Just read the blues and what it says about nerfing the fears:
"We don't like how much damage dots can do while a target is feared. It prevents us from being able to balance fear as needed as a defensive ability and it keeps us from being able to adjust locks or priests in other ways. We're trying to move PvP more into a place where you do X and someone counters with Y, and the "dot and fear" strategy just seemed too simple yet effective. Honestly, if the classes with fears didn't also have strong dots, it probably would not have been as much of a problem.
We don't think stuns needs a major change at this time. We dropped rogue PvP effectiveness in other ways, as I am sure they will be more than happy to explain to you. If we decide to make stuns break on damage right away then we would need to coordinate that with changes to rogue survivability. They are a melee class balanced around not taking much melee damage (because the target can't fight back). Locks and priests are by and large ranged classes."
Is this why they nerfed the cooldown on PH as well? I guess rogues are the only melee class that would be most hurt by the disarm thingie. But are all these nerfs really made just because they might think priests will own the rogues? What do you think, would we have owned them completely without the nerfs or would we stand a 50/50 chance or would they still own the hell out of us? I could think that without the nerfs it would be closer to a 50/50 chance instead of priest being overpowered.
However, there are also more melee classes than rogues and more of them (and also these huntards) why should we become weaker against them just to please the rogues?
What do you think?