him. It was based on this surveillance, and the lack of illegality in his activities, and also that he has made accusations that they threatened his life. We are not here to judge the veracity of these claims, but to include them in an WP:NPOV fashion, which they were, and allow readers to make up their own minds. But as usual, on such topics, readers are denied even this opportunity, and that in my mind is advocacy and censorship. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I checked the article you linked. There's indeed a whole section of controversies. On the other hand, the article does not include some utterances mr Barkashov, D.Vasilyev or V.Anpilov have said. The question is not that whether an institution has been criticised (they all have been), but rather: how many people support a particular critical statement? how notable is the opinion of a single individual personal? Even in the FSB article I wouldn't believe someone would start a whole section based on just one minor extremist politician's 'experiences'. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The person is not important, it is that a person has been investigated for whatever, and that he was cleared, and that he has accused KaPo of threatening to kill him. This is all carried by reliable sources which are independent of the subject. Thereby it's valid for inclusion. The fact that it is sourced only strengthens the argument for inclusion. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the problem that I have with this piece of poo is that it's irrelevant personal opinion of a biased person with no notability on this topic (remember, irrelevant). This problem is manifest by a number of ways. One of them is that the primary source for this opinion is the person's personal blog. But that's only a symptom, it's not the problem itself. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

And now it is entirely obvious that Digwarrior didn't even check the sources, because the sources which were used were [1] and Interfax. There was no personal blog being used at all. So I put this down to Digwarrior not assuming an ounce of good faith, and then can't even be arsed to check sources, which if he did, would have seen that it was all sourced to reliable sources. Your response? Which obviously won't be "sorry, I was wrong", is? --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What part of "primary" don't you understand? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What part of "reliable source" don't you understand? What part of WP:CENSOR don't you understand? What part of WP:V don't you understand? What part of WP:NPOV don't you understand? What part of stop being a WP:DICK don't you understand? --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Teinonen's suspicious activities

Teinonen has been investigated repeatedly, for a number of suspicious activities. Usually, a primary element of the crime has been found, but not the contextual elements making it punishable. For example, when Teinonen undertook reprinting the book of Adolf Hitler -- liberator, it was determined that the book is by its nature inciting of ethnic hatred. However, since the suspicion against him was based on the idea that there were causal links between publication of this book and the Bronze Nights, and such causal links could not be demonstrated, the charges were dropped with no punishment. Similarly, it has been found that Teinonen has advocated unequal treatment of people by their ethnicity -- which runs severely against the principles set forth in the Constitution --, but since no evidence of Teinone trying to organise a revolt have been found, nor have any victims of ethnic hatred advocated by him been detected, the investigation into this matter ended without any punishment. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved to Security Police Board

This is the English wikipedia, and we name articles as per their English usage.

Results for Kaitsepolitsei

• 1,480 web results
• 5 news results
• 19 book results

Results for Security Police Board

• 3,480 web results
• 19 news results
• 46 book results
• 21 scholar results

Unless someone can demonstrate that these numbers are wrong, then it is clear that common English usage uses Security Police Board as the name in English. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That's bullshit, and you know it! If the article is about an Estonian institution, then its name should be unique, to minimise potential for confusion. Besides, "board" refers only to Kaitsepolitsei top management, not the whole agency. Revert immediately -- this rename serves no meaningful purpose and, in fact, borders vandalism! Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Now I have faked the Google results? [2] refers to the agency as the Security Police Board. [3] even says "The Security Police Board is a governmental authority operating within the area of government of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Security police of re-independent Estonia was officially re-established in the status of the department of the Police Board on March 1, 1991. The Security Police Board gained the status of an independent institution on June 18, 1993......." This may be an Estonian agency, and in Estonian language it has a unique name. However, in English usage, for which this is the English Wikipedia, it is known as the Security Police Board by a margin of 3 to 1. To minimise confusion it could be moved to Security Police Board (Estonia), as this would also comply with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government departments and ministers). --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There are articles that use the native name for the security force, for example National Gendarmerie. Martintg (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

So, that doesn't negate the common usage in English being Security Police Board. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

And you will notice that the French name is Gendarmerie Nationale, the English name is National Gendarmerie, which is where the article is located. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Such a small difference as 2 or 3 to 1 is not a reason to think that one name is more common than another. Also you have been here long enough to know that move-warring is not on, even short of 3RR. Colchicum (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

And so do these guys. Preach to them as well. As to results, the results are pretty clear, and are not bullshit as Digwuren claims. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You do realise you're alone against a wide consensus -- right? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 13:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A wide consensus? You and Martintg? You who call claims bullshit, and Martintg who's argument is based upon a fallacy? --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If the English version of the official website uses the name Security Police Board, then that is what we should use here as well. Offliner (talk) 13:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an English WP, after all. Maybe we should just add "(Estonia)" after the full English name to make sure everyone would understand what is the article about, then add a link to the article for the "Kaitsepolitsei" search? As I noted on another discussion page, even Napoléon Bonaparte name is written in it's English transcription on the respective WP page.

Anyway, it's not quite clear what this fuss is all about:) FeelSunny (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

Basing a criticism section on the views of a neo-Nazi is still undue, no matter how short it is. What next, a Criticism of the Moscow Police article based solely on the views of Eduard Limonov? Martintg (talk) 04:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What is relevant here is that KAPO has (according to Teinonen) intimidated a citizen who has done nothing illegal, threatened his life, made him lose his job and sent him to a psychiatric hospital, just like in the Soviet times. What this citizen's political views are is completely irrelevant. Just being a Nazi sympathesizer doesn't mean that KAPO can ignore his rights, nor does it mean that we must automatically disgard everything that the person says. You are free to add other criticism if you wish - then we wouldn't have to base the whole section on Teinonen's case. Offliner (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That is just his claim. He could also claim he was kidnapped by UFOs and anally probed too. Unless you can provide something more substantive, like an in depth discussion about the alleged problems of KAPO in a secondary source, then there is no place for this section. Martintg (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability, not truth. Teinonen's case has received lots of coverage in reliable sources. And precisely that is the criteria for inclusion in WP - nothing more, nothing less. Offliner (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems to do more with Teinonen then Security Police Board, if you think all this is so notable, then perhaps you want to start Risto Teinonen and put this section there? Here it looks really searched and WP:UNDUE, KAPO has received many serious criticism during it's existence, comparing with that, Teinonen's accusations are peanuts. Põhja Konn (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And Teinonen hasn't even bothered to file a police report, even through issuing death threats is a crime under Estonian law. By the way, I would say that Teinonen is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Or would you like to start an article, of say, Vändra Aveli? Roughly thrice the Google hits. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I can verify that on the November 17th, 2007, the Sun rose. But nobody should go around and mention in all articles that it happened.

The Sun rises every so often. The Neo-Nazis complain about police every so often. These things happen. They can be verified. But mentioning them where irrelevant is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Fun fact: Kapo doesn't have the power to "send people to psychiatric hospitals". You really shouldn't trust the neo-Nazi websites when they tell you otherwise. According to reliable sources, what you're talking about is a court-ordered psychiatric examination, a common (although not everyday) procedure. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Fun fact: KGB also never had "the power to "send people to psychiatric hospitals"". All of them political prisoners were sent there by respective court orderings. So what? Does it makes your argumentation more sound? FeelSunny (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty's criticism

So, why was Amnesty's criticism of KAPO removed? User:Sander Säde removed it because it was "misrepresented," so I switched to a full quote. Then, User:Radeksz removed it because "long quotes belong to Wikiquote." Offliner (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, for starters I don't think it is criticism - it is a comment about KAPO, not even claiming they were wrong in their accusation. The organization in question was financed partially by Russian Foreign Ministry, partially by European funds - before they had misused the money from the latter and had to return it. Also, it had issues with avoiding taxes. -- Sander Säde 10:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"These allegations were widely seen as an attempt by the government to misrepresent the LICHR and to undermine its attempts to secure the necessary financial and social support to carry out its work."

Sure does sound like criticism to me. But we can rename the section to "Allegations of undermining a human rights organization" if you want.Offliner (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It still doesn't say they were wrong in doing so - only that "widely seen as an attempt" - which definitely could need an actual reference to someone claiming it to be that attempt. Probably there is something in RIA Novosti or Russia Today, the usual places. Just mentioning that KAPO did this or that is really not a criticism. -- Sander Säde 12:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Amnesty International is a WP:RS. We do not need another source for the "widely seen as an attempt" claim. Besides, it was formulated as "According to Amnesty, it was widely seen as an attempt." The only source we need for a claim "Amnesty said X" is Amnesty itself. How do you suggest we name the section? Offliner (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Right now I see it only as a comment, there are probably many other similar comments "KAPO did this, KAPO did that". There is no claim they harassed anyone, there is no claim they were wrong, there is no claim there was a violation of human/anyone's rights - so where is the criticism? In any case, it would need a reference to the actual source from KAPO, so WP:NPOV would be followed and readers would be able to make up their mind themselves.

And I didn't mean the need for WP:RS before, just would be nice to see who claimed - if it was a news source from a country not in top 100 of press freedom index, then...

As for the section, I think we should not add anything until we have further opinions, so it would not just lead to another edit war. There is no point for a section with one-sentence comment. -- Sander Säde 12:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not require that we have the "actual source from KAPO." Amnesty is a WP:RS for this statement and that is enough. "There is no point for a section with one-sentence comment" is not a valid reason to remove a section. It can be expanded later. But we can also put it into the history chapter if you insist. Sorry, but you still have not provided a valid reason for your removal of this relevant and well-sourced text. Offliner (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

relevant is the key word. How is it relevant that KAPO was mentioned by Amnesty International - not criticized, simply mentioned? Why should it go to the article? Should we also add mentions in Brassey's International Intelligence Yearbook, United Nations and every other place that might have mentioned KAPO? What is the agenda of adding it? -- Sander Säde 14:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Being trained in evolutionary research, I'm sure you're familiar with the practice of quote mining. Isn't it strangeful that Wikipedia doesn't have a relevant explicit policy? One should be drawn up. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 13:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Having reviewed the relevant policies, in particular WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and having paid careful attention to WP:UNDUE, I believe that the way these sources have been used in this article are misleading. As this is affront to the welfare and omniscience of the WP:Dear Reader, I oppose reintroduction of this train of thought. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop inserting WP:OR

PasswordUsername, please stop inserting WP:OR - [4], [5]. Your source speaks of Nazi organization, which empathically was not the same organization as Estonian Poliitiline Politsei. The name does not make them the same organization, remember, all PolPol employees were deported and/or murdered by the occupying Soviet forces. If you want to claim the connection, find a solid peer-reviewed source - or even better, several such sources. Otherwise this claim has no place in the article. -- Sander Säde 07:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Fake domain

Does the dotcom of Teinonen merit notion here, or would it constitute inappropriate advertisement of his funky ideas? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering and WP:ALPHABETSOUP to delete content

From UsernamePasswords's talk page, comment on their conversation with Offliner about 3RR blocking Sander Säde (already deleted there):

I should mention the claims used to delete content is not relevant and is Wikilawyering and vandalism: "Communists were supported by the Soviet Union, who had publicly accepted the principles not recognizing the parliamentary order, seeing terrorism as a legitimate activity." deleted according to WP:ALPHABETSOUP "Observe WP:SELFPUB: Material by the KAPO can only be used to discuss the KAPO so long as it "does not involve claims about third parties"". It makes no sense to have an article which states that Communists were targeted, and then delete WHY they were being targeted. Without the additional sentence, it makes Estonian actions appear little more than a phobia of Communists. Recall Stalin attempted to topple the Estonian government in a putsch that failed. This is nothing but deletion of relevant content hoping that appropriate restoration of content can be used to block shop. PetersV       TALK 15:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Material by an organization as to its mission and the source of that mission is not "self publication" and inadmissible regarding "third parties" as claimed. PetersV       TALK 15:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonian Nazi collaborators

Placed in Category:Estonian Nazi collaborators per

• Birn, Ruth Bettina (2001). "Collaboration with Nazi Germany in Eastern Europe: the Case of the Estonian Security Police". Contemporary European History. 10 (2). Cambridge University Press: 181–198. doi:10.1017/S0960777301002016. Little has been written about collaboration with the Nazi occupiers in eastern Europe. Using new material from former Soviet archives, the issue of the security police in Estonia is presented as a case study. The commander of the German security police deliberately set up a structure whereby German and Estonian police officers worked closely together, thereby minimising the need for German personnel. Although the security police dealt with the issues which were politically and ideologically the most important, non-Germans like Estonians were accepted as collaborators.

Hesperian 02:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't be misled by the similarity of the names. Members of the pre-WWII Political Police were in corpore murdered by the Soviets, Nazis created a new force - as is also evident from the quote you presented. As Nazis were at the time occupying Estonia, their created force obviously is not an institution of the Republic of Estonia; it would be similar to claim that during Soviet occupations local KGB branch was in fact Kaitsepolitsei. --Sander Säde 08:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Either

1. This article is about the Estonian Security Police that were Nazi collaborators according to the source; in which case
   • The category is valid.
2. This article is about some other Estonian Security Police established in 1940; in which case
   • The history section is extremely misleading.
3. This article is not about the Estonian Security Police; in which case
   • Estonian Security Police should not redirect here.

Based on the above, and the emails I was receiving, people are trying to fit this article into non-existent cracks between these options. It is 1. but it is actually 2. but it is actually 1. That's rubbish. Which is it? Hesperian 08:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you should pay a bit more attention to the dates. Estonian Security Police was created in 1920 and it existed until 1940 (see also here). From 1940 to 1991 the institution did not exist, as Estonia was occupied by Soviet Union, then Nazi Germany, and then again by Soviet Union. The current Security Police is the continuation of the parabellum institution.

Government institution cannot exist when there is no government. As your quote says, the Germans created their own version of the Security Police - name being simply the translation of the German institution (note that pre-WWII Estonian Security Police was renamed to Political Police in 1925 - so the German-created institution had a different name as well). Am I right when I think that you haven't seen the actual article, only read the summary?

Estonian Security Police should be a disambiguation page, with Kaitsepolitsei directing here and Security Police in Estonia (1941-1944) to a new article (or short explanatory note until someone creates the article). Note that the official English name of the Kaitsepolitsei is Security Police, hence Estonian Security Police is redirect here.

--Sander Säde 09:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Why then does the source state that the Estonian Security Police were Nazi collaborators? Hesperian 10:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read what I have now repeatedly written above. The name of the Nazi institution was Security Police (Sicherheitspolizei). To distinguish between German Security Police, Latvian Security Police, Polish Security Police etc, it was called Estonian Security Police (Estnische Sicherheitspolizei - which also was the official name). Same English name does not mean it is a same institution. Even the ranks of the Estonian Security Police were from Sicherheitspolizei - Kommandeur der Sicherheitspolizei (Commander of the Security Police) etc. In many ways, the most telling is the abbreviation also used by Ruth Bettina Birn - Estonian Security Police is known as Kapo (abbreviation from Kaitsepolitsei) or Polpol (pre-war Poliitiline Politsei) - but when she discusses the Nazi institution, she use Sipo, abbreviation from Sicherheitspolizei, as in "This paper focuses on the security police (Sipo) in Estonia and is based on materials found in the Estonian State Archives in Tallinn." Also not the lack of capitalization in the security police - both here and in your quote. --Sander Säde 11:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've created a stub Estonian Security Police and SD based on Birn's article. Feel free to expand it. --Sander Säde 08:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Bäckman and Ristonen: sources, court case withdrawn

I wonder if it would be possible to find a better source for Johan Bäckman's "criticism" than his now-suspended blog? Also, in sources for Ristonen, one of the sources ([6]) does not say anything about Ristonen's court case, why is it even there? Also, Bäckman's self-published book does not have anything at all about Ristonen's court case, as far as I have read it.

Furthermore, Ristonen withdraw the court case in January 2009 [7]. I did not want to do the changes myself, as someone would probably protest.

--Sander Säde 11:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)