Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8


Moving forward

Now that the "international reactions" article has been deleted in an AfD (which I initiated), how shall we proceed? I propose, as I did in my AfD nomination, that we remove all but a few reactions and keep only the most relevant. I suppose other options include keeping them all, or another split, this time along 1947-2007 / 2007- lines. What say you? Biruitorul 01:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reintroduced all the deleted material into the section it was in originally, and express my belief that it is too soon to make a selection. However, we might consider reintroducing the deleted content in the Appendix namespace. Digwuren 09:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Echoes v. Epilogue

As of now, there are two distinct sections in the article dealing with 'what happened afterwards', the Echoes one and the Epilogue one. This is intentional: Epilogue is for events regarding the main process of relocation and reburial, Echoes is for events more remotely associated with the topic. This is possibly not the ideal arrangement, however; proposals of a better approach will be appreciated. Digwuren 00:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I have been thinking about the structure, but not come up with anything ingenious. For a while, I thought that the Epilogue could be merged with Events surrounding relocation (the Epilogue being just a chronological continuation of the story of events), but then, on second thought, it seems good to have the "hot" events (those that caught international awareness) in one chapter of their own — Events [immediately] surrounding the relocation — and the Epilogue (like now) separately afterwards. It also emphasizes the fact (that was not known in April/May, but is now) that the "hot" events were an isolated, short-term business, and not the beginning of a lasting chain of events. (Thank God, I might add.) Reimgild 12:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Article length

The article is 112K, four times the recommended the size of the article. If anything, it should be split on four separate pages rather than expanded. --Ghirla-трёп- 11:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Your attempts to leave only misleading summaries into the article and remove the context are rather transparent. Cease immediately. Digwuren 12:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
This has been discussed before, repeatedly - and we've tried to split the least relevant part... but then, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reaction to Bronze Soldier relocation. Besides, it is impossible to do any changes, including removal of blog link from "See also", because BFF will raise hell if that is done.
I requested a peer review of this article earlier, let's wait the results/comments before deciding to do any major changes. Sander Säde 12:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. I also think that the while it's too early to make a destructive selection among the 'Internal reactions', moving the bulk of them away could work. Since most of them are in form of quotations, how about Wikiquote? 12:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Tightening Up

making a pass on it. most likely I'm going to remove all the political controversies from the header and make it strictly factual. Since there is a section for political controversies, and everything is repeated over there, that should do it as it is necessary to tighten the article up.--Termer 05:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Good job! Especially your rearrangement of Background, by putting Interpretation of history first, and starting the chapter with the summary of political controversy in 2007 (to tease the reader to read on; OK down here), and also the rewording in Background/Interpretation of history is a major improvement, I think. I was spontaneously alarmed at first, seeing such massive change to the lead section — the lead section shall always be a mini-article on its own, and shall cover all major aspects of the article. Since the controversy is a major aspect in this article (at least now), it need be covered. Over time (I mean years, decades) the particular events in 2007 will fade and the monument (statue) will be central. Maybe some short sentence /fragment/ would be needed in the lead section to hint at controversies. But I support the general idea of moving details (dates of particular steps of the relocation etc.) away from the lead section. It was certainly bold of you to do such a change, and I'm curious what reaction may follow. Spontaneously, though, like I said: Good job! Reimgild 09:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

POV

"Despite the fact that in 1940 those who had failed to have their passports stamped for voting Estonia into the USSR were allowed to be shot in the back of the head by Soviet tribunals,[36]" - smells POV to me. What does it have to do with Bronze Soldier? Nevermind the source is Time Magazine (Borism 13:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

Thank you for your opinion Borism. Even though the fact of soviet terror in Estonia must be embarrassing to Putin's government of Russia that attempts to whitewash the Soviet history, and for those who believe that they liberated Estonia. This is still a fact and the core of the controversies surrounding the monument. Therefore please stop pushing the political agenda of the current Russian government by altering the facts on WP that are common knowledge in democratic countries anyway. Also, since all the viewpoints are cited in the controversies chapter and thereafter, the article is in compliance with NPOV policies and that should be the end of the discussion--Termer 03:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

PS. I've made a clear split between the opposing viewpoints in the controversies section, removed the "despite...". So that the fact of Soviet terror just in front of the viewpoints of the Russian government and a "segment of Russian speaking people" in Estonia wouldn't be interpreted in the text as one leading to another, the thing that might have read as an original political commentary--Termer 04:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

PPS. I have asked User:Alex Bakharev to resign as an administrator on WP since one shouldn't be acting on and editing WP according to a political bias but at best should attempt to help finding a common ground first.--Termer 06:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you calm down and start clean-up of article so it starts making sense, your comments a la "common knowledge", "in democratic countries" and "that should be the end of the discussion" make me wonder who is biased and towards what anyway. Thank you. Borism 15:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


Thank you Borism, I'm fine. Although I shouldn't respond to the first part, please do not attempt to refer to any editor’s state of mind in the future.
Regarding the article, for the second time: please note that it is formatted according to WP:NPOV: As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".
Since all viewpoints are presented in the article, therefore there is no basis to an opinion regarding POV whatsoever. In case you think more specific sourced and ref-d facts are needed for the Soviet terror in Estonia during 1940, that’s fine. The facts are, about 2000 persons were shot, about 60,000 deported by the Soviets in Estonia between June 1940-1941. In case you think these more specific facts should be added, please let me know.--Termer 20:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Current wording is fine by me. I fully agree that presenting all POVs is the way to achieve overall NPOV, but I think it should be done with wikilinks to relevant articles, not by blowing up article on very specific topic, in this case monument and events surrounding it. Are Soviet repressions relevant? Absolutely, but should every other repression be mentioned here or in article about Soviet repressions? I think the latter. Borism 07:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree in general. But since this is a very touchy subject for both sides, I'd wait for couple of years at least until things cool down and then, let’s take it from there. Any removal of any facts or claims could lead to new edit wars as opposing sides could interpret this as not a fear representation of the full story, I'm sure of this. Therefore I'd leave it in peace for now and make sure everybody can have their full story told according to the viewpoints that are sourced and refed properly.Thanks--Termer 15:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems like Ilya1166 is not sharing the opinion about it should be done with wikilinks to relevant articles and has chosen to dig deeper into the controversy. Thats also fine by me, every point has a counter point and these are going to be added. Perhaps it's about time to split up the article, one about the monument and the controversy?--Termer 03:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Is there really any point to add all Russian accusations of fascism in Estonia to the article, like Ilya1166 (talk · contribs) has been trying to do? Especially using only Russian/pro-Russian sources (there is a reason why Russia is 147th in World Press Freedom Index. Estonia is 6th). I guess we all know that the accusations are baseless - and although they may merit an article of their own, I don't think they should be included to this article. Sander Säde 07:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


Well, I don't mind if Radical nationalism in Russia is trying to express their viewpoints on WP as long as they'd leave their opponents points in place. Since this has not been the case here, the behavior can't be tolerated.--Termer 07:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Never culminated"

"there's no fear that Russia will invade the Baltics today, especially now that they're part of NATO"

That's not really up to you decide whether there is or is not any chance for that, or whether russia cares about NATO or not. Current status is that they haven't yet tried this, but nobody assures that they won't in future, although it is highly unlikely. Still saying "never" is original research. Suva 15:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Current status is that they haven't yet tried this, but nobody assures that they won't in future? That is like saying Estonia has not yet tried to invade Russia, but nobody can say whether they won't in the future. Do you seriously think that those post-Soviet fears of being invaded by Russia in 1995 are still valid today? Find me a source from the last 3 years where the Baltic are seriously fearful of being invaded by Russia.--Ilya1166 04:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, User:Ilya1166. Please feel free to write a report at your University detailing your opinions on the conflict and have it published. Thereafter, feel free to add the published analyses to the article. Until then, please stop editing WP according to your opinions. Instead, please only refer to published sources. Please do not attempt to remove or eliminate any referenced facts or sourced content from this or any other article on WP in the future. Please note that elimination of refd and sourced article content from WP without reaching a consensus first, such an activity in case persistent, is going to be listed for consideration at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism without any future warnings. Thanks!--Termer 20:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

She is a nobody, it was published in her University newsletter.--Ilya1166 04:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ilya1166 for sharing once again your opinion about the research made by Kara D. Brown (Ph.D in Education Policy, M.A. in Central Eurasian Studies and B.A. in Political Science ), published in the Indiana University newsletter.--Termer 08:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

All I have to say is NEVER say never. Even saying that Estonia will never invade Russia is pretentious and not neutral. We are not psychic and the future is not yet written .--Alexia Death the Grey 09:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you User:Termer for explaining to us "Kara Brown from Indiana University's" degree. It remains that "Kara Brown" is a nobody with a degree.--Ilya1166 09:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
That "nobody with a degree" is still a valid source. Your opinion however is not. --Alexia Death the Grey 09:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
No need to be rude, Alexia, I am not trying to substitute my opinion for hers, nor is it my intention to censor information.--Ilya1166 09:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Rudeness not intended. I apologize if I left that impression. I was merely stating a fact to make it clear how pointless this "nobody" talk is.Alexia Death the Grey 10:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)--
Kara Brown had been a student when she wrote this article. See article from 2002 [1] calling her "a Ph. D. Student" and her dissertation from 2007 [2]. So if you want to keep musings of a student in a (supposedly) encyclopedian article, you're free to do it. RJ CG 21:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

How is this nonsense relevant to monument or events surrounding it? --Borism 13:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well Ilya1166, we obviously do have opposing understandings also regarding what is rude. In my opinion it’s first of all attacking not the work but the person by calling her "nobody". But since this page should not be about sharing personal opinions about other people, let’s not go on with this! Thanks--Termer 14:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your question Borism! Please do not call the viewpoints of your opponents “nonsense”, that is not going to improve the article. FYI: the research is relevant because it has nailed the core issues of the political controversy covered in the article as seen from the western including Estonians viewpoint. It expresses the political climate in Estonia, the Estonia-Russia relations in general, the sentiment that was surrounding the removal of the monument, therefore is an important part of the political controversy addressed in the article. Thanks--Termer 14:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In no way is independent researcher and PhD my opponent. What I'd like to have is proof that there has ever been threat of invasion to Baltic States due to problems with minorities. Any official statement from government official that has control over military would suffice (i.e. if Putin said that invasion is possible is fine, but if Zhirinovski said that - it's not fine). Otherwise I'd suggest such speculation be removed. Borism 08:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Borism, I'm sorry but I'm not willing to get into politically opinionated debates here. Since you insist with having the viewpoint removed, you'd need to remove any opposing viewpoints from the article first by let’s say wikifing it like you suggested. Any addition of opposing viewpoints to the article is going to trigger yet another response. So please, feel free to show good faith and I'm going to follow. Please note that undermining sourced opposing viewpoints by calling it nonsense, asking for a proof that is common knowledge for your opponent is not going to get us anywhere and can't be interpreted as an attempt to solve the issues here. Thanks! I'm off for today!--Termer 09:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Things are out of hand again

please let me know why exactly following sourced facts have been removed from the article: In the Nuremberg Trials, the Waffen-SS was condemned as part of a criminal organisation, except conscripts, who were exempted from that judgment due to being forcibly mobilized. The Estonian 20.Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (estnische Nr.1) is an example of such a conscript formation, which were according to the Jewish Virtual Library: soldiers with an unblemished record. [1] And what exactly have the Oradour-sur-Glane, Marzabotto and in the Malmedy massacre to do with the Estonian division or the article in general?
Please Ilya1166 stop spamming and vandalizing the article with irrelevant facts. Please have the relevant facts restored ASAP. Please do not proceed with edit warring and note, there are not going to be any future warnings in case the behavior continues. Thanks!--Termer 07:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ Waffen-SS at jewishvirtuallibrary.org
Termer, please not that instead of Wikipedia mirror, it is simpler to link directly to the relevant Wikipedia article, or in this case Waffen-SS. Sander Säde 07:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed, the sourced fact about anti-Semitism mostly among the extremist Russian organizations in Estonia has also been removed. I'm going to investigate and restore the fact. Thanks--Termer 16:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please restore at least some NPOV'ness in the article? RC CG and Ilya1166 have filled the article with weasel-words ("immediately", "Estonian media accused" (strangely, when Russian media reports something, it is a fact in their eyes), "Ansip claimed" (should be "pointed out" or "said") and so on) and unrelated facts (What has Linden's comment on Erna has to do with Bronze Soldier? Why not include Pöttering's response or the article from Economist?)), cluttering the article with pointless Russian propaganda claims (after reading this shameful piece of fiction (translated from Russian source, see "Jak", Яак), I am very hard trying to avoid the word "lies"). Also, "Estonian PM Andrus Ansip said that the grave under the statue held the remains of drunkards and marauders." is once again misinformation. Ansip said on 23th April (not 24th - but also in February, see here) that "Let us wait and see what archaeological excavations show. There are several urban legends about this, one saying that two drunken soldier run over by a tank are buried there and another mentioning several marauders shot for looting" (my own shortened translation).
I don't want to edit the article myself at the moment, as it would only spark another edit war. Best would be someone unrelated to Estonia and Russia, but with enough knowledge to recognize propagandist claims. Or should we go for arbitration?
Sander Säde 19:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Do I smell sour grapes here from one who once summarily dismissed Russian accusations as artificial? Now you're crying over "weasel words", knowing full well that good part of it (like "explanation of Estonian newspapers") comes directly from the sources. You should be thankful to me that I did not mention infamous "tibla" ad campaign by Päevaleht to illustrate to unsuspecting reader "impartiality" of this source. That would be highly relevant with regards to Päevaleht's claims, but will spark an edit war I wanted to avoid. And if you feel so offended by word "claimed" (but are fine with calling dead soldiers "drunkards and marauders"), feel free to change it to "said", I'm fine with that. Still doesn't change the fact that Ansip tried to use an issue resolved before both his statement and the statement he was responding to. BTW, what does Pöttering's statements (as quoted by the BT) have to do with Bronze Soldier? Although I admit that BT article was interesting in a sence that even this newspaper (not exactly known for it's anti-Estonian stance or friendliness toward Russian position, to word it incredibly mildly, almost to a point of calling Hitler "not the greatest admirer of Jews") had to comment ot an Economist's piece, generally hinting at "enemy of my enemy" position of the Brits.
It all irrelevant though. Would you like to add relevant content to an article, I don't see the reasons why you shouldn't do it. Alexia did on several occasions and we had been able to find a compromise with him easily. RJ CG 19:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think RJ CG edits in general have been fear enough, in some cases too opinionated perhaps but that doesn't differ from any other editors here. So please do not spoil your efforts RJ CG by heating up the conflict on the talk page instead by referring to "sour grapes", "You should be thankful" etc. that are easy to interpret as attempts of insults on personal level. Thanks--Termer 21:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for personal attack (if you consider reminder about past behaviour "personal attack"), but sometime claims of some editors should be placed in context and it wasn't me who started to throw names around first. So let's close this chapter. By saying "should be thankful" I meant that article could be written (and well sourced) in much more harsh tone toward Estonian position, with explicit mention of a big newspaper using racial slurs. Unlike Estonian contributors, who tried their best to smear European critic of Estonian stance with accusations of "family ties", I stuck to the very substance of the statements made. RJ CG 22:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Let’s get few things straight here RJ CG. It's one thing to insult editors on personal level. Getting into "accusations of glorification of Nazi past" like you've attempted down here is crossing all the lines. Smearing an European politician compared to smearing a nation on WP talk page, very small though but still a country that is a member state of the EU and NATO is too far away from any borders of facts and good faith editing. It is a political agenda and there is nothing more to it. Such claims are not going to cool things down here but are going to heat up the conflict. So, if your intentions are anything else than p_s_ng off the Estonian editors, please show it in reality instead of provoking the situation further.Thanks--Termer 04:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

RJ CG, I suspect you are smelling Russian propagandist lies gone stale ;)
Seriously, though. Please stay civil (just a question, what is the reason for linking the history of Rein Lang article?) and on topic. By now you should have realized that Russian "Nazi" accusations toward Estonia are baseless lies and half-truths - I have yet to see even a single instance of full neutral coverage of events in Estonia in Russian media. Can you provide even a single event from accusations of "glorifications of Nazis" that actually has real basis? I know you've been trying very hard to show them like that (must have been a bad blow when you found out that Rein Lang watched antifascist play, not Nazi glorification one. Or when it came out that Monument of Lihula does not have any SS/Nazi symbols and, in fact, never has had any).
Is there some kind of reason why dead soldiers cannot be "drunkards and maradeurs"? You might want to note, that I did not call them that, nor did Ansip. He was referring to urban legends, I was translating his words. Apparently you missed that little fact. However, considering the behavior of Soviet soldiers in WWII, how can anyone protest against calling them "drunkards, maradeurs and rapists" (you may want to check out the phrase "eight to eighty" in relation to Soviet soldiers in WWII and why women in Budapest killed themselves and their children, rather then facing the glorious Red Army liberators. See Soviet war crimes. I've often wondered how after the war everybody were heroes and what happened to those rapists and looters...). Please don't see that as "Nazi glorification" by me now, these are the plain facts. Criticizing Red Army does not mean that the critic is Nazi. German army had their own rapists and looters. But enough of that, as it is not directly related to Bronze Soldier.
Speaking of which, you ask what does Pöttering's comments have to do with Bronze Soldier. Tell me what Linden's comment about Erna has to do with Bronze Soldier and you have your reply right there. Pöttering's comments were a roundabout reply to Linden. Or what has meeting in Sinimäed (not Sinimaed. Note that on previous years also Estonian Red Army vets attended, I have no idea if they did it on this year as well) have to do with Bronze Soldier? Both happened after Bronze Soldier events and have no relation whatsoever to it (note: "accompanied by dozens of young followers dressed in T-shirts with Nazi symbols" - there weren't any. In fact, I don't think there was anyone under 50 or even 60, at least by what I saw from TV-news).
Why didn't I edit the article? Would you have allowed me to cull irrelevant parts of Accusations of Nazism without restoring it with one of your "nice" edit summaries such as "removing sourced content is vandalism"? That is why I called for a third-party editor - and made a suggestion for arbitration/dispute resolution. I still think that the article needs to be reviewed and cleaned with someone non-Estonian/non-Russian, preferably an administrator. I will not edit this article for now, but I think that the best that we could do is to go back to the version from 14th August ([3]) and see if there is anything that should be added from current version. That was more or less acceptable for everybody and did not contain irrelevant claims (see diff).

Sander Säde 06:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, seems rather weird to have material in the "Background" section that covers events that happened after the Bronze Soldier event. I'll edit the article accordingly. Martintg 06:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, i've tidied up the section, also removed the paragraph about the lack of action in proscuting alleged war criminals, which has nothing to do with "Accustaions of Nazism". Australia and Canada also rated "F", nobody is calling them Nazis because of it. Martintg 06:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
well, that’s just great, thank you RJ CG for not trying to reach a consensus on talk page but just going ahead with having fun manipulating the article, that made your intentions very clear. Since even the BBC refs are not cited in the article according to the source but have judgmental biased political commentary added, its going to be very easy to challenge the edits. I'm going to get to it later. Meanwhile RJ CG please feel free to correct your behavior of provoking the situational further and correct your edits according to the sources. Thanks!--Termer 21:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the section, which is about the accusations of glorifying Nazism and is really related to the Lihula monument. I've removed the stuff about anti-semitism as it is really a separate issue, and should be in a separate section called "Accusations of anti-Semitism", if there is consensus for that. But I don't see anti-Semitism as a "background" issue to the Bronze soldier, since anti-semitism can be found in the fringes of the Russophone community as well. Let's discuss here if anyone doesn't agree, rather than reverting. Martintg 23:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree, if anything then these facts according to NCSJ that were added by RJ CG including Anti-Semitism in Estonia is not a major problem, and the Estonian government has committed itself to a swift and thorough response to incidents. would relate to the Lihula monument rather well.--Termer 23:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of Nazism, kinds of accusations and sources.

It would improve readability if the sources of particular kinds accusations would be behind the kind. What you think?--Alexia Death the Grey 18:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Russian accusations of Nazism in Estonia

Time to split off into a separate article? Seems like an ongoing phenomenon and worthy of an article in it's own right. Martintg 20:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently I am opposing this split on a very simple ground. Those aren't so much "accusations of Nazism in present-day Estonia" but "accusations of glorification of Nazi past" at this point. I provided sources number of times, but idea did not seem to sink in among Estonian editors. I would like to avoid edit warring over the name and therefore think split should be postponed until somebody manages (1) to translate Russian accusations correctly and in the same time (2) to avoid tendency of Estonian editors to present Russian POV through comments of Estonian political elites. Impossible task, I know. RJ CG 22:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's call the article Russian accusations of Estonian glorification of the Nazis, we can always change the title later, the main thing is the content. You could translate these Russian articles, or at least give a synopsis, couldn't you? I don't get your second point, don't Russian editors also present the Russian POV through the comments of Russian political elites too. NPOV isn't about excluding one view, but presenting both views. I'm sure you and your compatriots could easily balance up anything these Estonian editors could come up with. Martintg 23:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, how about that: since this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a place for political debates, I'd suggest cleaning up the article by removing all politically motivated opinionated claims and sticking to the facts only. Meaning: the statue was erected, was removed, replaced; the bodies were reburied, and then reburied again without any additional comments. And then, let’s have a sand box somewhere with 2 chapters, "accusations of glorification of Nazi past" and "accusations of glorification of Soviet past". I mean nobody out there any other than the editors here are never going to care about the controversies and the edit war anyway. So how about having one good factual article here and then the battleground-sand-box for playing the Russian-Roulette-Estonian-Doom game? Thanks--Termer 04:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the part about accusations of glorification of Nazi collaboration does not belong here, not to say that terminology "collaborating" is biased. The word Collaboration is used to describe a part of a resisting nation that collaborates with the invaders. It is those who welcomed the Soviets were collaborators if you stick to the true meaning of the word. Besides what other off-topic subjects should be included: Accusations of satan worshipping? What does it have to do with the monument? I tagged the section NPOV.--Hillock65 03:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't agree entirely that the Nazi accusations are out of context since it's one of the major cards played in the game. The thing is, the fact that in 1944 the Estonians managed to hold back the Red Army for half a year behind Narva line has been turned into Nazi collaboration story that attempts to show the fact like it was an active political collaboration with the occupation regime. Well, that is not the case of course. The "active collaborators" with the Germans were about 1000 volunteers of the Narva regiment and they had their reasons -90% of the Narwa volunteers had lost a relative in the Red Terror [4] and then those 7 that have been prosecuted + few more accused but not proven guilty. Very often the volunteer Narva regiment and the fully conscript Estonian division are getting mixed up by purpose or by mistake. And that’s where we enter the territory between the facts and the propaganda that shouldn’t belong to an encyclopedia I think.--Termer 04:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
PS. The current title ...glorification of Nazi collaboration is totally out of line of cource. That is meant to provoke, that’s all, so it’s as far from good faith editing as you could get in my opinion. Therefore I support the tag until the section gets renamed according to the facts--Termer 04:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at a definition of "collaboration" from the dictionary: To cooperate treasonably, as with an enemy occupation force in one's country.[5]. Please note the word treasonably.To justify the use of this word, one has to prove that estonians viewed Germans as enemies and were betraying someone by cooperating with them. That is just absurd. Who did they betray, Soviet Union? That is even more rediculous. And it is impossible to state unequivically who was the enemy Germany or the USSR, since both occupied Estonia, just at different times. So, on what grounds should this word be used in description of Estonian cooperation with the Germans? I don't think it is that simple. Secondly, where do you draw the line what should be included in the article and what shouldn't? Do sexual orientation of the sculptor or his cat's name also provide the background for the story? How about the weather condition on the day it was erected and dismantled, should it be included as well? --Hillock65 04:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You have some good points there Hillock65. My point was simply that since even the current Estonian government has been accused of Nazism, the chapter is a part of the controversy. Regarding the current title changed into "....Nazi collaboration", I'm with you. Simply because once someone has accused anybody of being Nazis, how would it possible to accuse the same people of collaborating with themselves. Since all the refs also speak of Accusations of Nazism, I just go ahead and change the title back the way it was according to the refs provided. Going to leave the tag in place since there is no consensus if the chapter should be a part of the article. Thanks--Termer 07:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Could be worked into the article:

Many Russians have been critical of these efforts at reassessment, however, and have accused countries once under the Kremlin’s sway, including Estonia, of not pursuing a full account of some of their citizens’ collaborations with the Nazis.

Mr. Arpo, the Security Police Board superintendent, disagreed, saying that Nazi cases are more difficult to pursue in lands formerly occupied by the Soviet Union because the K.G.B. had already disposed of many cases.

“Both regimes were criminal and committed criminal acts and brought suffering to the Estonian people,” he said. “But the local K.G.B. couldn’t find any more evidence against the Nazi collaborators.”

“We haven’t found it either,” he added. “And the K.G.B. was a much larger organization than we are and had powers and methods, shall we say, that are not available to a Western democratic country.”

— Martin Arpo, superintendent of Security Police Board, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/world/europe/23estonia.html?ref=world

Sander Säde 06:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Keep it coming, everything related goes in from now on since RJ CG has chosen to go ahead on his own without trying to find any consensus.--Termer 08:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Statue and movement thereof? And direct reactions to?

I have to completely agree with Digwuren's {{irrelevant}} tags. There are appropriate places to place the information (or simply link to appropriate article). This article has morphed into another "let us explain the complete history of...". It requires major pruning. Not to gnash teeth, whatever is pruned will be available in prior history... —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

agreed. Lets stop it. any further addition of irrelevant text to the article should be interpreted as WP:Vandalism under Excessive lengthening Adding copious repetitive or meaningless content to a page and should be reverted ASAP. I'd suggest going back to the last stable stage of the article and taking it from there--Termer 21:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. On reflection this whole "Background" section, apart from the "interpretation of history" part, really constitutes WP:OR, we don't really know if things mentioned in the background section really contributed to the events surrounding the Bronze Soldier events. I vote we should remove this section as irrelevant. Martintg 05:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I support the removal of this section. If anyone finds some encyclopedic information in it, it could be merged somewhere else. Definitely not here. It is definitely synthesis, and incorrect one at that aswell. The citizenship issues and other stuff mentioned there is not what contributed to the events. Unfortunately correct reasons can't really be ever mentioned in wikipedia, because they have snowball chance in hell to survive on a page. Suva 16:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I also support moving most "Background", except the "Interpretation of history" part, to a separate article (as has been done already). Even though I myself had a part in the structuring of the "citizenship" and "language" parts, I felt already early on that "it is not really obvious that these things are a background to the Bronze Soldier events; they are only things that are often mentioned in general discussions about Russia's views regarding Estonia". Martintg and Suva put it very right above, identifying it as WP:OR — the things (citizenship, language) mentioned themselves, one by one, are not WP:OR, but the act of listing them in Background to Bronze Soldier events is. Different interpretation of history, on the other hand, is the core background of the controversy. Reimgild 15:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

refs removal

Please User:Ilya1166 stop removing refs from the article like Waffen-SS , please let me draw your attention to the fact that jewishvirtuallibrary.org uses wikipedia etc for image sources only, Source: Wikipedia:.Picture courtesy of: Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs Picture of Waffen Recruit Poster: Wikipedia Further on, I personally have added the facts from jewishvirtuallibrary.org to the Waffen-SS article on Wikipedia, therefore please do not attempt to remove this source from WP, it’s going to be reverted and in case not replied, I’m going to move forward and list the username User:Ilya1166 for consideration at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism . Thanks!--Termer 18:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

PS. In case you have any facts regarding the soldiers from the division who have been involved in any war crimes, please feel free to turn over the evidence to appropriate L institutions. Until then, please feel free to list any sourced accusations but no judgments based on a random opinion, as nobody is guilty until proven so. Please also note that the soldiers of the division are still living people and must adhere to the policy on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. thanks--Termer 19:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
pps. added another ref and rephrased accordingly. --Termer 20:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversies

all the irrelevant stuff from here is headed to Estonia-Russia relations#Controversies for now. Hope everybody is happy with it.--Termer 23:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, it appears User:Ilya1166 is not happy and thinks everything is deleted and works against current consensus on the talk page that says, theses chapters should be moved. I guess it shows that it would be good to look into discussion pages sometimes instead of ignoring it. I'm not going into an edit warring and let it be for the moment. However, please consider reverting the last edit User:Ilya1166 so that all the controversies in detail would be under appropriate article Estonia-Russia relations#Controversies like it was done. thanks--Termer 00:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm off for now, please consider moving everything tagged to the Estonia-Russia relations#Controversies that I was in the middle of doing until I was disrupted by User:Ilya1166. Thanks!--Termer 00:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have continued this work. User:Ilya1166, Nothing is deleted, its just moved into an article where it belongs and linked.--Alexia Death the Grey 09:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent tedious editing by RJ CG

I would point out that the claim removed in [6] is not only a case of WP:TE, but also factually wrong. Thanks to Martintg for catching it. Digwuren 22:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed it too, thanks for taking care of it!--Termer 01:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The joke The Cartel wants in the article

Ok, here goes. Original: [7] by Paavo Kangur, a journalist of Kroonika -- the leading yellow weekly magazine of Estonia. The title of the story is "Blueprints of gas chambers are almost ready".


Translation notes: yes, this is how the article deals with supposed direct speech and "etc.". The 'six beers' refers to a song popularised by the scandalous singer and politician Aivar Riisalu. 'People's self-defence' is a humorous radio programme reviewing recent political events by the two humorists mentioned; somewhat comparable with The Daily Show in its genre, but the humour is of a different kind. "The fucker of Paris" is an exact translation of Pariisi keppija, with all the relevant connotations. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 14:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As a sidenote, to balance the article we should add something from Andrus Kivirähk as he has written quite some articles on that topic. Suva Чего? 14:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
As a side-sidenote, Andrus Kivirähk is, indeed, the creator of the well-known grotesque character of Ivan Orav, who, by the way, is responsible for popularisation of the word 'tibla' among post-Soviet occupation Estonians. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 15:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
As a side-side-sidenote why don't we have article on the notable Estonian social analyst Andrus Kivirähk yet? :) Suva Чего? 15:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I would have gotten to him by now, had I not been forced to fight ridiculous battles on the Wikipedia. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 15:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
OMG, you were forced to fight! It's case for a European Court of Human Rights for sure! (Borism 18:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC))

Postimees - humor newspaper. Agree

Now Estonians want to persuade everyone that Postimees is a humor newspaper. If so, you should drop all references to Postimees from the article. Go ahead. LOL Beatle Fab Four 15:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Postimees has a column for funnies, and a whole daily page of cartoons. It doesn't make it "humor newspaper". ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 15:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe the guy who speaks of "Estonian Nazi sympathizers" and the "favorite fascist car BMW" is still taken seriously by some editors? It is a joke by itself, thank you for entertainment! Why don't you add some UFO research to the article and something about the "world government conspiracy conducted by the freemasons" etc. I hear the accused "Estonian Nazi sympathizer" No.1 is really into this kind of stuff. So it might be relevant to the article? Just a suggestion LOL--Termer 15:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL. It is you, Termer, who pushed this crap about "favorite fascist car BMW" into the article. I don't mind, if editors do not take you seriously. Beatle Fab Four 18:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I can see you're not getting it, so it has to be spelled out: in case anybody thinks adding the cr*p about "Estonian Nazi sympathizers" the guy has came up with, we should add all what he has to say about the subject including "go make favorite fascist cars in Kaliningrad" etc.. meaning full citations not things taken out of context. Things taken out of context like the parody about "Estonian Nazi sympathizers" are misleading, was that clear enough? There are no Nazi sympathizers in Estonia, OK, the accusations are jokes for Estonians, so the guy made fun of it. For the most of Estonians "Nazi sympathizer" = "Soviet sympathizer" there is no difference between the Nazis and the Soviets for Estonians. Also, if you want to live in Estonia, show some respect, learn the language and you are respected. There is nothing more to that story here. --Termer 18:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"There are no Nazi sympathizers in Estonia"(sic!) It's easy to show, who is a liar. Here are just some pictures of Estonian Nazis. [8], [9]. It tells a lot of everyone, who thinks Kangur's article is a joke. Beatle Fab Four 19:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
And more pictures of Estonian Nazis: [10], [11], [12], and there are many more. Beatle Fab Four 19:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the the best the ones with the Lutheran priests and the chaplain, the military priest raising their hands during gesturing "the father, the son and the holy spirit" sacramony thought to be Nazi hail, thats a good one. there are more Lutheran priests on the web page in similar pose. That's a good catch indeed, keep selling it as Nazis LOL. But the skinheads, please feel free to make a WP article about those 5 dumb Nazi sympathizers in Estonia. The main skinhead in Estonia is knowingly actually from Finland, is that the guy who stands there in the Nazi hail on the street? The poster would be a good illustration for the WWII German propaganda though, could be useful on WP! Next time you see the guy, please ask for a copy. Thanks!--Termer 20:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

QED. Now we know the price of Termer's words. Once "There are no Nazi sympathizers in Estonia". Then there are "5 dumb Nazi sympathizers in Estonia". A one from Finland, of course. Good progress. Beatle Fab Four 21:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

just to make sure we're on the same page here, I'm not taking this "Nazi sympathizers in Estonia" thing any more seriously than before even if you show me picks of 10 dumb drunks and any priests that do their thing. But then again, the Berlin wall was once called the Anti-Fascist Protective Rampart. So basically anybody who is not a soviet sympathizer must be a Nazi according to that logic it seems. Also, Estonians were called fascists in USSR simply because they didn't speak Russian that well. Therefore you have no news to me. Just that please keep your bias off the article. Thanks!--Termer 21:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fun fact: all known incidents of xenophobic violence associated with neo-Nazi skinheads in Estonia have taken place in Tartu: [13]. (In fact, they're all tactically connected to the lawn of Pirogov's monument, which happens to be one of the few places where, in accordance with a city ordinance, it's legal to appear drunk in public.)
The ramifications are obvious and are left as an exercise for the conspiracy theorists. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 05:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Amazing amount of hate with no facts plus a threat. Over. Beatle Fab Four 22:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hate? I don't hate your bias and the hated prison state Soviet Union is long dead, so nothing to worry about. no facts? the Berlin wall was once called the Anti-Fascist Protective Rampart is not a fact? a threat? I apologize in case I sounded scary, didn't mean to.--Termer 22:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have read only the Russian version of the Postimees article and it appeared to be serious in intention while indeed having a colorful language. We all know that Bush is not equal to Hitler, still a serious opinion piece may imply that Bush is a contemporary Hitler and still been an opinion worth inclusion. Was the article printed in a humor section of the newspaper? It does not appear to be so. The Russian translation appears to be quite censured with the language (no Auschwitz in the title, no Tyblyad hunters and so on) while I would expect the opposite if it was supposed to be some ironic piece rather than the opinion. There are no obvious humor hooks like naming Savisaar supporters IRL or saying that Toyota Prius is a favorite Nazi car or something. I would restore the fragment, trying to edit it so to show that it is an attributed opinion piece with extravagant wordings rather than a neutral text Alex Bakharev 03:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm forced to suspect you're humour-impaired. (Striked out because the translation is less obvious.) Perhaps you'd like [14] to be used as a political commentary source, too? For example, it remarks upon an apple stock 'Nashi' recently appearing in Estonian produce stores, and suggests naming a breed of berries, specifically for exporting to Russia, 'Fashisty'. Its recommendations regarding another issue mentioned by Kangur, the Freedom Monument, are that it should be built of glass and filled with vodka. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 06:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

my best bet would be, whoever translated the piece into Russian , didn't get the joke and translated the article accordingly leaving out the tyblad hunters etc. I hope this is clear, if this comedy is going in, the rest of the things the guy has said about fascist cars etc. should go in as well to entertain the reader. Taking things out of context is not the way to go--Termer 06:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked out the Russian translation. Indeed, it loses a lot of the nuance, and is more a retelling than a translation. For starters, note that the photo of the author has changed from one designed to invoke similarity to Konstantin Päts to a mischievous smile. Even fucker of Paris has been lost, becoming [Гитлер] ... оккупировал Париж. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 06:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Has anybody ever seen a serious political commentary with the phrase 'fucker of Paris' in it? According to Google, the phrase appears to have been used only once before Kangur, and this was in context of Paris Hilton. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 06:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bronze_Soldier_of_Tallinn/Archive_8&oldid=660951171"