Talk:Aleksander Kesküla

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Estonia Mid‑importance

Aleksander Kesküla is part of WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.EstoniaWikipedia:WikiProject EstoniaTemplate:WikiProject EstoniaEstonia articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : WikiProject Estonia/Missing articles
Assess : Rate each tagged article by quality and importance to the WikiProject if it has not been done. (See Category:Unassessed Estonia articles)
Infobox : Add infoboxes to articles without it
Maintain : Portal:Estonia
Photo : Upload and/or add a photo to articles without it (See Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Estonia)
Stubs : Add info to stub-articles and check for start-class.

500,000 Reichsmarks

Senn is a respected scholar on Lithuania. He even went back to participate in the reestablishment of Lithuanian independence. That said, he would have had zero visibility into any Estonian archives. (In fact, in 1975, had Senn requested materials from an Estonian archive, those materials would be translated into Russian, sent to central control in Moscow, where they would be recorded and logged, then translated into English, and then finally forwarded to Senn, if he could even get that lucky.)
So, if a post-independent Estonian academic journal published after access to archives has been reestablished indicates the 500,000 reichsmarks were indeed paid, then that is the account that should carry primary weight. Some additional background on what the source says should be included in the ref.

Finally, let's not leave charges of "vandalism" on user pages. We have enough accusations of bad faith in Eastern European articles, I'm not standing for any of that anymore from anyone. My talk page is open for contentious topics any time as long as everyone sticks to reputables sources.—PētersV (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These accusations about Parvus, Kesküla, and others are not anything new. To cite "Estonian archives" constitutes a fallacious argument by appealing to authority because Estonian archives cannot tell us anything about the contact Russian nationals may have had with German intelligence. The appropriate source on the matter is in the German archives. Scholars like Senn have relied primarily on German archives to conclude that Kesküla gave the Germans little of substance on Lenin, and that he did not deliver any significant sums to Russian Social Democrats. Accusations of bad faith are reasonable given that people I have come into contact with in one article are vandalizing articles that they have never before edited. It's curious that you did not edit this article before encountering me on another page. RZimmerwald (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind military intelligence ... Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear "Curious," I've actually been following Digwuren, as he's been victimized by unfounded speedy deletes since returning and attempting to create content because uninformed admins decide that Baltic topics are not notable based on Google searches. It's curious from my side, how quickly since your arrival as a newbie that you have used diff's and words like "vandalize" (repeatedly) to complain about edits not meeting your POV and accused editors of bad faith. Perhaps I should just find out whose sockpuppet you are.

As for the Reichsmarks, I've already suggested additional reference be reproduced in the ref itself, or postings here on talk would be fine. From both "sides" would be best.

Then again, if you don't want to play nice, we can play that game too. —PētersV (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Adieu, RJ CG once again. —PētersV (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. The "appealing to authority" argument has been used elsewhere by the departed RJ CG. Now that that is out of the way, a bit more background regarding the basis upon which the Estonian source makes its claims would be useful. —PētersV (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]