Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn

message: Is it just me or is there a tendency to call the happenings surrounding the relocation of the statue the Bronze Night? So why don't we move forward with splitting up the article, make one about the statue and another about the Bronze Night?--Termer 01:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think time is ready for that. Although you have to make sure the scope won't leave out following events and propaganda waves, or we need three articles instead. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 10:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bronze Night

message: Folks, Looking through the article and the ongoing variable pace edit war it is clear that large parts of the article are being used for presenting material unrelated to the Memorial. Much of the article seems to cover a battle between Estonian and Russian viewpoints rather than anything directly related to the article's title. It is hard to see what a section like the "Accusations of glorification of fascism" is doing in the article if not to present someones dislike of Estonia(ns). Given the intemperate edit summaries being used I won't be foolish enough to add an {npov} tag but it is clearly not presenting a neutral point of view except in a few places. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was thinking too that this article was becoming a coatrack. Is there a tag for coatrack issues to identify the dubious sections? Martintg 10:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This has been gone through several times. Basically this article should talk about.
* Statue
* Construction, location
* Its history
* Controversy (not longer section than 3 - 4 paragraphs)
* See also links to other related events.
Other crap. Like timelines, responses, accusation sof nazism should be deleted or moved somewhere else. Suva Чего? 10:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed the material should be deleted. I have little doubt it is a repeat of material elsewhere here. I may have a small attempt to see if the article can gradually be chipped into shape - Peripitus (Talk) 11:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Serious [[WP:Coatrack|coatrack]] issues

message: It was suggested before to split the article into two: an article about the 2007 controversy and an article about the structure itself with the link and a minimum commonly agreed factual text about the controversy. This proposal seems to be neutral over the different POVs but will greatly streamline the text allowing the chronological order in both articles.
Obviously the article about the structure does not need section about the alleged glorification of Nazism, human right problems in modern Estonia and very little or none about the annexation of Estonia and deportations in the post-War period.
On the other hand, in the article about the 2007 riots we have to mention annexation,  deportation, Soviet crimes, etc. as without it the reasons for the relocation of the monument are unclear. On the other hand we have to explain the frustration of a large section of the Russophones with the human rights situation as well as the perception that the relocation of the monument is a link in the larger chain of rehabilitation and glorification of Nazism. Without it the position of the opponents of relocation including the rioters is absolutely unclear and the article is biased.
As far as I rember the proposal was already stated in the past and rejected as it might compromise the chances of the article to get the GA status or something. It is not actual now maybe it is time to reconsider?
At any rate there should be either all or none of the following:
*Annexation
*Deportations and other Soviet crimes
*Rights of the Russophone minority
*Perception of the glorification of Nazism
None of the list is directly related to the structure all of them are directly related to the background of the 2007 controversy.
Inclusion of some points from the list and not the other makes the articles biased. Obviously we not need 20 page sections on any of the points but they should be present Alex Bakharev 12:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that only yesterday, you were pushing this joke into the article, I do not think you have the article's best interests in mind with this proposal. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 14:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split?

message: Folks, it's an article about a statue/monument. Sure there has been a lot of ill-feeling, rioting, nationalistic fervour and dredging up of past misdeeds associated with the concept of the statue, but at the end it's a statue. The article is hardly about this now, is absurdly long, packed full of trivial and repetative detail and simply a vehicle for soviet/estonia/WWI/etc... opinions to be expressed . This talk page has been a forum for so long it's hard to find talk about the article at all. From the commentary on this page and in the archives it is clear that this is unlikely to change and the article will not improve. 
I can see that at various times many editors have supported the split. How about a rough straw poll on the split ? -  Peripitus (Talk) 21:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for it, just that , how about calling the split the Bronze night or something like that? That's the way the events have been called in general.--Termer 22:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually the articles of that sort have more boring and longish names starting with the year like 2007 Tallinn riots or 2007 controversies over the relocation of the Bronze Soldier monument, etc. On the other hand is the Bronze night name appear to be NPOV I would support it - at least it can be  consistently typed without cut-n-paste. One of the problems is that we want to talk about at least two nights + background + epilogue. Would it be hindered by this to narrow name? Alex Bakharev 02:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Split supported. In fact, I tried once already, but the eternal SPA troublemakers stopped that horrible "estonazi" action. -- Sander Säde 02:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Bronze night, although not in common use in English language press, looks like a good name to start with. It appears to be a common name for the night and common names are what we should use. - Peripitus (Talk) 07:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually it was Bronze Nights as there was two of them. Suva Чего? 08:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using the ever popular GoogleBattle, Bronze Night seems to be used far more  -- Sander Säde 08:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is logical. Because "On the first bronze night, there were ....", "On the second bronze night there was...", so generally "Bronze nights were...". But article should talk about both bronze nights not about only one. Suva Чего? 08:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, let us do the article as Bronze Night and redirect Bronze Nights (and some other suggested names) there? Should be acceptable for everybody? -- Sander Säde 09:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes works for me. :) Suva Чего? 10:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Any objections then if I do this in the next few days ? I was thiking of splitting off basically most of the article from Bronze_Soldier_of_Tallinn#Controversy onwards and leaving a small summary. That way we get an article about the statue and a separate one about the move and resulting echoes.Peripitus (Talk) 09:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not from me. That split is needed - as is general cleanup. -- Sander Säde 10:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the split. The sub-article can be could Bronze Nights i think. It looks nice. -- Magioladitis 11:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree too. I think that the events on that(these) night(s) were important enough for a separate article. Only the first 3 chapters and maybe a short roundup of the events should stay here. H2ppyme 21:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: Folks,
This section clearly does not belong here. It appears to be another coatrack section designed to continue the battle raging here. Does anyone have any good reason that this section should not be removed ? - Peripitus (Talk) 11:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical background - section 

message: A meting held in Tallinn in commemoration of the Bronze Soldier relocation (that happened on April 26, 2007). 
April 26, 2008 - the defenders of the monument initiated the meeting. They demand to create the International Commission for detailed investigation of the events on April 26, 2007.
During the two days, April 26 and April 27, 1,500 people are arrested. 50 are injured, 1 dead.
http://news.mail.ru/politics/1731767/et
Victor V V (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention millions of dollars of damage done to private property by looters high on heroine and booze. Also, we shouldn't forget that most of the injured were police officers who got hit by a pavement stones or garbage bins, or the looters who got cut by broken glass while trying to get tampons out of the nearby kiosk. Suva Чего? 15:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Talk pages don't necessarily require references. This was all reported on the news. —PētersV (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Meeting in Tallin in commemoration of the Bronze Soldier relocation on April 26, 2007 

message: The article is missing info on this; see  --Espoo (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be mentioned in 2007 cyberattacks on Estonia, which is referenced in the Bronze Night article. This article is about the statue itself, for the political and criminal consequences, those other articles are more suitable. Martintg (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you think there should at least be a sentence or two mentioning the attacks with an in-text link to the other article?  --Kraftlos (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denial-of-service attack 

message: Folks, over a dozen pointless revert edits about a picture. Pointless as no one is discussing the dispute here on the talk page. Can you please come here to talk through the issue then edit the article once consensus is clear ? - Peripitus (Talk) 21:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Smiling. Amazing collusion is going on. Interesting timing of events. His mate once again deletes the picture with vague explanations   21.01 and requests the page to be protected  21.04 . Then his reply about the so called "another edit war"   21.00 Beatle Fab Four (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have the timing wrong there - Martin left the talk page message after I pointed out the idiocy of this. As for the mate bit - look at the map....Australia is a very big place full of lots of strangers. Perhaps you will discuss your point of view on the article here now ? - Peripitus (Talk) 04:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The reason I removed the pic the moment I noticed it was explained in the edit history. This is a political poster that violates WP:Point and WP:BATTLEGROUND . The origin of this quote "I'll be back" comes from the withdrawing Russian troops that had the line written on their trucks when they pulled out from the Baltic states. Therefore the poster suggest for the return of occupation and it is a Russian ultra-nationalist statement and should be removed from WP because it violates the policies mentioned above--Termer (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd request Beatle Fab Four not restore the picture the next time it is deleted. It is, indeed, a POLITICAL poster representing anti-Estonian "we'll invade them again" threats. I would consider such action similar to past edits which appear to push an anti-Estonian/Baltic POV, as an example, Beatle Fab Four's edits incorrectly changing European Victory Day to coincide with Russia's/Soviet Victory Day and deleting the reference to the Baltic States not observing the Russian version of Victory Day because they consider it re-occupation by the Soviets. —PētersV (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nonsense, own research and throlling. Reasoning like that of kids. "I'll be back" is from Terminator by the same stupid analogy. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Compared to the thousands of flowers on the site, this single political poster indicates a tiny minority viewpoint and thus its presentation here is undue. Martintg (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ha-ha-ha. The poster simbolizes the virtual presense of the monument on the original site. Flowers on the same original site simbolize the same thing. Even kids can understand that. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is a picture of an Estonian deportee who was dragooned into the Red Army but escaped across the frontline to the Finnish side at the first opportunity. Martintg (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Weeeeell, Peripitus, you can clearly see the root of the problem. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ??? Something factually incorrect about my statement? Martintg (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

text:  Whose presence, Palusalu's or Bronze Soldier's? Yes, there is one theory that Palusalu could be the prototype of the Bronze Soldier, but I don't think that anybody could argue about their virtual equality in current context, nobody connects them on that level, I could bet that 99% Estonian people (including local Russians) don't even know this fact. Ptrt (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Really? What about here  and here . Peripitus, the problem is not in the gallery, the problem is that someone can't grow up. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OTHERSTUFF. I think Peripitus makes a good suggestion. I would support moving the entire gallery to commons. Martintg (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Support. But I can already see what is going to happen... Ptrt (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another edit war 

message: I've just noticed that all 18 sources are either pro-Estonian or anti-Russian. Is there a reason for this? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you clarify, please? What do you exactly mean with "pro-estonian" and "anti-russian"? And how do you define those categories in given context? Ptrt (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Russia Today is the mouthpiece of the Russian Federation. Completely unreliable with regard to anything about the Baltic states in particular. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>     </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 00:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: All the posturing over destruction of monuments is interesting, but my understanding is that there are treaties between the Baltic states and Russia regarding the preservation of war memorials. Let's make clear what contentions and motions are rhetoric and which are not. Not a single war memorial anywhere has been destroyed or will be destroyed. Yet blogs are full of invective over Estonians destroying monuments to and graves of fallen Soviet soldiers. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>     </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 00:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motions for "destruction" 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, 2007.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Xx236 (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Red Army wasn't Russian but multinational 

message: This statue is broadly known as “The Unknown Rapist”, why is this fact no longer mentioned? —NoApostropheInIts (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 15:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common name?