Talk:Aleksander Kesküla

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)