Talk:Martti Ahtisaari/Archive 1

Locking the article

Can this article please be locked? It's tiring to have to remove the same old pointless vandalisms with swastikas all over the place. Sigh.Snowgrouse (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What did he do to deserve the Nobel prize?

What did he do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.57.220.124 (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

for his important efforts, on several continents and over more than three decades, to prolong international conflicts etc.... 216.249.58.67 (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahtisaari has been mediator in several conflics around the world and is quite frankly highly regarded because of it. He got the award of his many efforts towards world peace around the world. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

What a BS answer but I'm sure he's done something to deserve such a great and prestigious award.

Denial of knowledge of mass graves

I think that there are a few things about Ahtisaari that is not mentioned in detail in the article (which would probably fall under the criticism section).

In 1989 in Namibia the South Africa Defence Force (SADF) was confined to its bases. The United Nations Transitional Group (UNTAG) was responsible for peace keeping and to monitor the peace process and disarmament of all the sides.

On 1 April 1989 PLAN forces came into South West Africa. Martti Ahtisaari gave the SADF a mandate for limited deployment. The SADF effectively fought under the mandate of UNTAG.

350 PLAN fighters and about 25 South African/Namibian fighters were killed. Most of the PLAN fighters were buried in mass graves. Pik Botha claimed that photographs and fingerprints of all those killed were handed over to the new government of Namibia[1].

In 2005 there was international news when “mass graves” were discovered in Namibia. Matti Ahtisaari denied any knowledge of these. For example he said to Sapa [2]:

SABC radio news on Wednesday quoted Finnish diplomat Martti

Ahtisaari as saying: "... I can't believe that those mass graves would have occurred while the UN was there."

Ahtisaari was head of the UN Transitional Assistance Group during Namibia's move to independence.

"I sincerely hope that this will be properly investigated and I think it's obvious that the best answers can and should be (had) from the South African military, who were in charge of the whole

activity at the time," Ahtisaari told the SABC.

So he denied any involvement in this. These mysterious graves were nothing more than the mass grave of the 350 PLAN fighters that died (while the SADF was fighting under a mandate given to them by UN & Matti Ahtisaari). The fighting was covered in depth by the press in 1989 and Matti Ahtisaari had full knowledge of the actions of SADF&UNTAG. A Mail&Guardian article covers the 2005 “discovery” in depth – see [3].

The SADF defence minister at the time suggested that the answers to this would lie with the UN (also from [2]):

The broadcaster said South African apartheid-era defence

minister Magnus Malan had suggested the UN could shed light on the

mass graves as it was then in charge of the transition process.

I think that it would be good if someone wrote a concise part about this in the main article – especially since he won a Nobel prize and the article needs to be more in depth. What is the process of doing this and will anyone be interested in doing this? (I have no idea how WP works, I've just posted this section in the discussion page at the top, hope this is the correct procedure).

[1] I can not find an internet source for this now. If someone has access to any Sunday Times newspapers of the time please read up about it and post it (both the sunday times and the beeld covered the 2005 incident in depth. Both (especially the Sunday Times) are large newspapers in South Africa. Their websites unfortunately does not cover everything in dept.).

[2] The ANC newletter mirrors Sapa (South African Press Association) articles. The address is :http://70.84.171.10/~etools/newsbrief/2005/news1118.txt

[3] Mail&Guardian article. Title: “The elusive truth about Namibia's mass graves”. URL: http://www.mg.co.za/article/2005-11-21-the-elusive-truth-about-namibias-mass-graves —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.33.197 (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Alleged racist comments

Please read here and here about Ahtisaari's racist comments:

Chief United Nations negotiator for Kosovo Martti Ahtisaari drew unprecedented criticism over the weekend from Serbian politicians for allegedly saying that “Serbs are guilty as people” and implying that they would have to pay for it, possibly by losing Kosovo which is seeking independence. The statement, allegedly made by Ahtisaari during Kosovo talks in Vienna on 8 August, was made public Friday by members of Belgrade's negotiating team and immediately provoked a public shock. A weekend [terrorist attack] on a cafe in the northern Serb area of the divided town of Kosovska Mitrovica where ethnic Albanians live to the south of a UN-guarded bridge [followed Ahtisaari's statement]. other readings can be found here and at the Google search results.

Allegedly racist comments; other people assert that the quotes were taken out of context and were not meant to be insulting in any way. —Nightstallion (?) 12:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I rephrased this and gave it some (credible) sources too. It is to be emphasized that those words have not come directly from Ahtisaari but have been claimed, without even providing the context, by Serbian politicians to have come from Ahtisaari. The sourced i listed are the New York Times and Helsingin Sanomat (Finland's biggest daily mewspaper). Random blogs and such can't really be used here as sources. This really seems to me to be populism and hot air by serbian politicians. Also hasn't godwins law reached Serbia yet? as i see these Hitler-comparisons as stupid tasteless and unfair. But this is not a debate forum so let's keep it to sources shall we. Gillis 22:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Also hasn't godwins law reached Serbia yet?

It's too cold to go outside our cave right now to check that out, but I'll inform you in the spring about it ;) That is, if we don't run out of little muslims to eat :(

The amount of carefree chauvinism pointed toward Serbs by some people is amazing considering how trigger happy they are to accuse someone else of nationalism. --77.46.198.169 (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow are you outright denying he said this? 216.249.58.67 (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

to all you behind .yu resolving IP's

haahaa, very funny he might look like jabba the hut or you may think it is funny to say he is married to jabba the hut, but guess what: most people don't find it funny, no, they find it right out stupid.

And you know what else they find stupid? you! your adding in shit about a mediator in a conflict just ruins your own credibility and sinks the credibility of your country and it's commitment to peace altogether. That's all i had to say, please refrain from stupid vandalism.

have a nice day

Gillis 10:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize nomination

• For the Aceh treaty and his earlier diplomatic work, most notably in Namibia and Kosovo, Ahtisaari was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005 and again in 2006.

Being nominated for the Peace Prize is an honor, but it is not official or even prestigious. Any national legislator or about a third of the university professors in the world can make a nomination, and there have been as many as 140 some years. Nominators are requested to keep their nominations secret, so it's only those wishing publicity who make announcements, and more often it is impossible to verify. I see no reason to keep it. No offense to the subject, this is a general Nobel Peace Prize "nominees" issue. -Will Beback · † · 08:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, although something in the way of "speculations about Ahtisaari winning a Nobel peace prize have been done". For one this is because someone .fi will write it back in in a mattherof days if you altogether remove it since the Finnish media likes to speculate into it more than there is to speculate about, in fact he himself has asked the media not to write about him as "a potential winner". Gillis 01:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Nazi allegiations

The allegiations that Martti Ahtisaaris father would have been a nazi SS officer that were edited in from an anon ip (resolving to .yu no doubt), with a reference that does not look very thrustworthy, are just stupid.

Martti Ahtisaaris father was an officer in the finnish army before and during WWII, although Finland was partly allied with the nazis there weren't really finnish officers in the german army.

Although i don't speak the language of the reference presented it seems to emphasize the fact that Martti Ahtisaari's father's name used to be "Adolfsen", this is true, but completely unrealted to Hitler, in fact Martti Ahtisaaris father changed it to Ahtisaari quite shortly after Hitler came to power in Germany (possible cause?).

And as a counter source could be presented a study into Martti Ahtisaari's family by a neutral finnish genealogy society (In Finnish)

[1]

Gillis 04:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there an text in English? Also it isnt true that there weren't finish officers in Hitler's army, it is stupid to say as proofless allinging Ahtisaari with Nazis.

TheShining4 18:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well depends on what you refer to, if we are talking about the wiking battallion (or to it later supplemented volunteer battalion nordost), then the claim can be skipped altogether as that battalion only accepted 17-23 years old men in good shape, certainly not Ahtisaari's father who at that point was well over 35 (he was born 1905 and wiking was recruited 41-42).

Neither would he have been an officer in the german standard army fighting in finland (wiking never fought in finland), because it was completely under german command.

All in all as sources i've pointed out say, he was a quite low ranking officer in the finnish army, working as a technician during the war.

So please try something a bit less ridiculous...

And no regrettably that study into Ahtisaari's roots is not avialable in English, but i am sure some other finnish speaking wikipedian would be happy to verify the content is translated correctly.

Gillis 20:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say he was in nordost battalion, I said that it would be stupid to claim that there weren't officers of finish nationality (there are sources that there were officers of even Indian nationality in Hitlers army). It would be nice if someone could translate that text, it would clear speculations at some point.

TheShining4 21:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, forgot to phrase it in "very few" or some other way, the common view abiut the finnish-german military pact is usually just one that is a missconception. Gillis 21:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As more counter evidence (once more in finnish) i'll site Helsingin Sanomat, the largest daily newspaper in the nordic countries. http://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/artikkeli/Serbialaislehdet+mustamaalaavat+Martti+Ahtisaarta/1135224969494 which runs a story on the Serbian media spreading false information in the particular matther. The HS article also lists literature as it's sources, unlike the serbian papers who have provided no sources.

Gillis 22:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain of the relevance, anyway. If we were to persecute everyone who was remotely connected with a Nazi, there would be precious few left. If there is any evidence that the article's subject, himself, was a Nazi or a Nazi sympathiser, well, that would be relevant. As far as I am aware, being related to a Nazi, even if true, is not a crime. Dave 23:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but still that is not a reason to have that information as false information in the article, especially as we all know how well the N-word works. If you click the link i posted it will show the Serbian newspapers cover with a hitler-moustasche edited onto Ahtisaari. And even though it is meaningless, it still would be an important fact if it was true, in order to lighten the persons background, but in this case it is just propaganda to sell newspapers. As Ahtisaari is playing such a vital role as mediator in the peace process it is important to keep his wikipedia biography as correct as possible. Gillis 00:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, by all means. I intended my previous comment as support for the position that the information should not be in the article. Irrelevant information rarely belongs in an encyclopaedia! :-) Dave 00:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

bugmenot has a working account for that article this one idiot offers as a proof for those nazi allegiations. the article doesnt say a word about nazi issues nor mentions marttis father.

Gillis i think that you have taken it too seriously, "Kurir" is just a tabloid and as such it works with gossips and "sensational news"; actualy source is Carl Savich and he also doesn't give any resource to support his claims. Btw, I'm Serb and it sounded more like a "low punch", and it is obvious how construction was made, based on "gulty as people" sentence. Simply, if you catch some free time, use translation of that file or any reliable information that contains his father activity during this period, but I personaly don't see much point in proving him "not guilty", this is not the time of inquisition.TheShining4 12:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that clearly does not stop this 137.205.132.197 editor from harrassing both the article and my talk page. Especially splatting my talk-page full of "wikiscare" (arbitary templates that is supposed to scare the less expirienced editor away from reverts). And i udnerstand it is from gossip news, but clearly some people seem to believe it, or at least wich to believe it. Gillis 16:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately you'll have to deal with it untill end of negotiations. Also if I may say, I disagree with "populism and hot air by serbian politicians" you said about his statement, 2 negotiators from Serb team were interviewed in same time on 2 different televisions and they said same thing right after the meeting with Ahtisari (if I ever get tape of those interviews I will upload them, one television taped both of them in line of sight, turned back to back) - it would be kind of weird if they both missunderstood or altered meaning of what was said then.

TheShining4 17:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:LIVING also means using reliable sources

That policy doesn't mean that if you get any information on a dead person you can stick it in a living person's biography. If it is controversial then it has to come from a reliable source WP:RS. If you want any "controversial" information to stick here then we simply need to arrive at a consensus as to how reliable the source is that you are using before you insert it, else it will be reverted my me (who's never heard of the guy until a few days ago) and no doubt others. Ttiotsw 07:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Negotiating skills section not reliably sourced.

This was reverted after I deleted it as being from an unreliable source.

It said under the section, "Negotiating skills",

"Ahtisaari has been criticized for his negotiating style, which has been described as not-quite concerned with humanitarian law. "

Who has criticised his negotiating style and who has described it as "not-quite concerned with humanitarian law." No cites from reliable sources are included.

The text, "During negotiations in 1999 [2], pressing Milosevic to sign a peace agreement allowing NATO into Kosovo, Ahtisaari made a gesture across the table with his hand, as if to be cleaning the tabletop. Ahtisaari then said, in a hushed tone: "Belgrade will be just like this tabletop. We'll start the bombing of Belgrade immediately...half a million dead in Belgrade."

..but the only cite for that is hosted on [3] (which is fine) but the story originates from International Crisis Group (ICG) (which is fine so far) but they cite Nedeljni telegraf (dated 9th June 1999). It is unclear if Nedeljni telegraf is a notable and non-partisan source (especially non-partisan given e.g. murder of Slavko Ćuruvija in the months (April 1999) prior to the publication date (June 1999) of the quote above. I advise caution for content around that time. If it was such an important meeting involving NATO and Milosevic then wouldn't there be more notable or reliable press present or an official transcript in English ?.

My call is that section just doesn't feel right for a WP:LIVING page especially given the controversial implication of what's being said and the time it was quoted as being said. Ttiotsw 12:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

even the source that is given continues by saying

Such an account was likely floated to give the regime some justification for coming to terms with NATO. The thought of the Finnish dignitary, a representative of a nation not known for its warlike approach to international problem-solving, delivering such an ultimatum will strike most as ludicrous. But the account was not without value as a piece of propaganda to be used for domestic consumption.

So at least here should be noted this is about an unconfirmed story or rumour, otherwise wikipedia makes gossips into facts once again. He wouldn't have any backing for that statement, and milosevic would've known that. Gillis 15:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Pre '99 meetings (before bombing) weren't documented in written document or video, so there certainly isn't transcript of them, only sources are various politicians statetments and newspapers. Unfortunaly these meetings lacked formalism (fortunately few meetings that happened in last year were documented).

TheShining4 18:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

An editor tried a revert with an edit summary of "ahtisaari denied the report, which is a significant incident". No, WP:RS must still apply and so denying a report from a reliable source WOULD be significant, whereas denying a report from an unreliable source is NOT significant. Find a reliable source for this sweeping of hands stuff. Ttiotsw 22:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The reports are from Serbian negotiators, and are widely reported in the media. That makes them significant. It is not a lone report, and certainly Ahtisaari had very good reasons to be concerned. His denial is as reliable as reports from Serbian negotiators. This should not be removed! Haaweer 01:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Which one of the spectacular scandal add-ins you are trying to put into hte article are you reffering to? and do you really mean the fact that he denies something makes the opposite more thrustworthy or what...? the nazi allegiations are as i¨ve sourced utter bullshit, the "tabletop" accusation is even clearly doubted by the source that has been given by people wanting to add it in and the guilt of the people thing is word against word, and is already covered in the article. I think this for most logical human beings should mean end of discussion, but clearly that is not the case here... Gillis 01:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

To the tabletop accusation, does anyone really think a. Ahtisaari would really have said it without being able to back it up (The UN would never bomb 500 000 civilians to death, no such actions would ever get clearance by the general assembly nor would it be very good PR) b. milosevic would have been stupid enough not to realize (a) in case Ahtisaari would have said it? As the given source says, it was probably a story circulated by the regime to come to terms with having to agree to nato terms. Gillis 01:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If it was "widely reported" then there should be an English language reference (not a translation but a story filed in English) that reported these allegations. We'd also need a cite that states that he denied these allegations (so far none provided therefore it is not neutral). So far the only source points to a non-English language paper and more importantly filed after a very critical time for the press (i.e. mid-1999 for reasons I have explained above with the murder of Slavko Ćuruvija). The "Serbian negotiators" are not really a reliable source in that it's unclear how anyone would consider "... as a leak from the Serbian negotiating team." neutral and fit for a biographical page here. Adding his denial still does not make the whole episode notable. Ttiotsw 01:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Weather articles are translated from Serbian or not is certainly NOT relevant. English language translation is not a prerequisite. The story is well known in Serbia, and Ahtisaari's image and credibility is badly damaged by it. That very fact (regardless of who is right - Ahtisaari, who denies saying it, or Serbian negotiators, who related story to the media) means that it is relavant for the biography article. Controversies are certainly part of someones biography, especially those which are widespread, and bear lot of weight on credibility of someones job (in eyes of Serbian public, at the very least). Haaweer 02:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not ask for a translated reference but a story from a reliable source that was filed in English on this; we're editing the English language Wikipedia. It's not for us to state that his image and credibility is damaged but for you to come up with someone notable who has said this has happened. If you read the WP:LIVING then any controversial material must be removed. It's not a matter of who's right or telling the truth but that it's been documented by reliable sources. Its been 7 years or so since 1999 so there should be other references for this incident unless it simply is non-notable gossip. Ttiotsw 04:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The way Serbians view Ahtisaari is highly relevat to this article, and should be covered. I think this version presents the material in a NPOV manner. None of this material should be summarily removed. -- Petri Krohn 08:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

OK I think I at least can work with that one as long as it gets toned down with usual wording like "alleged" and "claimed". Plus the other comments gleaned above regarding why the Serbian negotiators may have said this is germane to the section. Ttiotsw 12:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Questioning one side in a negotiating process is ludicrous. If what the Serbs claim is suspect, then in the interest of NPOV so is everything claimed by Ahtisaaris side. 216.249.58.67 (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Commemoration of Finland Nazi etc

This section is about the Finnish government. It's relevance to Ahtisaari seems to be via the tenuous link that his father was a mechanic for an SS group. There is insufficient notability of the father and it is not clear how what the father did then relates to what Ahtisaari does today. If a notable person can show that the father was instrumental in what Ahtisaari does today then so be it. Until that time this synthesis is just original research. Find that notable and reliable source. Ttiotsw 01:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

ONE-MORE-TIME: Ahtisaari's father was N-O-T a mechanic, or any other sort of person in aANY nazi regiment. He was a mechanic for the Finnish defence forces during WWII. Carl Savich claims he was in the elite group wiking nordost freiwillige battalion, now this was a group that only accepted 17-23 year old arians, while Ahtisaaris father during WWII was 35 years old, that in itself should be proof enough. Also the book by Historian Mauno Jokipii titled "Panttipataljoona" has is a very complete list of all Finnish SS volunteers, and there is neither Adolfsen, nor Ahtisaari listed in there. Please, how hard can it be to understand? Gillis 21:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the fact that Nazi Germany was the only country in the world that actually took it upon itself to offer aid in battle to Finland in the fight against the vastly larger Soviet army, even though Finland never shared the Nazi German ideology, has forever tainted Finland's image as Nazist. JIP | Talk 19:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with Finland being allied with Germany. This is all to do with Serbian smear campaing against Ahtisaari as he was negotiating Kosovo's independence. This whole thing is from one Serbian newspaper article that was totally fictional. I wouldn't take any newspaper articles as talking the whole truth as they usually make news for a purpose and that article was only made because some people didn't like what Ahtisaari was doing. Quite frankly I would see the writer as a childish brat who shouldn't even write anything as he just makes things up without any proof. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the Serbian smear campaign seems to be using Ahtisaari's father's military experience as proof. Not only is Martti Ahtisaari not responsible for his father Oiva Ahtisaari's actions, Finland having been allied with Germany in wartime does not mean Martti Ahtisaari is in any way connected to Nazism. JIP | Talk 20:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't need to commment that accusation of his father as it has been proved wrong by historical documents. Finland has extensive records where every soldier served and Ahtisaari's father never was in German military. He was part of Finnish troops and being in Finnish army doesn't make anybody a Nazi as Finland fought the wars on their own goals not with German's goals. Finland didn't share their ideology of pure race but when country is between two major powers who are in war and the other one already stole some land from them is not odd that they would ally with German as it really was the only ally they had. In reality the largest fear that finnish people had at the time was to be conquered by Solviet Union as nobody wanted to be under Russian rule again. Also just to note that Finland also fought against the German's in the WWII not just with them one historical fact that people like to ignore. --80.221.239.213 (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on all your points. The point here is that the people behind the Serbian smear campaign, who hate Martti Ahtisaari, are not above trying every way to connect him to Nazis, regardless of whether there's any truth to it. There are just far too many people in the world who insist on comparing everyone they disagree with to Adolf Hitler. JIP | Talk 19:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

English

Would it be possible for someone with better knowledge of english language to edit this article? Left as it is, it sounds quite artificial and, all in all, is of poor quality. It might represent a nice excercise of some ten year old schoolboy, but surely doesn't belong to Wikipedia (or any other cyclopedia, for that matter).Popytrewq 18:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If you know enough of English grammar to make the comment then you must know enough of English grammar to do it yourself ;) Be Bold though it matches the style of other biographical pages I've read. Ttiotsw 19:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

True, but I don't know much about this chap.

Poorly-sourced controversial material

"Current allegations" contains potentially libelous material against Martti Ahtisaari and is sourced by two articles in a foreign language. In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, I am removing the whole section from the article.

Such controversial material can only be used if it is supported by reliable sources in English.Phase4 11:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup I support this delete. If it is true then we'll get BBC, Reuters reports and the like else it's just Balkanized version of news you see (ah, Todorova, I too see the Balkans as an incredible resource for Europe if we could somehow work out how to knock some clues into the nationalists, religious leaders, Albanian blood feuds, EU, US, Italians.....in no particular order ). Ttiotsw 12:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. It is a fabrication made by Serbs. Nothing more. --Noah30 16:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The discovery of corruption is a big issue in Serbia - Oliver Dulic, speaker of Serbian parlament has demanded explanation. The leaked BND report may or may not be comfirmed, but the fact that such high profile figure as Dulic has rised this issue means that it is a very serious thing which cant be just dismissed by the Ahtisaari apologists. Groyd

I've edited the article to take account of all these controversial allegations against Ahtisaari.Phase4 12:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Latest edit by Gillis takes us back to unsourced, controversial territory. I've reverted the edit, and await justification on this talk page as to what if any of it can go into the article.Phase4 21:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If you'd be thorough enough as to check what the sources SAY, wou would notice my version is sourced and the one you reverted to is not. Most of those sources are added there by me in order to proove these ridiculous accusations wrong. Then someone has gladly gone along and added a load of dung into the text but not moving the sources (as to make it look as if those sources say so). This kind of dung has notthing to do in an encyclopedic article and least of all in something under WP:living, and you should know that. I've spent hours batteling this stupid vandalism over the last months as you can see from the revision history. HAND Gillis 22:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I find the controversies section objectionable as well. I understand the feeling of a need for statements such as, "Obviously this is untrue," but the language is not encyclopedic, or even journalistic. I have edited accordingly. My opinion is that the section should be deleted, or seriously condensed. -Jmh123 00:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes i'm sorry for the poor spelling, but i just came from an eye surgery and have a poor eyesight at the moment so i just put my time into getting the clear bs out and left the spelling to someone else. Gillis 10:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The edit by -Jmh123 has retrieved the situation. The Ahtisaari article is now in much better shape!Phase4 11:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Having just reviewed it, I think it's still very unsatisfactory. Specifically, I believe it breaches WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and the guidance in WP:BLP#Criticism is also relevant. The bottom line is that these are fringe viewpoints evidently being pushed as part of a sustained campaign to discredit the subject. The Serbian controversy is worth a couple of lines at the most, but the amount of coverage it gets at the moment is completely disproportionate. I've therefore reduced it to a short summary. -- ChrisO 11:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ChrisO. I attempted to neutralize that section as a temporary measure, but also stated, "My opinion is that the section should be deleted, or seriously condensed." -Jmh123 14:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, I have only contributed to that part in order to correct the false allegations that numerous ip addresses in the .yu tld keep adding in. But honestly i don't even see the point of having teh whole allegations part there. But if i had removed it i would have just been attacked as someone who disrupts important infromation and the probable result of a hasty admin would be to side with the person who added in the useless crap. If someone feels it's important then make another article about the allegations and name it properly. I'm fed up with correcting some peoples' attempts to use wikipedia to push their agenda. Gillis 18:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize. It gets freaking old, doesn't it? -Jmh123 18:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

A separate article could although be a good idea. Since it seems as if pretty many persons in serbia take these accusations as a fact, and wikipedia could be a contributor in correcting such missgidedness. But i don't feel like using up my time for that right now. Gillis 18:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a separate article would again run into problems of undue weight, particularly since these allegations don't seem to have attracted much interest outside Serbia. We don't have articles on every random allegation made against a person (nor should we). Having said that, if this does turn into a major controversy I think we might have to look at dealing with it in a separate article. But it's premature to do that at this stage. -- ChrisO 19:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The allegations are fabrications made by a pro-government, nationalist Serb press to discredit Ahtisaari and his work. Unfortunately many of the articles about Kosovo contain large sections, most of the times larger than the reliable parts of the article, based on these kind of fabrications and allegations. To examples are Racak massacre and Univeristy of Prishtina. We should be very careful because I see a tendency where articles are written and published with the purpose of being used as sources at Wikipedia. --Noah30 06:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

When talking about material being controversial, is it possible to keep in talk page, what those alegations are ? What information was already discussed, is it Ahtisaari was receiving bribe from Albanian mafia. ? AlV 05:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well they can be reviewed pretty thoroughly in this old edit. This one has the sources provided proving quite clearly most of them false right away. [4].

I understand many of the people in Serbia believe and want to believe these accusations true. But they really are not true and that can be verified by looking at neutral sources. Some sources presented in later edits clearly just are false relating to "reuters stories" but with no reference to any such story, and searching reuters archives turn up notthing. One of the sources claim STT (the Finnish reuters) had verified the bribe claims, neither here could i find any such article verifying any claim on the date given by that "source". Blogs around the net and news pages from .yu just won't do for a biography article as a source. If the proof is so clearly out there then surely some western agencies would have ran the story and that could be found on the net?

The general claims published are the "ahtisaari's daddy was a nazi and so is surely he too", "ahtisaari takes bribes from albania", "ahtisaari suggested the UN would kill half a million civilians in belgrade unless milosevic complied". If you are interested in explanations why all these accusations are ridiculous i can provide them, although this IS getting old. Honestly the only time i've seen these bribe accusation aired here in the west they were aired as the end-of-news-joke. Gillis 17:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

These biased and poorly-sourced Serbian allegations against Ahtisaari have somehow crept back into the article. I have therefore removed the "Controversy" section, since the allegations are already dealt with in the "Post-presidential career" section.Phase4 10:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

They didn't creep in but were dropped in wholesale...here. I removed the Nazi stuff as it was still poorly sourced and synthesis with no new references that made sense and I left the residual bits on the Mafia to others. Allegedly he got 40,000,000 Euro cash. I did the maths - in EURO 500 notes that is 80,000 notes and each note weighs 1.1 Grams so thats around 88kgs and each note is 160 x 82 x 0.12 mm thus around 125 litres. That certainly would need 4 x huge briefcases each with 22 Kgs of notes and a capacity of 31 liters each (which is big). I think someone has mistaken the Boys from Nigeria emails for reality. I deleted that. Ttiotsw 11:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources should be divided. SOME Serbs believe in the fictive Nazi telling, based on the fact that his father fought for Hitler's allies in the war - however the other claims are true. Martti Ahtisaari has more than obviously shown that he as an individual doesn't like Serbs and is thus one-sided and POV. His nationalist statements are more than proof for that. The silly attempts of his speaker to say that "..they were driven out of context.." are completely identical and the same as Vojislav Seselj's defense in the ICTY. --89.110.201.154 (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the article, kept the reliable references and edited out the biased ones as well as the poorly-sourced allegations against Ahtisaari.Phase4 (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits by anon IP 82.181.224.115 seek to add to the article unreliably-sourced criticism of Ahtisaari. While the matter is under discussion at Talk:Kosovo status process#Criticism, I am reverting these latest edits.Phase4 (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

---

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6192

The Centre for Research and Globalization is not a poor or controversial source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.114.206 (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I would expect a non-poor and non-controversial source to spell English correctly (vis a vis "aggressirs" and use of the wording for "Wahabyya" and "Al-Q'uaida" almost suggest code wording). The "Centre for Research and Globalization" may not be a poor or controversial source but that article is by a "R. K. Kent" not by the Centre for Research and Globalization. So who he ? The article looks like a partisan rehash of the same said rumours and "R. K. Kent" isn't clearly notable. Ttiotsw (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Come one guys, this is hilarious stuff ;)

Mr.Ahtisaari has some old pro-Nazi skeletons in his closet and has cultivated a pro-Muslim bias stemming probably from the Nazi/Fascist/Muslim alliannces during World War II.

(humm, since when did the nazis and muslims go together in WWII?)... and so on... haha, stop spreading such ridiculous propaganda... also, this rk kent (sounds a bit like clark kent) does not turn up anything on google scholar, so he must be a professor at hogwartz or something like that because most professors have tens if not hundreds or even thousands of scholar hits to their names. Gillis (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous propaganda??? I am assuming, in good faith, that you are simply not aware of the fact that HITLER AND THE GRAND MUFTI OF JERUSALEM basically brownnosed each other, united by their mutual hatred of jews. This alliance spawned a Bosnian SS division called "Handjar" and a Kosovo Albanian SS division called "Skenderbeg". Check it out, or is that some clever time-travelling Serbian propaganda? History is fun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxCzwz7zTco

84.148.58.42 (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: "Poorly-sourced allegations". The claims against Mr. Ahtissari (specifically, that he was bribed by the KLA and obtained, according to the German secret service BND, over EUR40 m in 4 large suitcases) are supported by Gregory Coopley of the International Strategic Studies Association, a respectable conservative U.S. think tank (those who doubt this, but are interested in the truth, may want to write a mail to their website as I did). On the other hand, the U.S. State Department is widely known for its track record of barefaced lies on Kosovo, the Iraki WMD, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and many other subjects. In other words, the Wiki editors prefer a notoriously mendacious source to a competent source that so far could never be accused of lying. Obviously, the story about the adventures of the jolly Nobel Prize winner doesn't suit someone's interests. And precisely these people are criticizing someone for "poor sources"?! ;-) Well, I never!95.79.10.90 (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone please check source/quote? Thanks.

"He [Galtung] further says that Ahtisaari "lets the EU abuse himself"."

The quote was in rather impossible English, so I've rewritten it thus. However, I'm unsure as to whether Galtung said or meant that Ahtisaari allows the EU to abuse him -- or what? Can someone please check? Thanks, --Hordaland (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Hän antaa eu:n käyttää itseään hyväksi." He lets the EU to abuse him. The Finnish form uses a reflexive pronimine though, "himself". Is it? grammatically incorrect to say "He lets the EU to abuse himself"? --Pudeo⺮ 13:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing it means, "He allows the EU to abuse him", in other words he does nothing to defend himself against abuse from the EU. -- Atama^chat 15:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Could someone fluent in Finnish confirm that in the original text the pronoun "himself" designated Ahtisaari and not the EU? :) --Mareklug ^talk 15:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "käyttää hyväkseen" has two interrelated meanings. Literally it means "to use [someone] for one's own good", which can be a neutral technical term. Another, somewhat euphemistic, meaning is "abuse", as in "child abuse". In this case, it is not clear which meaning Galtung aimed at. Presumably his statement was translated from Norwegian or English. His claim appears to be that Ahtisaari lets the EU use Ahtisaari as an agent of the EU. --Vuo (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

How can there be an entire section devoted to criticism of a person? Any such notable criticism of his work should be worked into the rest of the article. At the moment it seems like there's a section criticising him as a person. --Joowwww (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you, the criticism is directly related to some of his projects (which are told in other sections) or Nobel Prize which is described elsewhere as well. Usually biographical articles don't have Criticism sections, not even George W. Bush :). --Pudeo⺮ 14:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism sections are highly discouraged and info in them should be moved into the main body of the article, not segregated. I've moved what was in the cricism section to the section on his presidential career since the events mentioned occured while he was president. -- Atama^chat 15:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I read this article, and I wonder why the Nobel Peace Prize wasn't awarded to myself. Judging by this article, and the Wikipedia article on myself, which is totally empty; I would be the better candidate. Does this article maybe focus a bit too much on criticism? Vesal (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahtisaari is unpopular in some quarters (especially in Serbia) for his role in Kosovo's independence. Unfortunately this has been reflected in this article, which has repeatedly seen people adding unpleasant claims about Ahtisaari. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah because other recipients of the Peace Prize such as Gorbachev and Yaser Arafat are really deserving of the prize.... Ahtisaari is definitively not deserving of the NPP, his "negotiations" did nothing but prolong conflicts in every zone he was involved in. "Resolving conflicts", what a crock of sh*t. Tensions in Namibia are huge and disease is rampant, their people have done nothing to improve the country with child labor/prostitution being the chief export, mafia barons run the country and sell resources cheaply overseas. People in Kosovo lack running water and electricity, Serbs are consigned to ghettos, have their property vandalized and are beaten or stoned if they leave their area, the entire area is a tribal mafia haven of white slave trade, drug trafficking and arms proliferation (keep in mind this is with the province under NATO occupation). Indonesia is still under severe tension and only being held back by international threats. Iraq is a god damn warzone. I firmly believe that when Ahtisaari dies Satan himself will congratulate him on helping to prolong conflicts and fragment this planet more than it already is right before he roasts him.

Martti Ahtisaari = Burning Bridges champion 37-09 216.249.58.67 (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This guy is such a tool. Criticism only highlights the side of him that most people dont see due to censorship of the news.Mike Babic (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

He is apparently, quite unfairly, also very unpopular in some quarters because his father fought in the Winter War... JIP | Talk 18:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

human organ traffic and albanian mafia money

Evidence That UN Special Envoy for Kosovo Marti Ahtisaari Received Albanian Mafia Bribes for Kosovo Independence What about his role in Kosovo tragedy? there is a lot of proofs that he receved money from albanian mafia to create "independent" mafia state. why are this sources deleted? thanks to Mr. Ahtisaari a lot of serbian civilians were killed and butchered and their human organs were sold my albanian mafia in Kosovo. Albanian mafia and CIA needed "independent" Kosovo. Americans wanted Bond Steel camp and mafia needed safe "place" for drug traffic. Mr. Ahtisaari has blood on his hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.241.3 (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Please consult the Wikipedia policies on reliable sources and biographies of living persons. Blogs and other websites by random wackos do not constitute reliable sources.--Victor Chmara (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

S. AFRICA cheers Mandela’s 93rd birthday

S. AFRICA cheers Mandela’s 93rd birthday

MILLOS of South African schoolchildren sang happy birthday to Nelson Mandela as he turned 93 Monday. While politicians and ordinary citizens did charity work to supports his call to do well.

For the third year at the request of his charitable foundation, July18 is observed as a Mandela day, recognized by the United Nations global call to volunteer for good causes for 67 minutes –represent ting each year of Mandela’s life in active politics.

The nation’s 12.5 million schoolchildren sang happy birthday before starting class Monday, with travel and radio station urging the nation to join the special relation of the song .given an Africa twist by a local composer.

This week their will be no extra roller activities you will spend that time going to children’s to do your charity works. It is only appropriate as a school to devote 69 minutes of our time in his owner .les Lambert principal at Johannesburg’s rose bank primary school told his 500 students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bithyraj (talk • contribs) 19:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)