Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Bronze Soldier of Tallinn. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Trolleybus stop

currently in article: In 1994 the memorial underwent a "reconstruction". Following the reopening, the visitors found the bronze headstones over the tombs removed as well as the protective barrier surrounding the burial site dismantled and a trolleybus stop was installed right atop the mass grave.
source given: "Свечи совести" для эстонских властей, Vesti, December 20, 2006.
other statement which says that trolley-bus station has been there since 1964:
Ansip: tööde varajane algus Tõnismäel ennetas konflikte, Postimees, April 26, 2007.
Im not myselfly sure exactly what changes were made in 1994 but this thing needs to be sorted out or we will get into never ending edit-war.--Staberinde 21:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The source I added speaks about the dismantling of the protective barrier over the site and further says that "now half of the grave is under the lawn and half under the trolleybus stop" while before it was protected and none were atop of it. Perhaps the trolleybus line was there before and they "reconstructed" the stop after the "reconstruction" of the memorial. I am just trying to reconcile the conflicting statements. If someone who does not read Russian wants some quotes from the source translate, please say so here. Thanks, --Irpen 21:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The "protective barrier"... What did it look like? - Was it some kind of cast iron fence? Camptown 21:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

From the source you linked above:

"Монумент красноармейцам и холм Тынисмяги буквально захоронены под стоянкой троллейбуса, то есть люди топчут их. По-христиански было бы захоронить их там, где они должны быть", - убежден депутат парламента Эстонии Райво Ярви. Рассуждая о христианской морали, официальный Таллин слегка не договаривает: ведь раньше площадка у памятника была огорожена, здесь горел Вечный огонь, а на барельефе были высечены имена всех похороненных здесь солдат. Но в начале 90-х власти независимой Эстонии сами закатали все в асфальт. "Могилу убрали городские власти, это без всякого сомнения. В 1994 году сквер был закрыт на реконструкцию. Сначала украли бронзовые надгробия с могилы, на которых были выбиты имена людей, которые были там похоронены, а потом, когда доски украли, эти надгробия, постаменты, они оказались как бы ни к чему. Убрали и постаменты. И теперь могила, ее половина, находится под газоном, а вторая часть этой могилы находится под троллейбусной остановкой", - рассказывает писатель, исследователь Михаил Петров.

Translation:

"The monument to the Red Army soldiers and the Tonismagi hillock are literally buried under the Trolleybus stop, so the people walk on them. In accordance to the Christian traditions, they should be buried where they should be", sais the deputy of the parliament ~~"Райво Ярви" (not sure how to translit his name back into Estionian, sorry --Irpen)~~ Raivo Järvi. The official Tallinn is somewhat tongue-in-cheek when it speaks about the Christian ethics. Earlier the area around the memorial was fenced off, there was an eternal flame and the names of all of the buried soldiers were embossed in the headstones. But in early-90s the authorities of independent Estonia asphalted this all by themselves. "The grave was removed by the city authorities, there is no doubt about it. In 1994 the park was closed for the reconstruction. First, they removed the bronze headstones where the names were embossed. Then when the plaques were stolen, these headstones, masts have seemed to become unnecessary. So, they removed them as well. And now, the grave, half of it, is under the lawn and the other half is under the trolleybus stop.", - tells the writer, researcher Mikhail Petrov.

--Irpen 23:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's Raivo Järvi. -- 82.131.52.22 23:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The road between the church and the park was widened in early 60s, trolleybus stop is located on the sidewalk of that road. In 1994 the eternal flame was removed and paved over... no clue about the gravestones. As last week's dig confirmed, the burials were in the other side of park from the monument, partially covered with the sidewalk/trolleybus stop. I'm digging through accessible photographs of the site (can't find any maps) to find out what Misha Petrov is talking about. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, no bronze gravestones to see on photo nr.5 (from 1953) in this document [1]. In fact, it looks like the photographer was standing on top of the graves to take it, and the location of the rectangular flower patch was determined by the park's overall design, not actual burials. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 01:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick remark: In Estonian it is "Tõnismäe monument" ("monument" is not capitalized in correct Estonian in this context). Estonian reader.

I am not sure I remember correctly, but I think the trolleybus stop was also widened around mid-eighties - but the burial place was trod over during whole Soviet time, as it was an entrance to the square. Perhaps we can come up with a photo about the stop in sixties, so it can be compared. In any case, one of the main reasons for reburial of the dead and relocation of the statue was exactly that - that the dead might have been under trolleybus stop. DLX 05:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was one of the excuses, but it certainly was not a reason. -- Petri Krohn 05:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Petri, please read WP:AGF. DLX 06:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith applies to other Wikipedia editors, not to government statements. -- Petri Krohn 06:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Further correction, AGF applies only to the edits of the Wikipedia editors. Also, AGF does not say "be a fool". --Irpen 06:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in bus stops. If you support me - sign below.Xx236 07:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank Irpen for providing accurate translation of this article, because this article is a good example of media manipulation. It says: "And now, the grave, half of it, is under the lawn and the other half is under the trolleybus stop." It's natural and logical to understand this sentence this way that after 1994 reconstructions the trolleybus stop was put on the graves. But the article doesn't say this. It describes that now the graves are under trolleybus stop and doesn't say since which time. The reason is, that the trolleybus stop at Tõnismägi was there al the time since opening trolleybus traffic in Tallinn in 1964 or 1965. During reconstructions of 1994 the asphalt pavement on the trolleybus stop was replaced by stone pavement, but the stop itself remained at the same place as during the Soviet times.80.235.55.122 16:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Petri Krohn again

I remember there were lots of accusations raised at one point (see: Talk:Bronze_Soldier_of_Tallinn/Archive_3#Petri_Krohn.27s_weird_manipulations); it looks that the user concerned continues with such 'controversial' practices (to say the least):

Edit summary, which is inciting hatred: Yes - but it also proves that Estonians are racists, if not Nazis.
Adding an image to the talk page with the comment “Is this the bus stop that started World War III?” (you hope the war has begun?)
doing some canvassing with unabashed offensive comments: “defend both the Russian and the neutral point-of-view in this article, againt a horde of agressive and hostile POV pushers from Estonia?” [2]

Ands so forth. It's time you stopped, because the article (/talk) here is NOT your personal playground, nor is it a place for stimulating hostility. E.J. 07:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, (the comment now on archive page two) what I remember so well (probably because I commented on it then) is his comment that 9th of May celebrations would probably (or in his mind "should"?, taking into account other statements by him) end with Toompea burnt down. -- 82.131.52.22 07:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

HANDS OFF PETRI KRON! ))) Beatles Fab Four 07:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I think some remarks that slipped from PK have indeed been unfortunate but his edits to the article are certainly useful. Let's concentrate on the content and hope that Petri will learn from mistakes. --Irpen 07:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

We can hope that - although, last time we had that discussion here, he didn't. Perhaps it is time for Petri to take a short wiki-break. Emotions may start running too high and accusations are flying already. But I must admit that his edit summaries are rather... not nice and his edits seem to push an agenda from time to time. Hopefully this will change without need to involve Wikipedia authorities. DLX 08:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That comment(Yes - but it also proves that Estonians are racists, if not Nazis.) unfortunately demonstrates that other users need to keep eye on neutrality of Petri Krohn's edits.--Staberinde 12:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll probably be labelled as a racist but some of the bias can probably be explained by Petri's russian ancestry. Alepik 16:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Come on guys, Staberinde, DLX and unonimous user from Estonia, you are no better than Petri (I mean non-neutral) Beatles Fab Four 21:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Russian bitches!

The page titled Tiblad Tõnismäel 26.04.2007 provides a real dilemma. On the one hand it is the best photo document availably on the protest at the monument on April 26. The photos are time-stamped, and show that the police started using tear gas at 21:31. They also do not seem to show any major provocation by the protestors. On the other hand, they are an attack page aganst the protestors and Estonia's Russian community. The title uses the word Tiblad, which could be translated as "Russian bitches" (or "Niggers"). Some of the photograps also seem to be selected to dehumanize proterstors (closeups of man with no teeth).

Leaving out the link would be bad for the article. However I believe it would be wrong to link to the page without warning the reader of its expicit racist message. Not including the title as the link text would only create an ugly easter egg

Also, as this article is about ethnic tensions in Estonia, it is appropreate to include examples of racism and hate speech as references. -- Petri Krohn 03:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no way you could translate "tibla" into "Russian bitch". At best, it is similarly derogatory term like "tscuhna", which is widely used in Russia about Estonians. "Tibla" simply does not have a translation in English, as far as I know. DLX 06:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not think you can compare tibla to tšuhna. The Finnish article says that tscuhna is derived from "tšuhonets" or "tšuhonka", used for Finnish farmers selling milk in Saint Petersburg. Would some Russian please translate the originals. I do not think these have any relationship to "whore" or "bitch". --Petri Krohn 07:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

'Tibla' is a word like 'fritz' for Germans (especially for German soldiers) by neighbours of Germany, or 'paddy' for Irish people by ethnic English. It is a slang word; it is not inherently a slur, and while it does imply a particular stereotype, it is usually not used ethnicity-based, but culture-based. (Of course, being a slang word, it's also used in other ways, and sometimes by xenophobes. Also obviously, its users may fail to differentiate the culture from its people.) Such "neighbourly slurs", alas, can not be well translated.

As for the 'You whore!' exclamation; at best, it may be an etymology for the word, but it is definitely not a translation. One popular folk etymology says that 'ty bljad' (which *is* roughly Russian for 'you whore') used to be a common expletive among Russian soldiers, thus prompting Estonian villagers who had contact with them to start call them by that phrase. Obviously, such a "bird-call loan", even if it happened, removed the original meaning. To consider 'you whore' the translation of 'tibla' is just as absurd as to think that 'septic tank' is the translation of the Cockney word 'seppo', which is typically used to refer to Americans. Digwuren 17:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

there was a court case and a semiotic expertise. Tibla can be used in the press and in the books, it is not racist word.--Bete 16:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to track down the aforementioned tchuhnya (чухня). I heard and occasionally used this word meaning "crap". It may be related to чухонец, which is according to Dal's dictionary is St. Petersburg's slang for local Finns. I vaguely remember this word being used by Pushkin. Yury Petrachenko 08:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

По мшистым, топким берегам
Чернели избы здесь и там,
Приют убогого чухонца;
И лес, неведомый лучам
В тумане спрятанного солнца,
Кругом шумел.... А.С. Пушкин

Petri Krohn has not demonstrated that this page is the best photo document available, nor is the article about alleged ethnic tensions, it is about the Bronze Soldier. Adding this link is highly inappropriate, there are many Russian rascist neo-Nazi links that can added too. Martintg 06:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the Bronze soldier controversy and the related Estonian ethnic tensions. It was decided before to keep all of these in one place, here. This will later be divided into two or more separate articles about the controversy and the monument. So for now, this is an appropriate place to write about the tensions, before they die out.Yury Petrachenko 07:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am a native speaker of Russian and I have never heard the "widely used" word Tsuhna. As for Tiblad, the more exact translation is not "Russian bitch" but "you bitch". If this is used in Estonia as a name for Russians in general, I am very disappointed to find this out. --Irpen 06:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Mrmm, just a question, "tyi suka" (so weird to write Russian with Latin alphabet) would be "you bitch". "Tyi bladt" would translate exactly how? Also, I suspect that by far most Estonians are not aware of the origins of this pre-WWII (afaik) word and use it without realizing the original meaning. Compare it to term also used in Russia about Estonians, "kuraty" (from kurat, the Devil in Estonian, also a common swearing word). And you must admit that perhaps those rioters (more then 2/3 with criminal record) were not perhaps the best representatives of Russians (before you accuse me of racism, I have several Russian friends, one of my relatives is married to a Russian. I car-pool with a half-Russian when coming to work).

As for the "tchuhna", it is pretty widely used about Estonians and Finns. Finnish wikipedia even has a stub about it ([3]), I am sure Petri can translate it for us. DLX 06:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this whole "Tibla" thing is a strawman. Should we search for one or two private Russian websites that contain insulting or racist comments, then post it as "evidence" that Russians are rascist in general, as Petri Krohn has done in regard to this private Estonian website? That kind of cheap shot shouldn't be too difficult I suspect. Martintg 07:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There's another important aspect to the word 'tibla'.

In its modern incarnation, the word was mainly popularised by the comic character and freedom fighter caricature Ivan Orav. Besides that, it is pretty much only used by WWII veterans of non-Russian sides in Estonia -- not even their descendants. Hence, the word has also a good grain of comic relief irrevocably attached to it, and its usage is almost invariably more for dramatic effect than for any actual classification of people, or out of intent to insult. Digwuren 18:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Again DLX and other estonian users try to move discussion out of context. I personally never never heard or read words tsuhna or kurat. But this is not the main question. Look at relevant russian articles/blogs and look how they call estonians. The strongest expression is "fascists" used by some. Here we have the whole page called "tiblad". A could cite another couple of links. So the issue raised by Petri is justified. Beatles Fab Four 07:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is not important feature. Though in my own relevant blog the Russians actually quite sometimes write about torturing and mutilating me and my family members. Particular Russian is claiming in his blog he is former Western government advisor, on minority issues or so. Here is the link: (http://estland.livejournal.com/15194.html). This shows us how unimportant are commentators in personal blogs, doesn't it?--Bete 16:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Finnish article in WP is not a source of anything. Several native Russian speakers here say that they have not heard those as you say widely use derogatory names for Estonians and Finns. I know a couple of anecdotes, yes, but those have no such terminology and the anecdotes that I know are rather inoffensive. Much less than the American Polish Jokes which are rather harsher and dumb. --Irpen 07:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be just me, but I see a term "fascists" by far more insulting and derogatory then name derived from common swear phrase, but that really isn't the issue here. Petri's note was very much out of line - as was inclusion of this web link. Sure, there have to be Estonians, who hate Russians (I don't know any), but they are extremists. So, do we start including links from Russian neo-nazis/neo-stalinists/putinists as well or shall we keep this an encyclopedia?

As for the "tchuhna", please use a Russian search engine - using Russian spelling, of course, as well. DLX 08:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Here you go [4].Yury Petrachenko 08:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

'Tibla' doesn't mean 'russian', but 'soviet' (indication of mentality, not nationality). Like the 'kuraty' name for estonians was derived from widely-used estonian expression literally meaning 'devil' and used as mild expletitive, the word 'tibla' was derived from liberators' vocabulary. Older 'chukhna' derives from even older 'chud', used in pre-czar Russia to denote all finno-ugric nations. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 12:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

About the russian insult word for estonians - it is in time generated from Chud, historically what was used by slavic tribes for western-nordic-finnougrian tribes, now used as an insult.

"tibla" is not used anywhere in estonian press, and it's usage among people is not widespread at all. Origin of it is from another russian popular insult "tõ bljadt". "tibla" is not in itself a synonyme for russian, but used to distinguish so called 'scum' - criminals, bums, drunks etc.

On another important note - about the teargas - the clouds that are seen on those forementioned pictures from about 21:30 and in many-many videos clearly, was NOT teargas, as wrongly published in multiple Russian press articles ! What was used there was pulverised fire extinguisher, not hazardous to humans. http://tamrex.struktuur.ee/441

Only effect is somewhat dirty look, like its visible in some later pictures of demonstrants. Nor the Estonian riot-police squad or ordinary police have large scale teargas devices, only carry miniature gascanisters on belt. Only massive anti-riot device that was used was two trucks with water cannons, the one used first night broke and second night another was used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.65.192.21 (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

No real point, you'll have dozens of russian sources linked to you claiming the powder on rioters' clothes is typical of teargas use. 213.35.234.15 14:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If the gallery is relevant, leave it in. The images stand for themselves; the title is an artful aspect of the selection and IMHO does not need special comments. Petri Krohn has recently reintroduced the link with comments that are clearly inappropriate, as explained above; I have reverted the aboveness from premature archival, removed the comments, and left the gallery link into the article. Digwuren 05:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The title "Russian bitches" here is completely misleading. "Tibla" means a homo sovieticus, not a bitch, and its etymology is completely irrelevant to the current usage of this word. By the way, the common folk etymology of "tibla" is that it was just derived from the most frequent words used by the Russian conquerors in 1940s. Quite similarly, the Russian offensive word for Estonians is "kuraty", and for Lithuanians, "labasy". Of course, these words are almost exclusively used by Russians in Estonia and Lithuania. And although "labas" doesn't mean anything bad in Lithuanian (quite the contrary!), it's still used as an offensive word. Lebatsnok 13:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A commentary to the article at [5] (which is most likely where Petri Krohn got this nonsense about "you whores!") says this:

Tibla was already in common use when Red Army attacked young independent republic of Estonia in 1919. This name was used because Red Army political leaders forced rank and file soldiers to storm estonian formations and fall massively under machine gun fire. Estonian soldiers saw attackers blindly and stupidly massively running to certain death. Estonian soldiers called this behaviour debiliative, because it didnt seem wise to let yourself killed. As it was common tactics of red army, to send waves and waves of soldiers to die, the word spreaded. So tibla comes from Debiilik.Debiilik stands for debiliated in estonian language.

Are there any sources that would confirm or deny this etymology? The tactic of storming, even over plain fields, small fortifications pans out with what I've heard from other sources; it has reportedly been used by Red Army in the WWII, too. Digwuren 19:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

Generally one should not read too much into edit summaries. They do not have the same authority as edits in talk pages or articles. Also, they are limited to 200 characters, so the true meaning may not fit into the space.

Regarding this edit summary: One should note it was part of a edit war with a pro-Russian editor. The whole exchange is repeated below:

renamed section to - →Protest and riots - + photos: Tiblad Tõnismäel 26.04.2007
what a link with RACIST nickname for non-estonians is doing here?!
restored link. 1) Excellent set of photograps documents peaceful nature of protest. 2) Caveat clearly states out derogatory nature of page title
I strongly disagree. It harasses non-estonian readers
Yes - but it also proves that Estonians are racists, if not Nazis.
Only few estonians are racists. We shouldn't follow this behavior. Be polite, please!
1. ok?
moved note to refs

Now that I have more than 200 characters available, I will rephrase the comment:

You User:Beatles Fab Four, as an pro-Russian editor, should forget the insult and support this formulation, as it gives support to the Russian view that many Estonians are racists, even giving credibility the the depiction of Estonians as born again Nazis.

-- Petri Krohn 04:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, your formulation slanders the majority of good Estonians who don't hold the views of a small extremist minority. Should we characterise all Russians by the few Russian neo-Nazi skinheads we occasionally see in the media? Martintg 06:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am getting flak from both sides (I kind of expected it). I do not think I am the one slandering, but the creator of the web page. As for the popularity of the word see this Google search. The word also has an entry in both the Russian (ru:Тибла) and Estonian (et:Tibla) Wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn 06:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So what? Your google search shows 145,000 hits for the word "tibla", I get 42 million hits for bitch. Do you have a point? Martintg 07:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I was clearly stupid to expect Petri Krohn to realize his mistake and appologise. But I guess that as all Estonians must be racists then I do not deserve appologise in his view. And now Petri Krohn has openly admitted [6] that he is pushing anti-Estonian POV and is calling other Russians to follow his lead.--Staberinde 07:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no Russian ancestry, I do not even know the language. As for the dif you provided, it only points to my comment above. What are you trying to prove? -- Petri Krohn 06:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the find. It answers a few things that have been puzzling me. Digwuren 18:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we all realize that Petri's remark was an unfortunate one. However, two days have passed and it is time to move on. If you need an apology, I can give you one on behalf of the Russian-speaking community. Trying to extract an apology from someone against their will is rather silly, IMO. If you really can't move on past this, start an RfC. I would rather discuss the article and put this incident behind. --Irpen 07:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not demand an appology, just I thought it would be good way to calm down situation and show some respect. And I personally will not start RfC(although someone else may). Also I do not think that we need to continue discussing it here at the moment, but I seriously doubt that these remarks will be forgotten. Btw, I do not blame Russian-speaking community, stupididy has never recognized ethnic borders.--Staberinde 07:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Image

Yes, I did add an image of the grave site to this talk page, to the sections discussing the exact location of the graves and the bus stop. A also took the picture and uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons.

As to the comment/image caption. It has been speculated that this conflict may cause an new Cold War between Russia and the West. One must ask whether the Estonian government was aware of the consequences of its actions. It seems to me that they were aware, and acted partly as a provocation. In the parliamentary elections this was one on their themes, mayby even the deciding factor in the outcome. If this controversy ever leads to war, hot or cold, I hold the Estonian government responsible. -- Petri Krohn 05:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Political reactions

This section has became very long and probably needs to be copyedited:

In some cases (eg Serbia) we have a full statement included. I think that statements and reactions should be summarized and provide just the main point(s). Full statements should be avaible through reference links.
Serbia does not not have the full statement. (I wish it had, as that statement best expresses the sentiment of the opposition to the "relocation". -- Petri Krohn 04:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC))
One co-editor tryd to regroup the statements of the former USSR. All that kind of groupings are POV. Most neutral will be re-arrenge the statements in alphabetical order or in accordance with the timeline (date and time of issuing).
One co-editor asked that only statements from the official websites of state institutions should be inserted. At the same time presidents, prime ministers, foreign ministers and speekers of the Parliaments are represent the official view of their countries without any additional credentials if it's not clearly statedthat eg they present their personal view. So, in case we don't have an official statement, but e.g. an interview to the newspaper, it could be equal to the official point of view. Of course, this doesn't apply to personal blogies.

80.235.55.122 17:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good time to spin off the political reactions into a separate article. It's a well-defined part of the main topic and not affected with the need to wait for the dust to settle, as with some other subtopics. Digwuren 18:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that might be a good idea. I wouldn't be against such a split. Esn 04:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I add my support for the split.Of the current article's 103 KB, 35 correspond to the Political reaction section. - Best regards, Ev 19:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Photos and coordinates

This article consists 4 pictures of the Bronze Soldier at Tõnismägi, and no pictures at the Cemetery of the Estonian Defence Forces. Do we have any photo of the monument at the new location? Also, probably the coordinates of the new location should be added? 80.235.55.122 17:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not know if outside world can access these, but some pictures are available at delfi.ee:

http://www.delfi.ee/news/paevauudised/eesti/article.php?id=15848451
http://g.delfi.ee/images/pix/file15851844_Pronkssodur.jpg
http://g.delfi.ee/images/pix/file15851814_Andrus_Ansipi_lilled_pronkssodurile.jpg
Other issue is if these pictures can be used in Wikipedia. 194.204.35.117 19:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I made photos on 27 May 2007 of the statue on the Cemetery of Defence Forces and at Tõnismägi (without the monument), and released four of them into the public domain and added them to Wikimedia Commons, and added some to the article. Slightly unfortunately, the Bronze Soldier was at a temporary location on the cemetery on that day, and not at its permanent new location (to which it was initially relocated, and to which it will again be moved once the stone structure construction has been completed). But well, at least a something. The photos have proper location coordinates added. Reimgild 23:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Dolomite/limestone

Just a quick (translation) question - is "mastaba" made of limestone or dolomite? DLX 19:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a limestone.194.204.35.117 19:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It is made of paekivi. The Estonian article however does not specify whether paekivi is limestone or dolomite. As far as I understand, the base rock in Tallinn contains magnesium, making the local stone dolomite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Petri Krohn (talk • contribs) 02:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I was aware of paekivi - just wasn't sure what is the correct translation, limestone or dolomite. However, I am not sure it is made from local (ie base rock in Tallinn) stone. Highest quality dolomite comes from Saaremaa or Southern Estonia, but the stone wall doesn't look that high quality - but of course, limestone and dolomite darken in weather, especially if lots of nearby traffic. Very minor matter, but perhaps we should go with just "stone" until some kind of source can be found? DLX 05:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There is one source for dolomite: the original name of the proposal by Arnold Alas was "Dolomite". -- Petri Krohn 05:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm probably at fault for causing the confusion, so I feel a need to clarify:

The mastaba is laid of bricks cut from dolomite. However, the the mortar holding the bricks together is limestone-based. Characteristics of limestone mortar are marginally relevant to the article, for they affect the time of works of reinstalling the mastaba; however, for all other purposes, it would be more proper to say that the mastaba is made of dolomite.

Unfortunately, the Estonian word for dolomite is 'paas', which just happens to be very morphology-sensitive, so it's hard to properly google for it. Digwuren 18:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Great Patriotic War" is a POV notion

Great Patriotic War is a Soviet propaganda notion. It should be replaced in the article by a neutral name.Xx236 09:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda not, POV yes. Only some ex-USSR countries use the name. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 14:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree with the notion of it being a Soviet Propaganda notion. If you consider that historically Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812 was known in Russia as the "Patriotic War" it explains the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union being known in Russia as the "Great Patriotic War". There's nothing necessarily there that has anything to do with Soviet Propaganda except that the name was coined by Pravda in the opening days of the conflict, which I personally feel in this case is no different than someone else coining the term "World War II". However I still believe that the use of the name has a relevance to the article. --86.133.142.70 14:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

GPW isn't the same as WW2, though - it started with Hitler's invasion of USSR in 1941, as opposed to far earlier dates for WW2. Whatever happened before that, USSR considered 'business as usual'. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 14:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's sort of what I was trying to get at. It's like for Finland, is World War II one war, or really several wars - 2 (or 3 I forget precisely how many) against the Soviet Union then one against Nazi Germany? It's tricky, I think I may stand back from my previous comment. Certainly to the Soviets they were fighting the Great Patriotic War, but in full context all the events took place during or as part of World War II. What I will stand by is that the name is definitely not Soviet Propaganda.--86.133.142.70 20:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It didn't have anything to do with propoganda, the people names it so. It was a war where the Russians were the only ones not to give up, and fight back. Villages were burned, people starved to death, people tortured and murdered, and still, the Russians didn't give up. They burned their lands, but didn't give it to the Nazis! The Russians fought back, proved themselves to be stronger and tougher then anybody else, nocked the Nazis off, and saved the whole world, from what could become the Nazi Empire of evil, where the little estonians and the rest of balts thought they could feel big.M.V.E.i. 19:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(Offtopic) Yeah, we are very thankful for all the burning and torture that took place here. Fact is that the russian forces wouldn't have gotten anywhere without the trucks supplied by United States nor without the support of United Kingdom. No point in explaining anything to a ignoramus like yourself, though. Alepik 19:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(Offtopic) Both arguments are flawed and ignorant. I don't think either are all that helpful either.--86.133.142.70 20:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As someone from a family who fought there for the Red Army, i can tell you it's bullshit. UK was falling appart, USSR was it's last hope. USA gave food, yeah, but it was little if you compare it to how much needed it. The USA weappon was bad, nothing compared to the Soviet. I read a book of someone who fought for the Nazis, and he fought a time both at the Easten and both at the Western front, and he said: "Reletivily to Russians, American don't know how to fight. One Russian is like 10 Americans". Nazis after fighting at the Eastern front only dreames about turning themselves in to the Americans. In the same book the writer told that when they came to Estonia, the Estonians already killed most of the Jews. The name of the book was Tiggers In The Mudd. The whole Europe was turned into slaves by Hittler and worked for him, the Russians were alone, and yet they have won. No one burned nothing to you, you invent yourself stuff that were co-done to you to reduce your shame. Say thankyou that we, as winners didn't delete you, allies of the Nazis, from this planet. M.V.E.i. 20:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The mentioned book: "Tigers in the Mud: The Combat Career of German Panzer Commander Otto Carius", http://www.amazon.com/Tigers-Mud-Commander-Stackpole-Military/dp/0811729117

194.204.35.117 20:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[[7]], Military deaths: Soviet Union (roughly 85% russians) 10.7mln, Germany 5.5mln, US 407 000. You draw the conclusions. Considering the Soviet Army didn't have as many weapons as they had soldiers, that meant many of them fought with their bare hands. Also note the number of jews killed in Estonia, the number is much smaller in comparison to other eastern Europe at that time. Alepik 11:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Please read the notice at the top of this talk page carefully. What's more, you weren't even talking about this article's subject, but about something only barely related. Esn 04:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey people, don't be so biased in either way. As for american weapon that "totaly suxx". Please be balanced. For example Sherman tanks was no comparison to T-34, but P-39 was quite good aircraft (after certain modifications that were reducing it's weight). You can read what Alexandr Pokryshkin was wrighting about it. And sure American Jeeps realy aid Soviet ability to move a huge forces over vast areas. As for Soviet losses - those 20 - 26 millions of a death include Soviet civilians, who were killed by Nazis, accordingly to ethnic plans of Hitler. There is why it so much of them. And don't forget that 80%+ of German soldiers were killed on a Soviet front. What an interesting position would our Western Allies find them selfs, if they were fighting without Soviet Union. They would be forced to deal with 5 or 6 times stronger enemy. Or "only" more then twice stronger if they were fighting half of a Hitler's Germany strenght. As for the name of that war. In Soviet Union it calls Velikya Otechestvennaya Vojna (Great Fatherlands War). Great Pathriotic War - is a western translation, thats sound good in English.And please don't make a very common mistake. It WASN'T Russia. It was Soviet Union. With all the resources & helps by all it members.--Oleg Str 07:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Russia’s Involvement in the Tallinn Disturbances

The International Centre for Defence Studies (Estonian) has published an overview:
http://www.icds.ee/index.php?id=3&sub=2&L=1
194.204.35.117 09:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if my source is reliable - one of the first found by Google - Russian Intafada Xx236 09:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This (Russian Intafada) is a strange piece of hatred, at least, if nothing more serious. 194.204.35.117 10:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right, the texts there are rather specific. Xx236 10:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is also a veritable stash of various kooky conspiracy theories, from anti-banking to the classical Illuminati & Bilderberg stuff. I'd say that nothing the site says can be used as evidence for anything else that the site has said it. Digwuren 17:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Which site? ICDS or "truthseeker"? I had a look at both, and it seems to mee that the ICDS article is based on controlled facts (which may or may not be overinterpreted), but the "truthseeker" article seems to be a hysterical nonsense and contains several obviously wrong statements. Lebatsnok 08:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for the confusion. My comment regarding lack of credibility is about "truthseeker". ICDS' article looks reputable, though not very in-depth. But it was a rush job; let's hope a final report will be longer. Digwuren 10:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Mastaba????

Why is the limestone wall behind the sculpture compared to a mastaba? For me, this comparison doesn't make any sense whatsoever (I can see no similarity here), and it makes a completely wrong impression of the dimensions of the monument to a reader who hasn't seen it. Lebatsnok 10:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, use of that word is strongly misleading, even with '-like'. The structure had nothing to do with mastaba - a burial chamber basicly. Mastaba by definition has entrance & inner space. This structure was one solid pile of rocks, with no inner space or entrances. It was ment as a wall fragment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.65.192.21 (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Mastabas do not have a inner space, only an burial chamber under it. What look like entrances are most likely false entrances. -- Petri Krohn 06:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've replaced all occurrences of "mastaba" with "stone structure".--Pharos 18:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that occurrences of "mastaba" (not "mastaba-like") can be removed as unsourced. -- Petri Krohn 06:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the phrase "mastaba-like" (and dolostone) to the introduction. This only referes to the shape of the structure, as if saying "triangular" or "circular". The shape is sourced by the images. The mastaba-like features:

Inclining walls in Egyptian style
False entrance behind statue

- Petri Krohn 06:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this makes no sense. Have you actually seen a mastaba? Have you seen the limestone wall fragment behind the bronze soldier? Your "mastaba-like" is not understandable without a long explanation: the limestone structure behind the soldier sculpture was not at all like a mastaba. So if you insist on a verbal description, you could say it has "some mastaba-like features", and you should say which features they are. But a better idea would be to omit this poetry altogether -- everybody can look at the picture (and if not, poetry won't help much). Or if you really want an Egyptian comparison, it would be [pylon] rather than mastaba! -- In addition, "dolomite" is unsourced: it's limestone in all other sources. By visual inspection, I'd say it's limestone (and the nearby National Library is dolomite). Lebatsnok 08:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen both mastabas and the bronze soldier. Comparing the shape to a pylon or a mastaba are not exclusive, both may be correct. I however find the similarity closer to a mastaba; after all, this is a burial structure. -- Petri Krohn 01:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, there are similarities, if you look at the entry portal detail on the left and right wings of the mastaba image, to my inexpert eye, it does have a resemblance to the Bronze Soldier wall. I've left a request at the Architecture Portal for a third opinion, hopefully someone with an architectural background may be able to describe the form. Martintg 23:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Alleged use of teargas.

On another important note - about the teargas - the clouds that are seen on some pictures from first night at about 21:30 and clearly in many-many videos, was NOT teargas, as wrongly claimed in multiple Russian press articles !

What was used there was pulverised fire extinguisher, not hazardous to humans. Only effect is somewhat dirty look, like it is visible in some later pictures of demonstrants. http://tamrex.struktuur.ee/441

Nor the Estonian riot-police squad or ordinary police have large scale teargas devices, they carry miniature gascanisters on belt. The only massive anti-riot device that were used was two trucks with water cannons, the one used first night broke and second night another was deployed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.65.192.21 (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

New treatise by the Institute of Defence Studies

[8]. Can somebody read through the report and integrate its findings into the article? Alas, I lack the time necessary for that kind of work. Digwuren 15:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The text http://www.icds.ee/index.php?id=3&sub=2&L=1 194.204.35.117 15:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That source was mentioned already. Alas, I doubt that Beatles Fab Four will allow adding that material to the article. DLX 16:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it was. I'm sorry for not properly checking the previous entries before writing.

As for the second part of your remark, the humour is definitely appreciated. Digwuren 17:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that document can be used easily as an English source in addition to Estonian and Russian sources in many places. DLX 03:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Daily Telegraph has an interesting opinion article today: Stand by Estonia. DLX 11:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Some comments

Okay, this article is becoming overly long, and it might well expand well after this upcoming weekend, so:

Split the article, create one called Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, dealing primarily with the monument and a short reference to the controversy, then another one called Bronze Soldier of Tallinn relocation controversy, dealing with the events leading up to the unrest, the move, the riots and the aftermath.
Remove the whole section about international response, it does not add anything of value to the article. Or, possibly it can be rewritten into a much shorter paragraph. The only responses that might be worth saving for posterity are the official Russian ones, and the official Estonian, NATO and EU ones. The rest seems just to serve the purpose of saying "Yeah, they are on our side".
Remove the names from the mass grave section. It is of no interest to the reader knowing the name and rank etc, just that there were Soviet soldiers there and that they were exhumed and relocated as well
The first "Controversy" paragraph has too many subheaders. The text can be more concentrated. Unnecessarities should be removed.

These are my five cents. --MoRsE 16:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And yes, this is not a discussion forum! The entries here should be about the article, not your personal views on the incident! Remember that this is an encyclopedia and that this article needs to be written from a neutral point of view.--MoRsE 16:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Splitting has been agreed on previously. Though, as per consensus, we should wait with splitting until the promised retribution today (9th May). List of names is already faulty, as it has more names than there were coffins recovered. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 16:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I do think that the names of the Soviet soldiers should be preserved. The monument was, after all, built to honor them. Possibly the names should be moved to a box, like the boxes in the Columbine High School massacre article. Also, I think we should be really hesitant about making a second article for the controversy. Sometimes less is more, and the content, if written concisely, is not sufficient in my opinion for two articles.--Pharos 18:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Somehow some Estonians do not realize ot try to forget the fact that without efforts of those Soviet (Russian, Uzbek, Georgian, Ukrainin etc., yes, Estonian, too) soldiers their independent Estonia wouldn't exist AT ALL NOW. Names must be mentioned. Beatles Fab Four 18:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You are off the point now, this is not an article to honor the fallen, this is an encyclopedia. And their names etc are completely irrelevant for the description of the events this past weeks. --MoRsE 18:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The names can be added after DNA-testing has confirmed the identities? As I mentioned, the list contains more names than there were burials. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 18:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is about the monument itself, not just the events of recent weeks. And the monument was indeed built to "honor the fallen", so the inclusion of the list is in my opinion entirely appropriate. As to the content of the list, we should just use whatever WP:RS give. If the sources don't match the number of burials exhumed recently (I haven't actually checked this), then we should of course also note the discrepancy.--Pharos 19:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Artistic criticism must be sourced

I've removed all discussion of artistic criticism, both the idea that the Bronze Soldier is socialist realist and the idea that it is not. As far as I can tell, this is an argument among Wikipedians, not art historians. If someone can find WP:RS of art criticism that deal specifically with the Bronze Soldier I will be very glad to have the information in the article, as this is of course an interesting topic. But interestingness does not trump the WP:NOR policy.--Pharos 17:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Improving the article

Now that the May 9th has almost passed and certain user unable to disrupt the regular work of Wikipedia for a while - could we please get back to improving the article?

Shall we split the article as has been repeatedly proposed? Or just rename it to Bronze Soldier Controversy? There are no other internationally known Bronze Soldiers (as far as I know) so removing of Tallinn from the name would have no negative effects.
Is "Other reaction" section even needed? Perhaps it could be just a collection of links with the same headline?
As has been proposed by MoRsE - how about keeping just relevant citations in "Political reaction" and move rest to "Other reaction"
Sections "Ownership" and "Proposed Law on Forbidden Structures" are not really needed or relevant, in my opinion. Same goes for sections "Myths" and "Military foothold over government; excessive secrecy" - first is just one sentence and the other is partially unrefenced and may be POV - in any case, it can be included to "Controversy" section.
Lead might be both shorter and clearer, but that is just my opinion.

After the status of these things have been decided - and work started on them - I think we should concentrate on finding better (and in English) sources for the article. After that, we should try to re-apply to good article status, perhaps asking for a peer review first. Last time it was very clearly too early to apply for WP:GA, not sure why it was even attempted. And, of course, if the article passes both WP:GA and WP:PR, we can also apply for featured article status - but that is a far future. DLX 19:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is too soon. Maybe after couple of months it can be considered, but with all those edits/reverts going on at the moment, it is a pointless feat.194.204.35.117 19:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I must admit that. I was hoping that after the Beatles-fan was blocked, we could resume normal work, but apparently he is on a dynamic IP (see User_talk:Sandstein#User:Beatles Fab Four). Unless he stops his POV-pushing and edit warring, I don't see that we can avoid asking for article semi-protection again. Also, out of curiosity, does anyone understand the article by Konstantin Sonin like he does (Article: Impossible Symmetry; see [9] for his version and mine - however, note that blogs are not acceptable sources for Wikipedia, so his version is not valid in any case). DLX 19:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a great article, read it when it came out. Your digest is perfect, whereas BF4's version only displays his immunity to sarcasm. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 23:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Beatle Fab Four (talk · contribs), your user account is presently blocked, and I am only refraining from blocking your IP range as well to prevent collateral damage for others. But if you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, I will. Stop calling for people to be blocked, and start discussing the content you would like to be changed, peacefully and civilly. Sandstein 22:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Qoute from Bonner

I believe that Bonner comment is not related directly to the The Soldier Events. Yes, it is about the history of relations Baltic states and Russia , and Soviet Unionm, but recent events in Estonia are never mentioned even in the original long article. Beatle 85.140.208.210 22:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The comment is made in context of the current controversy over the Bronze Soldier, which is also known as the Soldier-Liberator. It goes to the heart of the controversy: does the Bronze Soldier represent liberation or occupation? Martintg 22:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Full text of Bonner's statement:

Dear friends! I greet you all on Victory day! Even though I do have some difficulties with this day. I celebrate it for the 62nd time. I've done so alone, also with those close to me, with friends and the entire country.

Yet with each passing year I understand more deeply and more bitterly that victory has been stolen from both those who died, as well as those who survived the war. 364 days a year belong to the marauders. And only one day - May 9th - belongs to us. Yet this year even this has been spoiled by new rabble - sham patriots with their theatrical Offended Victor - Liberator.

Are these then the victors - the liberators?

I am not offended by the relocation of the monument and the mortal remains. A military cemetery is a considerably more honorable final resting place than a noisy and congested trolley bus stop. What offended and continues to offend me is the inscription on the monument. It should not have been (and not only in Estonia, but in any other country) ,,To a soldier - to a liberator", but rather ,,To a fallen soldier."

We have freed no one, not even ourselves, even though for four difficult war years we hoped we would. We even used to say: ,,After the war, if I'm still alive, all will change!" It didn't happen! Not in 1945, not in 1991!

Jelena Bonner, lieutenant in the Soviet army's medical division, a veteran and a war invalid (2nd group)

Martintg 03:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

When you provide proper link to her WHOLE statement (not blog), Bonner comment will be restored. Nazis Hunter 15:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Her whole statement published in the Latvian newspaper Diena: http://www.diena.lv/komentari/lasit.php?id=304497. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martintg (talk • contribs) 19:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Ok. 85.140.243.184 19:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Poll numbers?

There's this quote in the article:

The idea of relocation was controversial among inhabitants of Estonia. According to the study of the Eesti Päevaleht in March 2007 only 38% of respondents supported the relocation of the monument, while 44% were against the relocation and 18% had not formed opinion on the subject. Relocation of the monument had slightly stronger support from the native Estonian speakers (47% of Estonians in favour of the relocation), while only 10% of the native Russian speakers supported the relocation ^[1]

Unfortunately, the numbers do not match those given in the article. First, the article is from April 25, not March 12. Second, it reports 37% for (not 38%), 49% against (not 44%) and 14% without opinion (not 18%).

Obviously, the summary has gotten mixed up with a wrong source. Anybody who's more familiar with the history of this passage want to fix it? Digwuren 06:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected the facts to match the source, and provided a more original source (EPL, the newspaper that ordered the poll). I am not aware of how the wrong figures ended up in the article, though. (I have not dug in the article's history on this.) Reimgild 12:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Aili Jõgi

She was arrested and sent to a prison camp in Siberia after having blown up the Bronze Solder's "predecessor" in 1946 - a tempory monument of wood topped with a star. Being sent to Siberia at 14, she was released from the camp in 1970! After the occupation, she received a prestigious award from the Estonian President. Interviewed in the Swedish Daily Dagens Nyheter. In the interview she also points out that the Soviet Union "liberated" Estonia from its legitimate government and replaced the Estonian flag at the Tallinn castle with the USSR flag. Hon sprängde bronsstatyns föregångare. Camptown 22:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Not Siberia but Komi republic, released from exile in 1954. Decided to stay in Komi with Estonian husband until 1970. -- Petri Krohn 08:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Siberia is used in the metaphoric sense here, with the meaning of 'vast unsettled areas of land with harsh climate, used for forced relocation of the unwanted by Russian authorities'. This metaphor has been strongly present in Estonian and Russian culture since the 18th century, and the area of the Komis belongs to this region in this sense. In fact, a large number of Gulag settlements were in the Komi-Zyrya ASSR. And that Komi, Siberia is not usually considered Siberia for geographic purposes is irrelevant. However, that you would claim impropriety over metaphoric use of a geographic name (compare Capitol) is petty and improper. Digwuren 21:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I was about to suggest that you add this definiton to Siberia (disambiguation); now I see, that I already did it in July 2006. Too bad someone has deleted the definition. -- Petri Krohn 17:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This definition claimed the phrase of 'sending to Siberia' as exclusive to Soviet Union. This was not the case; this kind of punishment was also widely used in the Czarist Russia, most importantly, late 19th century.

Interestingly, in Czarist Russia, projects to settle Siberia were repeatedly undertaken, usually by offering free land and sometimes monetary compensation to anybody who would settle. This caused several settlements of ethnic Estonians to pop up in Siberia (in the wider sense), the most famous perhaps being the one near Zoetuk. Currently, the Republic of Estonia considers it a matter of aiding its citizens overseas to provide school-level teachers of the Estonian language in a few of these settlements, even though most of their citizens are not citizens of Estonia in the legal sense, their ancestors having emigrated half a century before the first declaration of the Republic. Digwuren 19:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated the metaphoric use in Siberia (disambiguation), tracked down the reason of its previous removal, rephrased so as to avoid future removal, and fixed the problem I mentioned earlier. Digwuren 19:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I guess the phrase "Soviet occupation of Estonia" is also a similar metaphor. -- Petri Krohn 17:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No, there's nothing metaphoric about that one. Digwuren 19:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There is now an article on Soviet occupation denialism in Wikipedia. Digwuren 12:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

With a menion of the imfamous 1223! Thanks. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 20:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

'Decided', indeed. She was spared the usual 25+5 treatment due to her being obviously underaged, but somehow didn't 'decide' to return home until the 25 years were done. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 09:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: you're good at massaging the words, implying she had a choice. It's quite different - her exile explicitly forbade her return to Estonia, so naturally she chose to stay where she had started to build a new life. Estonian sources give her time of return from exile as May 1971, not '1970'. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 09:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The source says her exile only lasted until 1954. What you are claming is not supported by the sources, any more than this "Siberia" bullshit. -- Petri Krohn 10:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. It was just Tallinn she couldn't reside in. Still, she didn't choose to stay in Komi, but to stay with her husband. A subtle difference. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 21:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read that she would legaly have to divorce her convicted husband in order to return to Estonia. Does that make sense? Camptown 08:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't find anything about that, though little made sense back then. Got a link? Edgar Vares-Barbarus 09:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Blast, I broke the link... possible to rename the article about her? Edgar Vares-Barbarus 23:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, article moved to Aili Jõgi. Camptown 07:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like Ageeda Paavel should be better investigated as well, apparently she headed the 'Eesti Isesesvuse Liit' (Estonia's Independence Union', one of pro-estonian underground student groups) Aili belonged to. A judge described her as 'worse than Churchill' for her well-argued defense on trial. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 21:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, do! Officially, though, she seems to be named Ageeta-Andrea Paavel. Right? Camptown 21:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I googled all permutations of her name. The longer version shows up very rarely, she's Ageeta-Andrea Paavel on president's decorations list[10] and Andrea-Ageeda Paavel on Ex-Student-Freedomfighters Union page [11] (just once, elsewhere on the pages the shorter name is used), whereas Ageeda Paavel is how she signed her public letter to Tallinn City government re: Bronze soldier on 10/05/06[12]. I'd claim the short version is what she herself uses. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 09:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ageeda Paavel

Decorated Estonian "Freedom fighter of military merit". What more is known about her? Camptown 08:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, not much else to be found on the interweb. There's more data on Aili as she gave a few interviews, but Ageeda - even though she was more active 'back then' - has remained in background. Her name crops up every now and then in written memoirs of other labor camp prisoners, that's pretty much it - no further details. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 18:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, she is notable enough and I started her article based on all information I could unearth. --Camptown 10:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

(Section removed)

This section was removed for containing inflammatory political discourse completely foreign to the article's subject. Wikipedia talk pages are not a general discussion forum. See WP:TPG. Repeated trolling of this sort may lead to blocks. Sandstein 18:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You have no shame do you? Suddenly when i win you delete, i havent seen you deleting what THEY wrote here. Your everywere i am, STOP SPYING ON ME. Anyway, whoever wants the links that proov that Estonians, Lithuenians and Latvians killed Jews more then Germans or anybody else, come to my talk page. M.V.E.i. 20:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "win", or who "THEY" are. This is an encyclopedia, not a discussion contest. I'm removing another incoherent and irrelevant discussion thread above that appears also to be about who killed more Jews in WWII. Everybody, please keep the discussion on the topic of the article. Sandstein 20:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well i havent seen you blocking the users from the other side of the argumment. As i said, whoever wants to continue this argument may come to my talk page here [here]. But what right did you have to block me for: 1. TAKING PART in an argument with many people. 2. Saying that WHO WANTS to continue the arguments may come to my talk page? So by what i see, you dont want to stop the argument here (Otherwise you would block users from both sides), you just take a side. M.V.E.i. 21:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks

I would like to see a section on the DDoS, or Distributed Denial of Service, attacks that occurred at the time of the monument's move. I have read several articles online, but haven't the expertise in either computers or Estonia to post here yet. This development (DDoS attacks) seems relevant, because the moving of the monument has now affected other NATO member countries and the NATO posture toward Russia.

The Guardian ran an article and lead about those cyberattacks today: article, lead. DLX 09:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's incorrect to say 'occured at the time of the monument's move'. The attacks are still ongoing, and they reached their peak on may 9th (Most massive wave was launched at 00:00 Moscow time). Later assaults have been more targetted, but just as destructive. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 09:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, here's a nice link: http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/archive-052007.html#00001188 Edgar Vares-Barbarus 22:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

BBC News: Estonia hit by 'Moscow cyber war'. DLX 06:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The real atacks were the once held by the policed who violently beated up innocent people (So thats what the estonian "democracy" is worth). M.V.E.i. 21:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

image: 8_May_2007.JPG

The image file name and quote is inaccurate:

"The statue at the new location. Photo taken on May 8, 2007 (European VE Day), when a quiet ceremony was held. On the next day, May 9, 2007 (Russian Victory Day), the place was crowded with people and flowers."

On the picture the visible people include from the left:
2nd: Nikolay Uspensky - Russian ambassador in Estonia
4th (with white hair): Nikolay Kovalev - leader of the Russian State Duma delegation
6th (younger man at the forefront): Leonid Slutsky - member of the Russian State Duma delegation

Russian State Duma delegation visited the new location of the statue on May 1st. On 8th May they had already left Estonia. Russian Embassy and the ambassador in Estonia refused to take part in the 8th May activities of reopening the site. Russian Embassy visited site on 9th May. This photograph is most certainly taken on May 1st.

Notable is also, that contrary to WIKI traditions, the image is supplied only in low resolution thumbnail, without original version in actual resolution, including EXIF data.

http://www.epl.ee/artikkel/384175
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6611515.stm

Relocated the statue image under proper May 1 section with the Duma Delegation info. Surely some better image with the new location view can be found for the top of page.

Controversy?

BTLizard has added the "controversial topic" tag. Please explain. Digwuren 12:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Laar's analysis

There's an analysis of the monument's political and historical significance and a following discussion in the blog of Mart Laar, a historian and a former prime minister of Estonia, at [18]. Should this be referred to? Digwuren 12:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:V specifically states that "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.", but also "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Mart Laar is both well-known and professional, so normally I would say 'yes', but after BFF&Co tried to push group blog link into the article, I think we should not go down that road. Probably we should add it to links (not sure if it is "neutral" or "pro") and perhaps see later if there is anything that cannot be cited from other sources. DLX 13:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ülo Jõgi

New stub, as most sources are in Estonian - all improvements are welcome. --Camptown 09:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Mark Sirők

Mark Sirők's name is consistently misspelt in this article, possible due to multiple transliteration. The second-to-last letter of his last name should be U+0151, LATIN SMALL LETTER O WITH DOUBLE ACUTE, not 'y' or 'õ' or 'ö'. (This letter is unique to Hungarian language, by the way.) This should be fixed.

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, guys it was my edits. I have not noticed that I am editing protected article. If somebody wants it, I could undo my changes. Thanks for correction of the spelling, yes it was due to using Russian-language sources Alex Bakharev 01:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What the hell?

The official page about romanization of Russian ^[2] romanizes Ы as y, not as a o with double acute, that is indeed unique to Hungarian. Mark Siryk is Russian, and Estonians tranlitterate Ы as õ, but it is incomprehensible to non-Estonians.

He may be a Russian ethnically, but he is a citizen of Estonia, and his official name is written in a Latin script. In other words, it's Сирык and not Sirők that is the transliteration. Transliterating through Cyrillic would cause double transliteration. In any case, the name is likely Hungarian, and Hungarian is written in a Latin script.

If he should naturalise in Russian Federation, and change his name to a Cyrillic-spellable form, then that will be the original name. As of now, it isn't.

In general, speakers of European languages are relatively used to various diacritics, and can even get some understanding (well, perhaps modulo tones) of Vietnamese pronounciation from its written form. It is certainly unlikely that any reasonably literate person capable of reading English Wikipedia will have problems with this letter in a person's name. On the other hand, writing somebody's name properly is a sign of civility and respect, and thus, an implicit requirement of WP:NPOV.

As an aside, you might be surprised to learn that most Estonians pronounce 'ő' 'slightly incorrectly'. Estonian language does not make use of the letter, and Hungarians pronounce it in a way that does not always appear intuitive to Estonians. Interestingly enough, the Russian phoneme of 'ы' is 'slightly more incorrect'. Unfortunately, I am not aware how Mr. Sirők pronounces his own name, so I can't comment on it. Digwuren 19:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Political & other reaction to separate article

As of now, political and other reaction section is almost a quarter of the article (for BFF: by far most support Estonia). So I propose to move it to another article, International reaction to Bronze Soldier relocation (do come up with a better name if you can), because Bronze Soldier of Tallinn is simply getting too long. Some political reaction - most relevant ones, say two from Estonia, Russia and EU, one from NATO and UN should stay also on this page. DLX 08:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is too long. The section must be shortened or moved to a sub-article. -- Magioladitis 08:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we do Bronze Soldier of Tallinn/International reaction to relocation ? Digwuren 08:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that is not allowed - see WP:SP DLX 10:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll move the section in a few hours, unless anyone complains. DLX 08:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I support such a move. Digwuren 08:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't even see why we need such material at Wikipedia at all. Perhaps we should move the relatively minor quotes to a page on our sister project Wikiquote.--Pharos 09:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This section is about reaction, not specific quotes. Systematic representation of these quotes belongs to Wikipedia; it's just that it's relatively neatly separable from this main article that has already grown rather long. Digwuren 10:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose split. -- Petri Krohn 10:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

And presumably not from mere obstructionism, I hope? Digwuren 10:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquote might be a good place for this as well, Pharos a definite point there. DLX 11:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Petri has had more then 24 hours to give a reason for opposing the split, yet he has not done so. Therefore, I consider it do be just disrupting the discussion - and, in any case, consensus is to move. I am unsure about Wikiquote, so I'll just create International reaction to Bronze Soldier relocation for now, we can do Wikiquote if we deem it to be necessary. DLX 15:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Page created: International reaction to Bronze Soldier relocation. Probably could use a small intro and I am unsure of the categories - all help with it is most welcome. DLX 15:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Who the hell are you to give Petri 24 hours?? Start changing your attitude. M.V.E.i. 16:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You should Return The reaction back or drop all reaction from the Soldier. Given your trolling history, each war could be your last war. Beatle Fab Four 15:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

My trolling?? Since when is split/move supported by consensus trolling? Where were you for more then 48 hours while this discussion was ongoing? Don't you think that yelling "murder!" now is highly two-faced?

Oh, and if you accuse me one more time of trolling or vandalism without substantial evidence, I will report you for incivility and stalking. I am tired of your estophobic lies and accusations. DLX 16:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's just the Estonian way, doing somthing bad and than running to the EU for protection, it's just discusting, they cant even defend themselves, they just go like crying babies "I tried to bite him but he broke my teath!". M.V.E.i. 16:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"I am tired of your estophobic lies and accusations." - additional evidence of YOUR incivility. You can report anytime you want. Let'see who will be punished. Beatle Fab Four 16:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

_{edit conflict}Are you denying that you have accused me of vandalism without offering any proof, despite that I have requested it? Used uncivil edit summaries, evaded blocks, violated 3RR and so forth? So let us see... [19], [20], [21], [22]... are there any Wikipedia rules you haven't broken yet? Enough of this - talk page of this article is not for discussion about you and me, this is for discussion about the article.

As for kept reactions - this was according to my original suggestion, to what no one had complaints until you came along. I kept "most official" reactions from Estonia and Russia, also one each from three major international organizations. Why, exactly, are you protesting against this, I see it as relevant and needed. Please give reason(s) for your (uncivil) request, no one will take it seriously until you do so. DLX 17:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You deleted importent reactions against Estonia of other countries. And you have vandelised you know, inserting false information and talking lies to make you feel better about yourself is vandalism. M.V.E.i. 17:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No material was deleted - you should actually pay attention what is going on. Every single word is still in Wikipedia, in article International reaction to Bronze Soldier relocation. You might have noticed that it also includes reactions supporting Estonia, which are actually majority of those moved. Seems that you somehow missed that by far majority of the world supported Estonia?
As for why to split? See Wikipedia rule about article size here. At the moment main article is 78KB, before it was 106KB. So we actually may need to create more subpages to get article down to reasonable size. I haven't thought about what can be split further (don't worry, I will create topic about it on talk page first - and split when we reach consensus. If someone complains after consensus has been reached - feel free to go to AN).
Why did I keep reactions that were kept? I wanted to have some, most official reactions, from "key players" in this matter, on the main page. Two are from Estonian officials, two are from Russian officials. One from EU, one from NATO, one from UN. If you see reason why we should include further political reactions - discuss this here civilly. You may have not noticed, but you BFF and M.V.E.i. are only ones who protest against this. So, don't start an edit war, until you actually have better reasons then WP:IDONTLIKEIT and have reached majority support for your proposal - like I did and majority supported this. Until then reverting will be considered just disrupting normal work of Wikipedia - or, if you want, trolling and pushing your own views without discussion. Also, I left in those views, because I knew BFF would protest if I removed all. I was hoping that for once he will see giving equal amount of material for both sides as fair. I was wrong, should have known better then to hope that.
And I will report M.V.E.i. for AN/I today. You have accused me of lies, vandalism, inserting false information - all of those are unproven and you have failed to give any evidence whatsoever. I consider your actions to be highly insulting and not acceptable for Wikipedia. You have a chance there to bring forward that evidence there. I have been trying to play it nice with you, as you are obviously a relatively new user. However, it is clear that you are unable to behave civilly and discuss without insults, so I am out of options.

DLX 03:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Here you go, M.V.E.i.: WP:AN/I#User:M.V.E.i.. DLX 06:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It depends, if he will go to an administrator like Sandstein which all he needs is a compliment, than we might be punished again. But anyway, that won't change the fact that out of 10 worsa apoken by DLX 7 are lies, and 3 are connectors. M.V.E.i. 16:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This split is a stupid idea. Why should we not have for example a response of Belarus, Israel and etc? For you the relevant ones are only those you agree with?? I oppose. M.V.E.i. 16:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

External links

Question 1: Is it reasonable to keep links to comment forums (e.g. "[...]comments from residents[...]" on topix.net) and/or theme pages of news agencies (e.g. rian.ru) under "Neutral views"? While the sites themselves may be neutral, the comments on them range from end to end, and the news items are merely collections of diverse statements.

Question 2: Even if the answer to question 1 be "yes", are the current links valuable enough to keep? To me, they look like pretty much random choices from the vast world of commentaries and news event diaries. Perhaps, though, it is of value to show a selection of such, and therefore should be kept? They look a bit pale next to the scientific studies, though.

Question 3: Is it OK to link to a site such as valitsus.ee (the Government of Estonia) under "Neutral views"? It seems the Government of Estonia must be a supporter of the relocation, since they initiated it? On the other hand, a site that is owned by a "supporter" (such as valitsus.ee) may contain pages that express neutral views (such as a scientific studies), and therefore the particular link is OK to place under "Neutral views"?

Comments on this would be welcome. Reimgild 16:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

We/I tried to trim links down a bit, but BFF yelled murder (unsurprisingly, he didn't protest against removing links under "Support"). Forum and blog links must go per Wikipedia policies, rest should be reviewed for suitability and content. However, good luck in trying to reach consensus without major edit war... DLX 16:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"BFF yelled murder" - evidence of incivility again. Beatle Fab Four 16:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you heard of figure of speech? DLX 16:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty content with the links as they are; I was mainly just curious about the habits (I am still pretty new to Wikipedia). Maybe this article was not the best place to ask, though :-) Reimgild 16:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I would answer "probably not" to first two questions. The third one is more interesting.

I believe Government of Estonia's official news regarding the event can be filed *either* under 'neutral' or 'support', 'neutral' is more correct., but it might be even better to create a separate category. There's an important difference between the perpetrator's reporting the facts around the event, even if they stem from a support decision, and expressers of moral support to the decision. Digwuren 17:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Racist sign in Yaroslavl

I believe the sign fits well into the section on 'Echoes'. Concerns of WP:UNDUE are misplaced, given this context. Digwuren 09:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess nice ad from Estonian newspaper "tibla (Russians) need not apply" will be good to add here too. Could you please add it from [23]? RJ CG 16:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Timely thoughts" certainly doesn't qualify as a WP:RS. However, what makes you think this is an 'echo' of the events? I expect this remark to have been older. Digwuren 18:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The ad was never in any newspaper, it is from the website of Siili Majahooldus, some kind of minor unknown company - see image here. And it was heavily condemned in Estonia and taken down immediately. You shouldn't believe everything from that racist Timely Thoughts blog. DLX 17:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, it's wise to *doubt* everything said by that blog. Digwuren 18:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It says in Trud.ru that Russian sign had been taken down too "табличка как появилась неожиданно, так и исчезла." Taking into account that newspaper is dated May 5, I assume it is reasonable to say that it had been taken down too. Importance of some restaurant in one Russian city can be discussed too, if you think that weight of hate speech is defined by importance of speaker. I can't understand why Russian derogatory sign should be in Wiki (although none of cited sources contain the posted image) and Estonian derogatory sign should not. RJ CG 18:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Every nation can have a single idiot racist posting stupid and rude ads and signs. The difference is in the attitudes of rest of the people. In Estonia the reaction was clearly condemning. Your nation had however a strong support and pride to inherently nasty and racist sign even up to being posted here. You didn't see us flaunting this shameful ad do you?--Alexia Death 19:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd say it's more significant that the Yaroslavl sign was considered notable enough by several major Russian news agencies, such as lenta.ru, to pick up. Digwuren 22:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"See also" section

The "See also" section is intended to provide futher reading on the topic, on other topics or on closely related topics. There are thousands of wikipedia articles abolut monuments, cemeteries, racism, hholiganism, etc. This section must point to something directly relevant. I may be wrong, but I fail to see how articles about various cemeteries in Russia and Estonia address the topic of the current article. `'юзырь:mikka 18:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This particular selection of cemeteries and a monument is not a random listing of some cemeteries; it's a list of the landmarks most often contrasted with the mass grave under the Bronze Soldier. It belongs to the article for a reason similar of that of the inclusion of Monument of Lihula. (By the way, I disagree with characterising that one as 'opposite' controversy of the Bronze Soldier, but I appreciate a number of contrasts, and as these contrasts were reported in media (of various kinds), pointing towards them through the See Also section is merited. The Nashi (Ours) reference deserves more narrative, but the cemeteries in particular probably do not deserve anything more than mere mention; even though they're notable, and so is the comparison, this notability is rather slight. Digwuren 19:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

OK I now understand the point: Kalamaja cemetery was destructed by Soviets while Soviet graves were moved. If this comparison is made in public, it worth referring in the article. Otherwise just listing in "see also" without any hint why they are listed is a puzzle to solve rather than information to find. `'юзырь:mikka 21:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think et:Jüri Kuuskemaa, a historian, made the point explicitly in some sort of popular analysis. Can't recall the circumstances, unfortunately. Should I stumble upon them, I'll elaborate in the article. In any case, the media paid much more attention to the comparison with the Khimki case. Digwuren 00:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy-Background

This makes Estonia one of the few countries in the world that has a major share of permanent residents without the right to vote in any national elections, domestic or foreign. -removed false statment, every permanent resident in Estonia has the right to vote in municipal elections ^[3] +such thing like "foreign election" doesn't exist, please specify if needed/* Background */--Termer 09:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

References

Where's discussion?

I see revert-warring with claims of "consensus", but no meaningful discussion here. What's up? Do you have nothing to talk about? What about removal of the Order of the Patriotic War from the "renovated" monument? --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss. The issue boils down to BFF fanatically trying to make the sources say what they don't say. Consequently, people who actually read the sources make the edit and don't bother explaining -- it's too obvious. Digwuren 21:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is nothing to discuss. 1) Kommersant "Estonia’s Foreign Minister Urmas Paet said Tuesday he had addressed the European Union advocating sanctions against Russia and suggesting shelving Russian-EU summit slated for mid-May" 2) Financial Times "Urmas Paet, the foreign minister, called on the European Union to "react with full strength" and proposed postponing the EU-Russia summit." 3) His written statement "On Thursday, I will make a proposal to the Estonian Government as to which measures Estonia believes that the European Union should apply to Russia. ... The measures should affect EU-Russia relations in its entirety. We believe it to be essential that the European Union react in full strength against the behaviour of Russia. This might result in the suspension or cancellation of negotiations between the European Union and Russia. The postponement of the European Union-Russia Summit must be seriously considered." 4) "Estonian minister to call for EU measures against Russia "attacks" Deutsche Presse-Agentur "We believe it to be essential that the EU react in full strength against the behaviour of Russia ... The postponement of the EU-Russia summit (due May 18) must be seriously considered," he said." 5) DELFI "Paet said that he plans to present the European Union a number of counter-sanctions to be applied. What these are exactly will be known after the Government sitting the day after tomorrow, where the propositions will be discussed. As one of the possible sanctions, Paet named the possibility of Estonia to make it hard for Russia to enter different contracts on the EU level." 6) Eubusiness.com "Foreign Minister Paet urged the EU to take strong measures against Russia, and suggested postponing an EU-Russia summit on May 18 in the Russian city of Samara."

Essence: On May 1, Estonian foreign minister Urmas Paet made a proposal to the European Union (or called on the EU) to bring down sanctions against Russia and to postpone the Russia-EU summit which was scheduled for mid-May.

P.S. This (correct) version existed since May 4. On July 3 (!) Digwuren (and then DLX) suddenly started the war with removing it. Now guess between whom there was a "consensus". Yes, between two active collaborators.

I expanded the section in question, using also sources from BFF. Hopefully now all will be happy with it. Sander Säde 10:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not Suva 12:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of racist sign in "echoes" section

It's very sad that some restaurateur in a provincial capital in Russia put up a racist sign which was taken down a few days later. What makes this information relevant to the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn? It's an example of anti-Estonian sentiment but its inclusion seems to be a bit of a stretch. Perhaps the relevance is asserted in the Russian-language references, but I don't do Cyrillic. Eleland 14:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This sign was generally presented in Russian-language news media and blogs as an echo. Since this happens to be one of the echoes whose summarisation would be guaranteed to be haunted by accusations of bias, the article includes just the photo and keeps commentary to minimum. Digwuren 15:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

mass grave?

Hello, the use of "mass grave" in the article is inaccurate and not according to the facts. A mass grave refers to a burial sites where multiple people are piled together into one grave, usually without coffins etc. since the buried at the site under discussion had a proper burial ceremony after the WWII, every body had it's own coffin, they were buried separately, there are no basis what so ever to talk about a mass grave in this case. Therefor please have the referring to the "mass grave" removed from the article ASAP and rephrase the relevant entrances according to the facts. The fact is, it was a Soviet WWII burial site (-proper), not a mass grave. Thanks!--Termer 09:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections Ive replaced the uses of mass grave with burial site, witch is indeed more accurate.--Alexia Death 14:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Preface / Preceding Monument

The current Preface section is longish and has little to do with the Bronze Soldier monument. Until recently, there was only a short prefacing section, entitled Preceding Monument, and it made more sense, I think. At a glance, all information in the current Preface section seems to be found in the articles Defence Forces Cemetery of Tallinn and Aili Jõgi — except a few ref footnotes, that seem to exist only here. I suggest that we move the ref footnotes to the other article (that really needs them), and change the Preface of this article back to essentially the Preceding Monument section that was here recently. Any opinions? Reimgild 20:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the preface section is too long and fuzzy the preceding monument one was better. Suva 21:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the facts were not "to be found in the articles" but I've added it to both as a missing chapter from the whole story. Since the destruction of graveyards and memorials by the Soviets in Estonia have been the reasons for blowing up the proceeding monument and the removal of the Soviet memorial in 2007 in the first place, the facts are relevant in every way and if removed, the following happenings would be taken out of the context. Therefore I disagree with an opinion that the Preface "has little to do with the Bronze Soldier monument"--Termer 21:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

When I read the chapter, it was rather unclear what it wanted to say, and how it relates to the article. If we want to keep this chapter it need some refactoring. Suva 21:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the preface is a bit rough and can be improved. Although my personal understanding of an encyclopedia is to let the facts speak for themselves without making sure it's made clear of what are the facts saying. I mean, someone could spell it out to the reader if it's really necessary that the Soviets destroyed Estonian graveyards, monuments, killed and deported a lot of people after taking over the country. That pss*d off a coupler of Estonian schoolgirls that blew up the soviet monument back then. And later on in 2007 when the red flags were waving once again, this p*ssed off the Estonians and the government and they removed the Soviet Memorial together with the buried bodies from the city center and placed it almost on top of the graves of Estonian Soldiers from the Estonian War of Independence, the graves and tombstones that were destroyed by the soviets earlier after the WWII...and that the relocating the Soviet monument and the reburial in 2007 once again p*ssed off some Russians that started rioting. Would that be clear enough? --Termer 22:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, Termer. I see the point of keeping this background material here. It is relevant. It might have been too long in a shorter article, but I think it makes sense in this long article. What still strikes me as a bit disturbing is the longishness of this section, as it appears at the very beginning (right after the introduction). Maybe could we let the article (after the introduction) begin with the Building and Design section (that really is about the monument itself, and should be at the core of the article), and move the Historical Background of the current Preface section to down under Controversy? As a new subsection there – Historical Background – before the current section Background, which perhaps could then be renamed to Recent Background. Or the current Preface + the current Background concatenated could simply become Historical Background together, without any subheadings? Reimgild 06:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Reimgild, even though down here, I thought it might not work..., perhaps there is still a chance to split up the article according to your ideas. one about building it, about the artists etc. without any political controversies and another article about all the mess around it. --Termer 08:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I like this POV, I am still not really sure about this. First of all, sources only partly connect the blowing up of this column with a destruction of graveyeards. Second of all, it's still too long. Should every estonia related article start with long description how evil soviets were? This material is already included in several articles. Maybe to cut things short and refer to those articles?

The reason why I don't like it, is when I start reading the article, I read several paragraphs without actually getting to know anything about the statue itself. Instead I get the information of soviet occupation which (maybe) I just read before from other article.

As for placing of the content. I think Termer wants things to be in chronological order, so building comes after occupation and blowing up the wooden pyramid. Although the section definitely needs to be before the controversy section, I don't think it should be befor construction section. Suva 07:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, like it or not, this monument is currently the center point of the soviet occupation in Estonia. And there is nothing that can be done about the fact that the story of the soviet occupation is, a long story. Historical timeline is important of course. because one act leads to another, an action to a reaction etc. At the same time the complaints here have been from one end to another. Either it's not clear enough or explained too much. Since its not possible to make everybody happy, therefore getting same middle ground here, the whole article should be narrowed down I think. Splitting up the article wouldn't work because one article would be as looong as the current, mostly about the intrigues surrounding the monument and another one would be, about what? About the statue itself? That would be few phrases perhaps. So the only way out it seems to me is, cutting it down by keeping in mind that the whole story gets told. I'm taking off for now, made a first clean up pass on some sections, feel free to take over. Thanks!--Termer 07:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. one more thing. Please keep in mind that the destruction of the graveyards and the monuments in Estonia by the soviets is relevant not only because it leaded to counter actions. But also because the Russian government has called the memorial move under discussion a 'blasphemy'. At the same time they haven't commented on the politically motivated destructions of at least 3 graveyards in Estonia and the reuse of the Estonian Military cemetery by the red army. Where the tombstones were literally demolished by the soviets unlike the ceremonial reburial of the soviet soldiers in 2007.--Termer 08:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with Termer's reasoning, it still feels a bit too much of historical background repeated here, that could be found by the interested reader in other articles (especially after Defence Forces Cemetery of Tallinn was expanded by Termer). It certainly is a difficult question in general: to quote or to refer? Referring makes texts short and compact (good), quoting makes texts lively and colourful (good). The right balance is difficult to find. I am a bit worried that with this much background (here, in this article) about the fate of Estonia during the 20th century, somebody may want to write another long section with details of e.g. some Red Army deeds. It is all fine, but ... just too long.

Another aspect: The downtown Red Army burial site (with the Bronze Soldier as the grave monument) symbolised Soviet occupation and oppression in general to Estonians — not particularly because the Soviet regime had destroyed some Estonian graveyards and tombstones. So it adds a slightly naïve touch to present facts about Soviet actions against grave monuments in particular. While true, and nasty, and worth mentioning (somewhere), it is still not so very important in the context of the Bronze Soldier. Reimgild 21:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

narrowed the historical background down and added a link to the main article. regarding somebody "may want to write another long section with details of e.g. some Red Army deeds." Since the historical soviet viewpoint and opinions of the current Russian government clearly represent the minority views, according to WP NPOV policies articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. therefore having a detailed or long section covering the minority views here would go against the WP policies. As long as the minority viewpoints are represented in the article, and those clearly are, everything is fine, is according to the NPOV policies and there is no reason to be even a bit worried about anything dear Reimgild. Thanks.--Termer 05:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly better now. Thank you, Termer. I start to think that the separate (short) Preface with its Historical Background is actually the right solution (and not, like I thought earlier, to move these facts to down under Controversy). The Preface/Historical Background is also a background to the monument itself, while Controversy/Background is background only to the 2007 controversy (events/riots). Reimgild 05:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not alter the facts

why is it that the fact of looting keeps disappearing from the text? Please do not alter the facts! Thanks!--Termer 09:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the word "looting" once (in the revision 16:02, 21 July 2007, with edit comment "Rewording (seeking the shorter and smoother)"). My intention was not to alter facts, only to reword. The sentences in question now are: "Disagreement over the appropriateness of the action led to mass protests and riots lasting 2 nights, the worst [looting] Estonia has ever seen." and "In the early morning hours after the first night's rioting [and looting], ..." I now think that it may actually be good to have the word "looting" in the first of these two sentences – to kind of define what type the rioting was of – but that it is (then) superfluous in the second sentence. This would reflect the fact that there occurred no rioting other than the looting (no demonstrations, petitions, meetings, speeches, flags, signs or posters carried, or anything at all other than pure looting). Reimgild 09:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Reimgild regarding looting versus rioting, perhaps it's a matter of an opinion what was the primary nature of those nights in Tallinn. Considering that the shops on the main street were cleaned up from goods, and the losses of the businesses were not broken windows mostly but stolen goods, it sounds more like a plain looting for me rather than a political rioting. --Termer 06:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear who were rioting and looting exactly at least in the header of the article? Who were they that were concerned about the appropriateness? Were they Estonian housewives mostly that for the sake of appropriateness started the worst looting Estonia has ever seen? And maybe it's just me, the fact that the Russian embassy officials in Estonia met several times with the pro Kremlin organizations in Estonia prior to the mess. The fact that the Estonian secret service has openly accused Moscow orchestrating the events in Tallinn, seems to be completely missing from the article...or at least from the controversies section. because the fact is also, Moscow has denied all involvement with the events even though it's no secret that pro Kremlin youth organization Nashi has been most active in further provoking the situation both in Estonia and in Russia.--Termer 06:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, again! facts have been removed from the article. Since the core of the controversy around the WWII monument surrounds not only different interpretations of history but nowadays mostly the fact that the Russian government has been accusing Estonia discriminating Russian speaking people (including Jews like the officials of the Russian federation claimed). Please have those facts of the Jewish card played by the officials of Russian Federation in connection with WWII, the monument controversy: labeling Estonia as a "fascist" or "Apartheid" state that discriminates Russians and Jews etc. and the contradicting comments from the Jewish community sources restored ASAP. Further on, regarding the source that spoke that (OSCE) cannot find a pattern of human rights violations or abuses in Estonia. (that is common knowledge anyway since OSCE closed their office in Estonia years ago). In the future before asking for [citation needed] please read the citations/sources that have been removed at the same time when the citation tag has been posted. Thanks!--Termer 06:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, a suggestion regarding the Controversies section. Even though it's much better the way it's formated now, things been split up . It's still unclear really what is going on. who says what etc. therefore I'd format the Controversies according to available sources. for example: position of Estonian government: the Soviets used to eat Estonians for breakfast; position of Russian government: Estonians discriminate Russians, don't provide them good jobs so thats the reason the people were stealing stuff; position of the Union of Estonian housewives for appropriateness: it's not appropriate to say tui-bljad; Position of Kremlin's youth organization Nashi: “Estonia is a fascist state”. etc. Lets have it so that everybody can speak for themselves instead of one big messy controversy where nobody can sort it out really what's it all about and who says so. Previous experiences with controversial subjects have shown that this kind of approach avoids possible edit wars since every viewpoint is clearly and separately presented and everybody can work with their section and speak for, whomever they speak for in a controversy. Thanks! --Termer 08:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello! On looting, I agree(d) with you. I have to correct myself, to be quite precise, though: there was a petition by Nochnoy Dozor on 24 May 2006 (although it can hardly be called part of the riots themselves), and there was some fighting the police. The central events were pure looting, though.

On the Controversy section: it is very hard to get it good, indeed. And not too long — we do not want the whole history of USSR and post-Soviet Estonia to be repeated in this article. But a certain amount of facts has to be spelt out to make the events understandable. I have been (and still am) going through this article, yesterday and today. My initial intent was to improve references (as called for on this article's peer review page), but I found myself reformulating a whole lot, too. The section on antisemitism, that I (yes, I) removed 22:00, 24 July 2007 (because I thought it to be "not the subject of this article"), could be restored in a new subsection of Controversy, call it "Accusations of fascism"? The removed section, as it stood, really was defense against an accusation that was not spelt out. If we first spell out the accusation, then the defense becomes motivated.

On organizing the Controversy section: I would prefer the (current) division by subject (Citizenship, Language, Interpretation of history, ...) rather than by viewpoint. The opponents are not so clear (and particularly, drawing the line between Russophones and Estonian speakers would be wrong), but the themes are pretty clear. Also, part of the tension may have arisen not from some clearly defined body expressing a sharp viewpoint, but simply by the effort involved in learning language, or growing up in an environment where history schoolbooks stated lies etc. Reimgild 09:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I now restored the previosly removed antisemitism section (originally written by Termer), and elaborated on subject (particularly mentioning the inauguration of the new synagogue). I hope you are happy, Termer! My only concern now is the longishness... Reimgild 11:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[polling-1] Eestlased teisaldaks pronkssõduri, venelased mitte Postimees 12 March 2007

[2] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Romanization_of_Russian

[3] ttp://www.traveldocs.com/ee/govern.htm

[1]

[2]

[3]