Diskussion:Raul Must
Letzter Kommentar: vor 8 Jahren von 90.191.109.9 in Abschnitt WP:Dritte Meinung
Geburtsort
[Quelltext bearbeiten]Tallinn ist die Hauptstadt Estlands!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wieso steht im Artikel "Sowjetunion"?!? Njet, njet Soviet!!!!! (nicht signierter Beitrag von 79.218.142.77 (Diskussion) 19:17, 31. Jul 2012 (CEST))
- Das ist relativ einfach. Er wurde 1987 geboren, also noch in der UdSSR. Natürlich gehört Tallinn jetzt zu Estland, damals wars aber nur Hauptstadt der Sowjetrepublik. Florentyna (Diskussion) 20:50, 31. Jul. 2012 (CEST)
- It is not that simple. The consensus among most of the international community, including EU, is that de jure Estonia existed throughtout the Soviet occupation. So it would be needless and misleading to emphasize that there was instead some other country or territory. 90.191.109.9 13:40, 14. Okt. 2016 (CEST)
- Until August 20th 1990 Estonia was the Estnische Sozialistische Sowjetrepublik and therefore part of the soviet union. It's that simple. - Squasher (Diskussion) 13:57, 29. Okt. 2016 (CEST)
- I didn't imply that Soviet republic or Soviet union didn't exist. The point is that de jure the Republic of Estonia existed too throughout the occupation and without further clarifications we shouldn't emphasize the illegal situtation (territory being annexed by the Soviet union) instead. For example, in documents that are issued in other countries of the EU to Baltic citizens that were born during the occupation, the place of birth is usually the corresponding Baltic state and not the Soviet republic. 90.191.109.9 20:24, 29. Okt. 2016 (CEST)
- We do not care if there was an illegal situation, we care about the facts. Estonia was part of the soviet union, therefore the information was correct. If you want to change it, please get a third opinion first. - Squasher (Diskussion) 18:17, 3. Nov. 2016 (CET)
- It's not a matter of a fact and a non-fact. De jure and de facto situations are both facts. Here it's a matter of preference, about choosing which notation is less confusing without further clarification. You are not argumenting that Estonia ceased from existing during the occupation, are you? As described above, most of the international community doesn't see this that way. It's also a fact. 90.191.109.9 21:31, 3. Nov. 2016 (CET)
- Estonia was occupied (the Soviet Union said, naturally, otherwise), yes. But even if the situation was, from a non-soviet union point of view, illegal, Estonia was not independent anymore. I don't think one could disagree with that. And due to that fact you can fairly say, they belonged, although involuntarily, to the Soviet Union. Let's see what outcome the third opinion will have. Regards, Squasher (Diskussion) 22:45, 3. Nov. 2016 (CET)
- Also, Estland als einen zu dem Zeitpunkt eigenständigen Staat zu betrachten ist schon weit hergeholt. Natürlich war es auch de jure sowjetisch. M. W. war die Sowjetunion von Deutschland (und evtl. der Schweiz und Österreich) anerkannt, sie nahm in dieser Zustandsform an großen internationalen Turnieren wie den Olympischen Spielen und FIFA- und UEFA-Veranstaltungen teil und hatte wohl auch diplomatische Vertretungen in Deutschland (und evtl. der Schweiz und Österreich). Das derart infrage zu stellen dürfte auf ähnlichen Niveau wie die Verschwörungstheorie des Fortbestandes des Deutschen Reiches sein. Möglicherweise sind auch Hawaii und Kalifornien samt Nevada et al. nur „besetzt“. Das kann's doch wohl nicht sein. Natürlich Sowjetunion. --∫ e π a – Martin 21:44, 4. Nov. 2016 (CET)
- To be fair, I didn't argue that Estonia was independent at the time. It wasn't. I don't know how do you read out that it was from saying that Estonia was occupied at the time. Neither did I imply that Soviet union as a state wasn't recognized nor that it wasn't de jure a state. Different thing however is that many countries never recognized the Baltic states as part of the Soviet union, and this is why most of the international comminity considers that, say, Tallinn during the occupation was still at the territory of the Republic of Estonia (e.g see above the example of documents issused abroad).
- I repeat, it's not wrong that at the time Tallinn was de facto part of the Soviet union, but it also isn't wrong that at the time Tallinn was de jure still in Estonia and it just isn't common in international relations to emphasize the illegal situation over the de jure situation.
- I'm afraid you misread what was said above. Though I'm sorry for writing in Englis here, I think this, at least, needs a third opinion from someone who understands Enlgish. 90.191.109.9 12:11, 5. Nov. 2016 (CET)
- Also, Estland als einen zu dem Zeitpunkt eigenständigen Staat zu betrachten ist schon weit hergeholt. Natürlich war es auch de jure sowjetisch. M. W. war die Sowjetunion von Deutschland (und evtl. der Schweiz und Österreich) anerkannt, sie nahm in dieser Zustandsform an großen internationalen Turnieren wie den Olympischen Spielen und FIFA- und UEFA-Veranstaltungen teil und hatte wohl auch diplomatische Vertretungen in Deutschland (und evtl. der Schweiz und Österreich). Das derart infrage zu stellen dürfte auf ähnlichen Niveau wie die Verschwörungstheorie des Fortbestandes des Deutschen Reiches sein. Möglicherweise sind auch Hawaii und Kalifornien samt Nevada et al. nur „besetzt“. Das kann's doch wohl nicht sein. Natürlich Sowjetunion. --∫ e π a – Martin 21:44, 4. Nov. 2016 (CET)
- Estonia was occupied (the Soviet Union said, naturally, otherwise), yes. But even if the situation was, from a non-soviet union point of view, illegal, Estonia was not independent anymore. I don't think one could disagree with that. And due to that fact you can fairly say, they belonged, although involuntarily, to the Soviet Union. Let's see what outcome the third opinion will have. Regards, Squasher (Diskussion) 22:45, 3. Nov. 2016 (CET)
- It's not a matter of a fact and a non-fact. De jure and de facto situations are both facts. Here it's a matter of preference, about choosing which notation is less confusing without further clarification. You are not argumenting that Estonia ceased from existing during the occupation, are you? As described above, most of the international community doesn't see this that way. It's also a fact. 90.191.109.9 21:31, 3. Nov. 2016 (CET)
- We do not care if there was an illegal situation, we care about the facts. Estonia was part of the soviet union, therefore the information was correct. If you want to change it, please get a third opinion first. - Squasher (Diskussion) 18:17, 3. Nov. 2016 (CET)
- I didn't imply that Soviet republic or Soviet union didn't exist. The point is that de jure the Republic of Estonia existed too throughout the occupation and without further clarifications we shouldn't emphasize the illegal situtation (territory being annexed by the Soviet union) instead. For example, in documents that are issued in other countries of the EU to Baltic citizens that were born during the occupation, the place of birth is usually the corresponding Baltic state and not the Soviet republic. 90.191.109.9 20:24, 29. Okt. 2016 (CEST)
- Until August 20th 1990 Estonia was the Estnische Sozialistische Sowjetrepublik and therefore part of the soviet union. It's that simple. - Squasher (Diskussion) 13:57, 29. Okt. 2016 (CEST)
- It is not that simple. The consensus among most of the international community, including EU, is that de jure Estonia existed throughtout the Soviet occupation. So it would be needless and misleading to emphasize that there was instead some other country or territory. 90.191.109.9 13:40, 14. Okt. 2016 (CEST)
- Es stellt sich erstmal die Frage, muss da überhaupt ein Land stehen und wenn ja welches, Estland, Estnische Sozialistische Sowjetrepublik oder Sowjetunion. Muss es ein politisches Gebilde sein oder dient die Angabe einfach der Lokalisierung, sowie Rheinland. Ich würde Estland als geographisch einfachste Lokalisierung schreiben. Wenn das nicht kompromissfähig ist würde ich es ganz weglassen. --Siehe-auch-Löscher (Diskussion) 11:43, 5. Nov. 2016 (CET)
- Ich sehe gerade, dass in der Infobox auch Estland schon steht, daher ist auch die jetzige Lösung für mich ok. --Siehe-auch-Löscher (Diskussion) 12:05, 5. Nov. 2016 (CET)
- Estonia is mentioned, but the problem is that below it suggests that in 1987 Tallinn was in some other state than Estonia (illegal situation over de jure situation, see above).
- Omitting the state would be fine too. That's what my initial (reverted) edit suggested. 90.191.109.9 12:11, 5. Nov. 2016 (CET)
- Kannst Du deutsch? --Siehe-auch-Löscher (Diskussion) 12:21, 5. Nov. 2016 (CET)
- Unfortunately not good enough to discuss the matter in German. 90.191.109.9 12:32, 5. Nov. 2016 (CET)
- Kannst Du deutsch? --Siehe-auch-Löscher (Diskussion) 12:21, 5. Nov. 2016 (CET)
- Ich sehe gerade, dass in der Infobox auch Estland schon steht, daher ist auch die jetzige Lösung für mich ok. --Siehe-auch-Löscher (Diskussion) 12:05, 5. Nov. 2016 (CET)