Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn/Archive 3

message: Some people have decided to split the article, without consulting anyone here; see 2007 Estonian unrest.  If there is indeed support for this, I suggest that most of the information from this article be moved there, rather than simply duplicated.  For example, all of the international reactions, and the explanations for the controversy, should be on that page rather than on this one. The only thing on this page about the incidents which began this year should be a very short paragraph and a link to that page. 
That's assuming that there is indeed support for the move.  Currently, all it's creating is two articles with similar information that's updated at different rates. Esn 07:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose: I see no reason for the split. At the moment the new article just mirrors information here. If/when there are more riots, then the article can be re-created. There was some small talk about it in edit summaries, I think - and did you check talk archive 1? DLX 07:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Support: Well, why shouldn't we split the article? Let's have all the matters concerning the statue here, and all the unrest information there. I'd say this makes both articles more diverse. There are many reverts in the hist that claim to revert irrelevant material, just because it does not concern the Soldier specifically, just the unrests. I vote for two articles. -- Telempe 07:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose:  A spit is only confusing for people who are not so familiar with the subject. Camptown 07:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Support: It has been already done in Estonian Wikipedia. Let the unrest be in a separate article. My opinion is the same as Telempe's. Tarmo Tanilsoo 08:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be, than on Estonian wikipedia, the split is done to push a POV: the unrest is presented as acts of vandalism by drunken hooligans, without any political content. In the end we may have to create a page on Organized opposition to the Estonian state. Right now we are not there yet. -- Petri Krohn 13:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no known political content to the riots. (This may change. The Minister of Foreign Affairs claims to have evidence that the rioting was coordinated by the Russian embassy.  If so, the riots would be political indeed, just not about what they appeared to be.) Any political protest actions ended several hours before the riots started. Digwuren 00:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Strong Oppose: That article is just a duplication and very confusing. We now have a situation with updates taking place on two different articles covering the same topic. Important developments are expected within the next few days. Let this article be the sole and only article for that. Bondkaka 08:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already voted: To all of you opposers: you do realise that having only one article decreases possibilities covering the unrest (e.g. Claims of police brutality, external links to more info on looting and so on). -- Telempe 08:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Telempe has good point. But right now that article is a complete disaster, and totally misses the point. For example: It doesn't deal with the background of the riots, and it actually implies that the international reaction is focused on the riots, and not the political controversy (more violent riots take place on a regular basis without any statesman rising an eyebrow). Although, it may have been created with a good intention, the article ís a kind of vandalism or Recentism which has become a major problem with Wikipedia. I would support a possible solution, where the details of the riots are moved to a seperate article, with the major development (including the most important aspects of the riots, political reaction etc) left to this main article about the statue (which indeed has a greater political than artistic/architectual value. Camptown 09:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, in appears to be that non-Russian foreign press coverage of the political actions was scant, and quickly overshadowed when the riots started.  Russian foreign press coverage, however, appears to be considering (almost) all of the rioting as a natural part of political protests.  I guess eyebrows of a statesman and eyebrows of a journalist do not follow the same set of rules. Digwuren 00:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Support split. I believe the story around the monument was only the trigger point for the tensions that grow for decades the emphasis on the plight of the statue limits our abilities to tell the full story Alex Bakharev 09:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Practically, it seems complicated, though, because if we make a separate article about the political contorvercy and riots, that article would probably need to include most of the facts of the monument (the trigger). Maybe this article should be renamed the Bronze Soldier Controvercy - after all, very little in this article is focused on the very building and design of the monument, but mostly about the controvercy... Camptown 10:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting the article?

message: Dear friends: We cannot have two different articles competing with the same updates. I've now pulled the emergency break. How can we solve this problem? What do you think? please, voice your opinion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Estonian unrest, Camptown 08:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[2007 Estonian unrest]] Afd-req 

message: Please protect this article. And add pov tag. The article is compromised with false statements and vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.35.252.210 (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. As it is now, article is pretty NPOV, especially considering the "hotness" of the topic. DLX 10:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Looking back, I would have hoped the that the page had been soft protected earlier. The page has received a barrage of edits from IPs in countries involved in the dispute. Most of these IPs have no other edits on Wikipedia; their edits on this page have been focused on POV pushing: edits wars over wording and deletion of sourced content they dislike. -- Petri Krohn 12:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a current event article, every minute something notable may happen and we would not be able to proper account the new info if the article is protected or even semiprotected. Having said this I would obviously approve any level of protection if the level of vandalism would become unbearable. IMHO, so far it not that bad Alex Bakharev 13:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this article needs semiprotection - it is blown up by irrelevant info already Borism 19:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: It says in the article: "Members of protest organizers "Night Vigil" reported that police had attacked three of their members monitoring the situation in a car parked nearby, injuring one of them."
This is not accurate as they were not monitoring the situation nearby, but their car was actually parked in the area which the police was clearing out and where no civilians were allowed. The police gave repeated orders to the three member of the "Night Vigil" to clear the area, but they locked themselves in the car and refused to leave. The police tried to get to make them leave peacefully, but as they refused to show any cooperation, the police had to break the car window and use force to get them out and during that one person obtained some minor injuries. With the current wording it seems as the police attacked them without any reason which is not true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.235.54.106 (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think this should be removed, as it is not relevant to article and has only provocative meaning. Suva 11:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The injuries were caused by broken glass, as was the case with vast majority of injuries during the riots. 213.35.232.138 11:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any sources to back that up? Suva 11:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This presse release byt Estoniain Foreign Ministry , quoting Estonian Health Care Board. 213.35.232.138 12:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It is notable, as it shows the determination of the people protecting the memorial. Also provocations are likely to cause more violence later. -- Petri Krohn 12:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morning of 26.04 

message: The Russian media is running large provocative campaign by uttering lies towards the events. I don't think the estonian media is compromised by so hevay propaganda, but I still think neutral references should be used instead. BBC, CNN and other news sources seem to be more neutral. For example the arrest of and violence to the Night Vigil members is compromised by this issue. Suva 11:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even BBC isn't neutral. For example, their correspondent who covers events in Estonia is in Moscow and uses Russian sources. 84.50.11.236 11:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is controversial issue, but they are definitely more neutral than russian media. We should possibly cite both russian and estonian sources for neutrality. Suva 11:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to russian media 

message: The soldier is now at the cemetery of Estonian Defence League. Pic: http://www.epl.ee/pic.php?suurus=s&file=164643 (Reminds Batman, doesn't it?) The text in front of it reads "To an unknown soldier" in both Estonian and Russian. The stone wall will be added later since it'll take time to build it. 84.50.11.236 14:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like the Grave of the Unknown Soldier. --Camptown 14:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This image settles it, I am restoring the :Category:Demolished buildings and structures. -- Petri Krohn 14:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Tallinn monument is history now... Maybe there are categories for relocated parts of monuments? And, curiously enough, the statue actually comes out much better without the mastaba. Camptown 14:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mastaba will be re-built later , may take up to a month - which is understandable, as it needs a solid base etc. And :Category:Demolished buildings and structures is totally invalid now, as  statue was the important part of the memorial (hence Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, not Limestone mastaba of Tallinn). Also, the name isn't invalid, as the military cemetery is in Tallinn as well. DLX 14:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a pitty, because the bronze statue does look much more dignified without its back against a stone wall. Camptown 15:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Reappearance of the bronze soldier threw Duma's factfinding mission off course. They canceled all appointments for today, including a press conference. Ethnonazi 15:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But they still want the Estonian Government to resign... Maybe the Duma deputies would better consult a Public Relations agency next time...Bondkaka 16:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: A friend of mine now says that the "To the Unknown Soldier"-stone is not at all new, and that the bronze statue has been put behind the stone (grave?) probably only for the time being; there is simply not room enough for the stone wall to be erected behind the statue, unless other graves are removed... Can somebody confirm this? --Bondkaka 16:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The stone was there before, to accompany the graves that lie before it (military cemetery, after all). There are no graves in the bushes behind the statue, though. Check the video accompanying this newsbite:  Ethnonazi 17:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The soldier is up

message: What kind of helmet is depicted on the stone in front of the statue? It almost looks German! Pic: http://www.epl.ee/pic.php?suurus=s&file=164643 --Camptown 14:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Soviet make. German helmets had a distinctly different shape/profile. 213.35.241.244 14:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The phrase "unknown soldier" in the modern Estonian lexicography may however be a reference to the Estonian Waffen SS. -- Petri Krohn 18:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where did you hear/read that out? 194.204.35.117 18:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Give it up. The stone was obviously placed there during soviet times, as though the main text is bilingual, the date is followed by cyrillic 'g.g.' - russian notation. Ethnonazi 18:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it have been in Estonian and English had it been during post-Soviet rule? ;) --Bondkaka 19:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still estonian & russian, with possible addition of german & english. I was pointing out the 'g.g.' part. Ethnonazi 20:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've heard that the Estonian unknown soldier may refer to the Forest Brothers (restistance movement). Right? Camptown 19:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a distinction between 'sõdur' (soldier) and "võitleja" (fighter). Forest brothers are described as "vabadusvõitleja" (freedom fighter), whereas "tundmatu sõdur" (unknown soldier) implies membership of a military. Ethnonazi 20:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Presumably, it is an attempt to translate the rank's name.  'Yefreitor' () was a well-known rank in the Red Army.  I think it was roughly equivalent to Corporal. Digwuren 00:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Helmet / gefreiter 

message: According to this, by this evening they've found nine coffins out of (possible) twelve, archaeological digging continues. They hope to identify the remains by end of May or early June. DLX 14:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So they are not expecting to find 13? Does it say if the coffins are marked with identity tags? Camptown 15:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  12 coffins were found, 2 rows of 6. 9 sets of remains will be recovered by tonight (archaeologists don't like to hurry). Coffins were identified by the help of archive photographs of burial - the handles were of same unusual make. 213.35.241.244 15:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anybody know why the soldiers were not buried in a military cemetery in the first place? --Bondkaka 16:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder this too. How they died and when?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.156.169.76 (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This yet to be determined. The official sources are quite unclear about this. 213.35.252.210 16:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Graves

message: The citation of "The law was passed to legitimize removal of the Bronze Soldier as it was not legally possible before." keeps appearing and disappearing in the article. The statement is somewhat correct, the main reason for this law was to protect/move the bronze soldier and war graves from the critical place. Although statement that it was not legal before are false. There is no law forbidding moving of statues and reburial of war graves. I wish this statement to be included, but modified to be NPOV. Here is also another source to claim the views but from different perspective: http://www.postimees.ee/290606/esileht/siseuudised/207552.php (Estonian) Suva 17:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, i changed it. --82.131.84.102 18:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The speculation is not unreasonable and can be supported by declarations of the municipal officials, most importantly, the mayor.Digwuren 00:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It is still only a speculation and not a proven fact. Reference to mayor's declaration to this effect should be made, albeit Savisaar in no way is neutral in this case. Particularly the possible outcome of a local vote is pure speculation, as no local vote has been made. The outcome of such a vote would depend on how the issue is presented. "Should the monument be moved?" might end up with the opposite outcome if the question is "Should the monument and its graves be located in a busy street or in a graveyard?" 213.161.187.254 20:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Graves Protection Act 

message: It has been suggested to rename this article to the Bronze Soldier Controversy, and at the same time merge and delete the article 2007 Estonian unrest (which basically is a copy of parts of this article). Currently, there seems to be a majority for deleting and merging the competing article. What do you think? --Camptown 17:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutral: Only a small fraction of this article is about the design and building of the monument. Creating a separate article about the reaction of the monument's relocation and exhumation of the corpses is practically difficult without creating another identical article about the monument. It's probably correct to assume that the monument was only the trigger of the current unrest, which has more to do with demographic problems etc. Yet, I think that the background information gives at least a somewhat good picture of the problem. Somebody said that the reaction was mainly symbolical, but the monument is also symbolic (as its artistic value is rather questionable - we are not really dealing with a Piccasso statue, or is its aristic value mainly ignored...). Therefore, I think that the suggestion is worth some consideration. Camptown 17:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: At the moment I oppose a rename. This article has been nominated a good article. It has also achieved a level of stability, despite the widely defering opinions and points of view. If we rename the article, then we would need to bring all the POV material to the intro. An impossible task at this point. -- Petri Krohn 18:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Weak Oppose.  First of all, this article is not just about the controversy, but about the statue as well.  To rename it to "Bronze Soldier controversy" would not be accurate.  Although it may make sense to have two separate articles (one about the statue's history, etc, and one about the current controversy), there is no exact agreed-upon date for when the information relevant to the controversy begins, since most of the background information is relevant as well.  I really think that for the moment, it is best to keep everything in one place.  For a split to make sense, there needs to be a thorough discussion on the best way to split it.  The article is just changing too quickly at the moment for any such discussion to be effective.  I suggest that we keep everything in one place for now, and have a new vote to split it later on - in a few weeks at the earliest, maybe months (depending on how long this story takes to conclude). Esn 20:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Support --82.131.84.102 21:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as a friendly note, a vote of support counts more if you give a persuasive reason. Esn 23:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, its because the article is now mostly about the events of April 2007, not directly connected to the statue itself, but rather inspired from it. --82.131.86.22 07:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of this article? 

message: What is the position of the City of Tallinn on the location/relocation/removal/demolition of the monument? Have they made any zoning plans for the park? Is it still zoned for the WW II memorial? 
As I understand it, the removal is done against the wishes of the City and the Tallinn City Council. It is purely an Estonian Defence Forces operation orchestrated by the inner "national security council" of the Government of Estonia. Unlike theethnically restricted Riigikogu, the City of Tallinn has a "democratic" government, with electoral representation by the disenfranchised ethnic minorities. I do not think the City or mayor Edgar Savisaar would like to have any part in this demolition business. -- Petri Krohn 19:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, what? Estonia is  democratic country, accusing the military of meddling into civilian affairs is, frankly, absurd. Thanks for informing us about your pet theory, though. Ethnonazi 20:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify on Riigikogu - all citizens of Estonia, regardless of ethnicity, are eligible to participate in the elections. Remember, a third of local russian-speaking population do have citizenship. Ethnonazi 21:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand that the monumement was removed due to a new state law on "forbidden structures", (i.e. a kind of expropriation) and that law was challenged for not being constitutional - which might have been a question of violation of a fundamental right, such as property e.g. (our Estonian pundits probably know the details better). But, as the challenge was dismissed, the property in question was banned, and had to be removed, no matter who happend to own it. Maybe the owner, whoever that may be, can ask for legitimate compensation for his possible damage. Time will tell. Camptown 20:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The owner was either the city of Tallinn, or the Government of Estonia. I've sent a couple of e-mails to people who should know it, but I'm not expecting a too hasty answer - it's Walpurgisnacht. Ethnonazi 20:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But tomorrow is May 1, an ordinary working day in post-communist Estonia? Camptown 20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, May Day has no communist origin - it's an international holiday. In fact, most employers gave monday off as well, so people are having a nice 4-day long weekend over here. Ethnonazi 20:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This "international" day of labor celebration is not observed in countries such as the United Kingdom or the United States. And Soviet was supposed to be communist, even though modern socialist refrain from tagging this failed economic system as "true" communism.... The markets on Wall Street will be open as usually on May 1, but Estonians may have a day of hang-over and head aches instead. Which they certainly deserve after all this turmoil. Camptown 20:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Apparently the lockdown on alcohol sales has limited people's Walpurgisnacht enjoyment as well. As I was told, the park the statue was located at belongs to city, but the state claims all military memorials in public spaces. Ethnonazi 21:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No, that's not the law.  The monument has been removed in accordance with another law, the Law on War Graves.  The proposed law on Forbidden Structures was vetoed by the President and never became law. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.131.24.141 (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Evidently the bare statue cannot be banned as it is now being set up by the Defence Forces. Also our Estonian pundits are claiming / reading from Estonian language sources that the whole mastaba would be rebuilt. What we end up is a lustration process where the pieces will return to their legal owner, once the evil spell of their Soviet dedication have been removed by a re-dedication by the Estonian (some say Ethnofascist) government. -- Petri Krohn 20:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so, see Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn#Purification, dedication, lustration for discussion. Digwuren 22:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Blast, I _knew_ someone would come up with a better idea once I picked my name. Anyway,it's a purely civilian operation. Reassembly of the mastaba (nice how fast we settled on a name for it) is delayed as the foundations need to be poured - and the construction-site look was deemed unsuitable for Alyosha on 9th May. Ethnonazi 20:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just my speculation: Technically the law banned the public display of monuments that glorify the Soviet Union, which this monument certainly did on its location in a busy intersection downtown the capital of Tallinn. By incorporating the monument in a context of a regular military cemetary outside the city, its glorification of the dead would be less controversial, or say: more justified. Camptown 20:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll answer with a speculation of my own: the relocation is partially designed to change the meaning of the monument, from 'Monument for Soviet Liberators' to 'Monument to Honor War Dead', as the 'soviet' connotation was what kept annoying local population, together with the display of soviet flags ever 9th May. Ethnonazi 21:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah! A bit like relocating the Al-Aqsa Mosque to Tel Aviv and renaming it Al-Aqsa Synagogue. Now, THAT would solve a lot of problems! -- Petri Krohn 22:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Officially, the statue is now considered a grave marker, and it is relocated as a part of the relocation of war victims' graves from an unsuitable place onto a proper graveyard.  The Law of War Graves was necessary for that because Estonia does not have a mutual war grave protection treaty with Russia, whose soldiers most or all of the victims in question were. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.131.24.141 (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  City of Tallinn 

message: Has the question of legal ownership been discussed? It seems to me, that the City of Tallinn ordered and paid for the construction of the monument. If so, how is it possible that the Estonian Defence Forces have stolen/taken posession of the monument and the statue. Has the City of Tallinn made demands for their return? -- Petri Krohn 19:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that the monumement was removed due to a new state law on "forbidden structures", (i.e. a kind of expropriation) and that law was challenged for not being constitutional - which might have been a question of violation of a fundamental right, such as property e.g. (our Estonian pundits probably know the details better). But, as the challenge was dismissed, the property in question was banned, and had to be removed, no matter who happend to own it. Maybe the owner, whoever that may be, can ask for legitimate compensation for his possible damage. Time will tell. Camptown 20:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The owner was either the city of Tallinn, or the Government of Estonia. I've sent a couple of e-mails to people who should know it, but I'm not expecting a too hasty answer - it's Walpurgisnacht. Ethnonazi 20:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But tomorrow is May 1, an ordinary working day in post-communist Estonia? Camptown 20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, May Day has no communist origin - it's an international holiday. In fact, most employers gave monday off as well, so people are having a nice 4-day long weekend over here. Ethnonazi 20:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This "international" day of labor celebration is not observed in countries such as the United Kingdom or the United States. And Soviet was supposed to be communist, even though modern socialist refrain from tagging this failed economic system as "true" communism.... The markets on Wall Street will be open as usually on May 1, but Estonians may have a day of hang-over and head aches instead. Which they certainly deserve after all this turmoil. Camptown 20:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Apparently the lockdown on alcohol sales has limited people's Walpurgisnacht enjoyment as well. As I was told, the park the statue was located at belongs to city, but the state claims all military memorials in public spaces. Ethnonazi 21:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No, that's not the law.  The monument has been removed in accordance with another law, the Law on War Graves.  The proposed law on Forbidden Structures was vetoed by the President and never became law. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.131.24.141 (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Evidently the bare statue cannot be banned as it is now being set up by the Defence Forces. Also our Estonian pundits are claiming / reading from Estonian language sources that the whole mastaba would be rebuilt. What we end up is a lustration process where the pieces will return to their legal owner, once the evil spell of their Soviet dedication have been removed by a re-dedication by the Estonian (some say Ethnofascist) government. -- Petri Krohn 20:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so, see Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn#Purification, dedication, lustration for discussion. Digwuren 22:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Blast, I _knew_ someone would come up with a better idea once I picked my name. Anyway,it's a purely civilian operation. Reassembly of the mastaba (nice how fast we settled on a name for it) is delayed as the foundations need to be poured - and the construction-site look was deemed unsuitable for Alyosha on 9th May. Ethnonazi 20:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just my speculation: Technically the law banned the public display of monuments that glorify the Soviet Union, which this monument certainly did on its location in a busy intersection downtown the capital of Tallinn. By incorporating the monument in a context of a regular military cemetary outside the city, its glorification of the dead would be less controversial, or say: more justified. Camptown 20:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll answer with a speculation of my own: the relocation is partially designed to change the meaning of the monument, from 'Monument for Soviet Liberators' to 'Monument to Honor War Dead', as the 'soviet' connotation was what kept annoying local population, together with the display of soviet flags ever 9th May. Ethnonazi 21:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah! A bit like relocating the Al-Aqsa Mosque to Tel Aviv and renaming it Al-Aqsa Synagogue. Now, THAT would solve a lot of problems! -- Petri Krohn 22:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Officially, the statue is now considered a grave marker, and it is relocated as a part of the relocation of war victims' graves from an unsuitable place onto a proper graveyard.  The Law of War Graves was necessary for that because Estonia does not have a mutual war grave protection treaty with Russia, whose soldiers most or all of the victims in question were. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.131.24.141 (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership 

message: http://news.mail.ru/politics/1317880/
This is the new site for the Bronze Soldier 189.141.54.43 19:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another video as well (scroll down): http://www.postimees.ee/010507/esileht/siseuudised/258058.php. It's apparent that the photoshopped pictures distributed by the government about Alyosha's new location depict the very same spot (bar the mastaba for now). Ethnonazi 21:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That picture was done by Postimees, not the govt. - 82.131.54.29 21:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected. Still, it did depict the right spot. Ethnonazi 22:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos of relocation 

message: Tonight, Russian television broadcasted a video taken from the inside of the tent, showing forensic experts digging in what appeared to be a 2 meter deep hole and possibly some bones in the bottom of the grave. Camptown 20:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same on Estonian TV news. Apparently recovery of second row is somewhat more difficult, due to the bus stop, and the trees around it having grown their roots through those. Ethnonazi 20:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Video from inside the tent 

message: Wikipedia seems to set the trend: A Google-search on Mastaba+Tallinn generates 319 hits. That is roughly 319 more than just a week ago... Camptown 21:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mastaba! 

message: Someone made a POV pushing attempt at adding unrelated material to the page. I used the material to create Kopli cemetery. -- Petri Krohn 21:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Though factually correct, it has no place here. Ethnonazi 21:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kopli cemetery]] 

message: Before and during the events strong propaganda war as launched to upset the Russian speaking population. A photo shopped picture was circulated that depicted the statue sawed of at feet. Strong effort was put into trying to depict Estonia as a fascist country resulting in videos of arrests made by police in the first night of rioting being posted on YouTube tagged as "eSStonia" and while being actual videos showing only police action not the causes for the actions, like looting of shops. Leader of the Constitutional party Andrei Zarenkov claimed on Friday morning that the bones had already been dug up and thrown away and the statue cut to pieces and scraped and was never going to be restored Venelased süüdistavad valitsust vandalismis Postimees 28 April 2007. A day later the same man claimed that more than 350 ethnic Russian police officers have already or will be resigning shortly in protest to having to discipline rioters. His claims were soon said to be an outright lie by police officials Politsei: jutt lahkuvatest venelastest politseinikest on vale Postimees 12 March 2007. 
</blockquote>
--Camptown 21:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well, somebody put it back again... --Camptown 21:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has stood.  I would like to point out, however, that "Russian perspective" is not necessarily "pro-riot propaganda", nor vice versa. Digwuren 15:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The claims of police brutality are thus far uncorroborated.  Should they be moved under pro-riot propaganda? Digwuren 15:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Offtopic: Just to show that people can still laugh in these times: . Images are in universal language. DLX 16:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not entirely offtopic.  The comparison of Gollum and the infamous female hygiene product looter is likely to become an Internet meme.  However, it should probably not be in this article; once the meme gets established and has its own article, we'll just link to that article from this one. Digwuren 22:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro-riot propaganda 

message: Heading: "Law enforcement response": An estimated of 40-60 of the rioters were not citizens of Estonia, and were residing in Estonia under residence permits.  The law enforcement and the Immigration Office are reportedly working on getting them exiled through revocation of the residence permits, pending conviction in a court of law. 
:What is the status of permanent Estonian residents with Russian citizenship? I understand, there are many of those living in Estonia. Do they also risk being expelled to Russia if convicted? Camptown 22:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's whom that quote descibed (where from?). About a third of ethnic russians in Estonia have Russian citizenship, and they could, tehnically, have their residence permits revoked. Those with 'alien's passport' can _not_ be expelled, as there's no place to expel them to. (Coincidentially, that's claimed to be a reason why Russian attempts to have all non-citizens take on Russian citizenship havent' been very successful). Anyway, in a TV interview today, foreign minister Urmas Paet said that expulsion isn't considered a realistic option, apart from one detained russian national who broke the conditions of his tourist visa by participating in the riots. He has already been handed over to Russian authorities on border. Ethnonazi 22:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The central issue here is about citizenship. Two thirds of the 1/2 million ethnic Russians are without citizenship. I am astonished if only 60 of the almost 1000 arrested are without Estonian citizenship, I would assume the numbers were the other way around: 60 of one thousend had Estonian citizenship. -- Petri Krohn 22:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, most of those detained were released the next morning, after they were identified. Judges only granted longer detainment for those whose active participation in riots was positively proven by evidence on hand. While at it, you're wrong about 2/3 having no citizenship (half of them are Russian nationals), and there are 350k, not half a million ethnic russians in Estonia. Ethnonazi 22:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: For "technical reasons" expulsion to Russia is not possible for anyone. Russia will simply refuse to accept any expelled Estonian residents, even if they have taken Russian citizenship. Estonia manitains a kind of "concentration camp" for people it wants to expel but Russia refuses to accept. At the moment the camp only houses a few ex-Soviet military retirees. -- Petri Krohn 22:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whatever the place is, it isn't a "concentration camp". If you insist of calling it that way then you should be aware that even Finland has similar institutions/places for the same purpose. 194.204.35.117 05:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What ever you call it, the people interned 1) Were never committed of a crime. 2) Never entered Estonia illegally. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Petri Krohn (talk • contribs) 15:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, stupid me - the quote was from the article itself. I'm sorry to say, the referenced newspaper article has been mistranslated. It's saying it 'would be legally possible' to deport foreign nationals who took part of the riots, not that 'it's being worked on'. Ethnonazi 22:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that the Estonian police is known to be relatively competent in solving crime. Some years ago, a foreign businessman was murdered in Tallinn and the Police started the investigation by saying: "We'll have the murderer within 48 hours", and so they did! (We shall hope they caught the right guy..) Regarding all surveilance cameras and private pictures and video clips from the crime scene, the local prosecutors may have a busy time to look forward to. --Camptown 22:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They had 16-hour workdays after the riot nights, so you could say they already have their hands full of work (my information on this aspect comes directly from one of them, a personal friend). Police asked for extension of the nominal 48-hour maximum detainment for majority of detainees - to have enough time for processing all photographic and video evidence, but judges blocked all cases for which the evidence at hand wasn't good enough. Thus, their personals were taken down and they walked out. Ethnonazi 22:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess that even if they could walk out, they didn't automatically escape justice. Or is the legal enforcement so overwhelmed with cases that many of the criminal acts would just be written off? Camptown 22:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not overwhelmed, but everyone was working serious overtime (only 4 prosecutors, for example). Those who walked (or, in many cases, were picked up by parents) were identified, photographed, had their fingerprints taken, etc. The circumstances of their arrests are on file. Ethnonazi 23:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Law enforcement for non-nationals 

message: The Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt pointed out that he understands why the popular reaction about the statue has been so sharp:
"If somebody had errected a statue of King Christian the Tyrant in Stockholm 500 years after [the Stockholm Bloodbath of 1520], it would also have been subject for controversy."
:This unexpected twist must be music to Estonian's ears. Although, the statement sound like having been delivered at 3am at a party with too much hard liquor. ;) Bondkaka 22:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice comparison, though I've read better: Imagine a statue honoring Japanese liberators on Tiananmen Square. Ethnonazi 22:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Denmark, king Christian the Tyrant (a "liberator" who organized one of the worst massacres in Swedish history) is curiously enough called "Christian the Good". Reminds me of some Russian perception of "Great Soviet leaders" in the last couple of days... Camptown 23:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it had not been for Gustav Wasa, the "Pol Pot of the North", you too would be calling him Good. Bildt  really fails to see the big picture. -- Petri Krohn 23:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pol Pot of the North, sounds like the Finnish tabloid reporter H. Lindqvist? --Camptown 23:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Such comparisons are totally BS, they fail to take into account the fact that the Soviet Union DID win the war against fascism, AND Estonia has a half a million ex-Soviet residents. If Hitler had won the war, there would be a statue of him in central Moscow and 5 million Germans saluting it. So what! -- Petri Krohn 23:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the thing. Who Soviets fought against and whether they won or not doesn't enter the equation. It's about the brutal occupation of Estonia. If a rapist has great CV and wonderful references, he's still a rapist. Ethnonazi 23:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, after the war, Estonia became a closed military zon for more than 40 years, with purges and a demographic churn that turned the poor country upside-down! --Camptown 23:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To all of you: Please look at the notice at the top of the page: "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." If you can't say something relevant to the improvement of this article, don't say anything at all! Esn 23:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "they fail to take into account the fact that the Soviet Union DID win the war against fascism". So you're saying Soviet Union fought against Mussolini? Interesting.. Curgny 08:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See here. -- Petri Krohn 12:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical comparison 

message: From news: The DDoS attacks crippling access to Estonian governmental sites from outside world aren't the usual, distributed botnet type. Incoming connections have been traced to IP ranges used by Russian government. Ethnonazi 23:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If verified, it should be added to the text. Camptown 23:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Minister of Justice who claimed it. I'll try to dig up an actual linkable quote (in english) tomorrow morning, best I can do right now is  (in estonian). Won't edit anything here until I've worked my way through the rules and regulations governing submissions. Ethnonazi 23:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This was also reported on Finnish (YLE?) TV news. The source of the traffic was not attributed to Russia but to armies of hijacked bot net machines troughout the world. -- Petri Krohn 23:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Naturally, as most major botnets are attributed to russian hackers, these being put to use was expected. Usual botnet activity shows a distributed pattern, though, apparently in this case abnormally large chunk of connections come from abovementioned IP ranges. Or (and that's a scary thought), Russian govt computers have been infiltrated by botnets. Ethnonazi 23:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The Minister of Justice, Mr. Lang, is not necessarily knowledgeable at such things and his record on exclamations on technical issues is not, shall we say, stellar.  It may easily be he's confusing something, or misassessing botnet zombies within Russian government networks.  Unfortunately though, no notable source has yet followed up with clarifications, refutations, or even a proper skeptical assessment. Digwuren 15:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Foreign minister has now confirmed the accusation, identifying for example computers in Federation President's Administration. IP logs have been provided to foreign journalists for verification. Personal take: supporters of russian policies running by now freely available scripts tailored to hit Estonian sites on their work computers. Ethnonazi 18:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concede that Mr.Lang is well known for jumping the gun. Foreign Minister waited with his confirmation until enough evidence had been collected. Ethnonazi 19:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DDoS attacks 

message: This diff indicates that the article is nowhere near stable.  ShadowHalo 02:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: News media have found resentment among the Estonians! Referring to Estonian newspapers who are quoting an Estonian sociologist named Juhan Kivirähk who is critizing the Goverment and asks for its resignation. According to Kivirähk, the Estonian government created the riots in order to show the world that it was impossible to negoitate with the Russians. This seems interesting (who is Juhan Kivirähk?), but we need direct sources to confirm this story! --Camptown 09:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone is free to speculate, but it does not prove anything about the case at hand. 194.204.35.117 09:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This is already mentioned in the article. But Juhan Kivirähk is some random sociologist who thought it was his time to shine. It's not really notable figure, or atleast he wasn't befor these events and his statement. Suva 09:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He had some social study & poll company named Emor, IIRC. --82.131.86.22 09:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: He's held in fairly high regard, so definitely not an unknown. This refers to his op-ed piece is one of Estonia's larges daily newspapers Eesti Päevaleht on 30/04. It has caused quite a ruckus, drawing many counterarguments from his colleagues, as he's been the only notable figure to have voiced such opinion apart from Keskerakond (Centrist party, Estonian de facto russian party) functionaries. Ethnonazi 10:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: His connections with keskerakond are also ruomored, his beliefs to be one with keskerakond are confirmed. Suva 11:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another Sociologist named Andrus Saar also expressed his concerns about the whole issue and so did 12 professors of Estonian Universities before the whole mess Borism 11:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrus Saar was one of those critisising Kivirähk's article, and last night 28 professors of Estonian universities (estonians, ethnic russians, western nationals) sent an open letter in support of govt. Ethnonazi 11:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have sources, that petition along with Mr Kivirähk's remarks may be added to the developing story. Camptown 11:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a source on the letter of the 28: . Digwuren 15:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Juhan Kivirähk 

message: Should we mention this in pro-rioter propaganda. As the deceased Dmitri who got stabbed during the riots is largely heroized in russian media as one who gave his life protecting the holy statue. Statements go as far as blaming police in killing him. The information from eye-witnesses suggest that he was killed in conflict with other mareuders over a pair of jeans or something. Police hasn't confirmed anything concrete, but has denied any connetions between the death of the Dmitri and police activity. Also the police is holding someone named Oleg in captive as the suspect of murdering Dmitri. We need some sources to confirm both the russian media attitude towards the event and official and eye-witness statements. Suva 09:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Accoring to Russian News show Vesti, demonstrators are surrounding the Estonian Embassy in Moscow in a peaceful rememberance of Dimitri. Camptown 09:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Their actions are nothing but peaceful. (sarcasm) 194.204.35.117 10:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yesterday a pregnant woman managed to escape the peaceful rememberance vigil with her small child, and the ambassador (with eventual assistance from militia) could get out to attend one meeting. Apart from that, the embassy is completely blockaded. Ethnonazi 10:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources sources! I can find estonian ones myself, but I am currently more interested in russian ones. Suva 10:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Russian news show Vesti, the Estonian Consulte at Moscow (where the peaceful demontration takes place) is currently not issuing viza to Estonia. An upset woman - who had her viza application delayed - was interviewed, comparing Estonia with fascism. One might wonder if she ever gets her viza... Actually, I think that kind of news reports ("We present the propaganda - you decide") are more honest than they appear to be in the first place. Camptown 10:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A russian TV journalist has claimed the youth blocked her entry to the embassy when she was trying to apply for visa a few days ago: We live in free society and we don't want you to go there was a quote attributed to one youth org's leader. If required, can dig through my browser history for a link to russian newssite that published it.Ethnonazi 11:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This article [] Russian youth organisations have blockaded Estonian embassy confirms the fact of blockade, quoting embassy workers. 'Pregnant woman evacuated with OMON assistance' is also mentioned. Ethnonazi 11:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In the early stages of the riots, there were concerns that Russian citizens could come to Tallinn to support the riots.  Issuing of new visas to Russian *residents* (not citizens) was temporarily ceased for security purposes.  Similarly, buses from Northeast Estonia towards Tallinn were, for a while, stopped en-route and passenger lists taken.  The visa issuances would have been restored after the riots; unfortunately, the blockade at the embassy has made it impossible. Digwuren 11:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  The actions may be peaceful or not; however, the heroisation of somebody who died in random riot-related violence (latest news have the original suspect as being another victim, and the killer being so far unidentified) as a martyr of the political cause is a clear case of propaganda, and belongs in the propaganda section. Digwuren 15:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Newest theory is that he was indeed an innocent bystander, and was stabbed when he tried to take a video of the looters on his cellphone. Ethnonazi 18:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Heroization of the deceased rioter 

message: I'd argue that Claims of police brutality, Situation at the Estonian embassy in Moscow, Pro-rioter propaganda and Law enforcement response sections are irrelevant to statue itself but rather are excessive POV of both sides. Borism 11:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we are dealing with "the worst riots seen in Estonia", the claims (and denials) of police brutality are justified. Camptown 11:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't agree, as the whole article tries to concentrate on the events surrounding the bronze soldier, not only the statue itself, otherwise it would only talk about the contstruciton of the solider and controversy section would only contain: "The statue was relocated because of the ethnic estonian and russian different representation of history". We should rather concentrate on keeping those sections NPOV. Suva 11:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think they should remain, and it would be obviously relevant if the article was renamed "Bronze soldier controversy".--82.131.86.22 11:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now, and because of the problem with competing articles, it has been agreed that this article is dealing with the Monument + Controversy. So, let's stick to the agreement from previous votes for the time being. --Camptown 11:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed some of the POV tags. And I plan to remove others after I have reviewed the content. Shall we call some sort of vote on the relevance? Suva 11:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguable relevance of sections 3.2-5 and their excessive POV 

message: Radio Moskva is citing a woman who supposedly is the daughter of the Estonian athlete Kristjan Palusalu. She says that she misses the statue (which she claims to be her father) and that she would "bye it back", had she only the financial resources. On the Estionian version of this article, Kristjan Palusalu, is mentioned among others in what I understand is speculation of who was sitting model for the statute. 
Nimetatud on raskejõustiklast Haljand Hallismaad, vasaraheitjat Helmut Pormeistrit, kunstitudeng Vello Rajangut, puusepp Albert Adamsoni ja isegi maadleja Kristjan Palusalut. Maybe our Estonian pundits could give us a hand solving (or explaining) the mystery? Camptown 12:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing definite. It's been claimed the sculptor said he 'modelled it after a young man from his neighborhood' (pointing to Albert Adamson, most likely), or that there were several models. For obvious reasons, the model hasn't been willing to come forward to be associated with the statue. Palusalu is unlikely - he deserted from Red Army after forced mobilization, such background wasn't well viewed upon by soviet authorities. _If_ he was the model, his participation was likely to have been kept secret from them. Ethnonazi 12:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, and he was in a Soviet prison camp when the statue was made, hence making his participation a tad unlikely. Ethnonazi 13:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What is known about Albert Johannes Adamson?, --Camptown 13:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder where the 'Johannes' part came from. Anyway Albert Adamson (carpenter) was a carpenter in some local factory, managed to avoid both soviet & german mobilizations (due to physical disability, crooked arm? Other sources inndicate he was simply in hiding). He reportedly ended up a drunk, thereby disqualifying him as an acceptable model figure for the authorities as well. Ethnonazi 13:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know when he lived, and where he lived?  Camptown 13:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Born on the island of Saaremaa, worked in western Estonia before and during the war, moved to Tallinn after war for a better job, lived indeed in same neighborhood with the sculptor. Can't find any info on his time of death, apart from that his alcohol problems peaked in early 60s. Ethnonazi 18:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Saaremaa, then he is likely to have been Swedish? Camptown 09:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily.  Swedes are more numerous on the coastal areas than in continental Estonia, but still a relatively small minority. Digwuren 10:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I suspect there are two options, really. Either Alyosha was modelled after various people, or the model was known to the authorities, but not of acceptable moral and political character to be publicly recognized as a model for such an important statue. Ethnonazi 13:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that the Soviets were very good in collecting and storing all sorts of information. Do you think the secret about the model is buried in the archives of the local KGB office? Camptown 13:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not impossible.  Unfortunately, there are "issues" with accessibility of former Estonian KGB archives, as major parts of these were removed to Russia instead of delivering them to authorities of the Republic of Estonia when the KGB's officially sanctioned business on Estonian soil was ended.  In any case, we can not be reliably expect any particular part of KGB's archives on Estonia to be found until it actually gets found.  In the case of the Bronze Soldier, the historical research commissioned by the government last year would likely have found such documents, if they were accessible, so it is likely that they are not available to Estonian authorities for now. Digwuren 22:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Modelled after... whom? 

message: Digwuren has moved link about poland removing ther soviet history from other reaction where I have placed it to political reaction
dig:  borism on jälle poola reaktsiooni ära koristanud. :(
I moved it there because it is nothing to concern monument directly but rather an consequence. Please move it back to "Other reaction" or under "Consequences". Thanks! (and please note that I don't remove something without a reason)
:Yet, it's a Government reaction, and the Poles have repetedly refered to the development in Estonia when drafting their new legislation on Soviet related war memorials. Maybe, the Estonian example implies that the longer you wait removing "occupation-related" monuments, the harder it gets...Camptown 21:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Savisaar's reaction should be Political as well. Keskerakond is in Riigikogu (Savisaar's opinion is always the exact opinion of Keskerakond) and also he is the mayor of Tallinn, after all.--82.131.117.226 23:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet, Savisaar doesn't represent the State Government of Estonia (President, PM and his cabinet and ministries). That's why he belongs to the "others". Camptown 00:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish reaction 

message: Currently, in the "Backround" topic, it says that ESSR declared itself independant, but thats POV, because the Republic of Estonia is had been around for a long, but simply became ESSR temporarly by the soviet occupation. So what happened in 1992 was NOT a "political tantrum" so to speak, but in fact a reinstation of independancy. Also Arnold Rüütel was not president at the time this happened. I have tried to edit these biased and untrue statements, but every time I do it, they get edited back. Somebody do something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superjuhan (talk • contribs) 18:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says that Rüütel was president of ESSR, not Republic of Estonia, doesn't it? Borism 19:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no 'president' in ESSR. He was Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Council (basically, head of government) during USSR's breakup. Ethnonazi 19:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What happened in 1991 was reinstation of independency, both de jure and de facto (except for removal of the Russian army, which took three years longer).  It is factual that this reinstation was made through a declaration which was passed using the legal framework of Estonian SSR. However, it is irrelevant.  Relevant to the context of the background of the monument is only that the reinstation happened, not who did it, who were the political leaders, or what their party allegation is.  These useless tidbits have been repeatedly injected by Petri Krohn, pushing a weird POV I have not yet managed to understand.  They should be removed. Digwuren 19:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reinstation of Estonias pre-war independence was a long process: the removal of Soviet symbols is the last step in this process. The process already started in 1988. The declaration of independence in 1991 and the international recognition of the declaration were only steps in this process. Equally important were the reinstation of the old citizenship laws, and abolishing the government in exile in 1992 (See Heinrich Mark) after the election of Lennart Meri as the "first" post-war president of Estonia. It is POV, if not totally wrong to say that the pre-war independence was reinstated in 1991. -- Petri Krohn 19:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're arguing for is that gathering all aspects of independence took more than a single declaration that could be localised in time.  However, all of these other aspects are less important than the Declaration of Independence, which gave Estonia de jure independence from the Soviet Union, and the August Coup, which gave Estonia de facto independence from the Soviet Union.  Both happened in 1991, relatively close to each other (indeed, the former depended on the latter). Removal of Soviet symbols is not a factor of independence *at all*. Estonia would be just as independent as it is now if all the Lenins had been left in place, or if sickles and hammers were printed on Estonian money. Digwuren 20:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase "reinstation of independency" is an euphemism for cutting the legal continuity with the Estonian SSR and its 1988 - 1991 successors. This severing of ties happened in 1992 at the earliest. -- Petri Krohn 20:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No such "severing of ties" happened.  The Republic of Estonia recognises itself as a successor of the Estonian SSR, which is considered a distorted and suppressed (or, shall we say, "occupied") form of the continuing earlier Republic of Estonia.  I have been at a judicial trial deciding a case of real estate ownership and involving various versions of property law from 1960 onwards up to around 1995; for events in their timeframe, the Estonian SSR laws were given appropriate consideration. Digwuren 21:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: However, it's probably important in the context of this article that reinstating the independence significantly changed status of the immigrants: before, they had been citizens of USSR living in a region of USSR; afterwards, they were citizens of USSR living in an foreign independent state, and thus, aliens.  Since they had gotten into the territory through colonisation policies of the occupating Soviet government, many called these people "occupants".  As Borism points out, this became the beginning of important fork in the perception of Estonia between the natives and the immigrants. Digwuren 21:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above. It is however important to point out that the 1991 legal continuity is very selective, even for property issues, as the case of Okean (The Soviet fishing fleet) pointed out. -- Petri Krohn 21:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Elaborate.  Also be sure to explain why it's "important to point out" that in context of the Bronze Soldier. Digwuren 22:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. Now I find this: Kalev Ots. He claims to be the president of the Estonian government in exile. It seems that some people (on the right) disagree with the claim that Estonia's pre-war independence was reinstated. -- Petri Krohn 20:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fail to see the reason for all of this to be in this article. Theres an article about Estonian history... BUT the Estonias  official view on the matter is that the state has existed since it was declared on February 24 1918, was occupied and was reinstate on 20th of August 1991. This is the factual history as our historians see it. Not debatable. We celebrate the birth of republic on February 24. End of story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexia Death (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  *P.S* The official view should prevail over someones personal opinion IMHO Alexia Death 20:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a tool of governments, even independent and intenationally recognized governments. Wikipedia has a neutral point-of-view. -- Petri Krohn 20:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Labeling FACTS as POV makes no sens to me. We might then simply call a heliocentric world view a POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexia Death (talk • contribs) 20:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Continuity of the Republic of Estonia is not a matter of POV, and hasn't been for the last 15 years.  It is now a matter of fact, and of law.  Surely you can't seriously claim that the proper way to handle controversial laws in Wikipedia is to censor them, instead of reporting them and pointing out the controversies. Digwuren 21:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Emperor Norton? Ots's claim to presidency has no legal ground. Ethnonazi 20:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur Borism 20:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I live in Estonia and I have never heard anybody contradicting the fact that this state we currently have is a continuation of the state we has before WWII. It simply is not possible because of the legal grounds this state stands on. It has been debated whether occupation occurred or not, and whether  the republic evenrceased to exist but not that that this one is the continuation of the the first state. Alexia Death 20:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're too young to remember that, but there was a long and thorough debate over this in the Constitutional Assembly.  The continuation side won, as you can read in the Constitution of 1992.  (It should also be mentioned that international law supports continuity in case of Estonia, but it does not require it.)  By now, any legal debates of continuity have been ended for 15 years; while some people still do entertain ideas of non-continuity, these are private viewpoints and have no legal or factual merit at all. Digwuren 20:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  Current Republic of Estonia being a continuation of the Republic of Estonia established in early XX century is a matter of established legal fact and so accepted under international law.  Right-wingness does not come into play.  Rejecting the notion is a POV that should probably be documented, but it is not factual, or legal. Digwuren 20:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree. Estonia's continuity is a legal fact, not POV. Someone contesting the Theory of Gravity doesn't automatically make the theory POV. Russia's position should only be added if it's clearly defined as Russia's position against the international concensus. Ethnonazi 20:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree, per arguments by Digwuren and Ethnonazi. The CIA Factbook says clearly that Estonia regained its independence. -BStarky 21:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it "regained its independence", but did it "reinstate its pre-1940 independence" without inheriting the legal liabilites of the Republic of Estonia (1990-1991), the Estonian SSR (independent) and the Estonian SSR? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Petri Krohn (talk • contribs) 21:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is irrelevant.  You're dishonestly trying to redefine independence by attaching a nonsensical liability claim to it; a fallacy known as 'moving the goalposts'. Digwuren 09:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Regained it's independence, sans quotes. No connection to SSRs. Hence the citizenship issues you love so much (based on pre-occupation continuity), and border disputes with Russia as parts of Estonia were added to Russian FSSR during the occupation. Ethnonazi 22:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the Estonian Constitution backs up the regaining of independence rather well. -BStarky 23:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The official reference to the Constitution is . 'Official' in the sense that this one is in the official electronic publication of Estonian laws, whose contents has, by law, evidentiary value of the laws published in it. Digwuren 09:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estonias Independency 

message: ====Purification, dedication, lustration====
In Estonian tradition, secular statues are not "dedicated", nor "lustrated".  Such statues, however, can be "opened", or "unveiled"; this can be done several times to a single statue.  Declarations of the Estonian Ministry of Defence are clear that what will happen on May 8th will be an opening ceremony combined with a celebration of the VE-Day; another opening ceremony will apparently be held in June when the mastaba will have been reerected and the exhumed war victims reburied.
The important parts of an opening ceremony are the opening speech and a ceremonial removal of a veil, a cover, or a curtain placed on the statue (or sometimes, just a ribbon set up around it or in front of it) before the ceremony.  It is symbolic of presenting the statue publically, and the statue having been public earlier does not prevent such a ceremony from taking place.  However, it's customary to only have opening ceremonies when something new can be presented.  A new location will qualify; so will newly restored mastaba.
The tradition has been practiced in this form at least since 1920s, and the ceremony can also be performed on a building, a sign on a building, or various kinds of memorials.  In rare cases, farming machines and industrial production lines were "opened" in this manner in the Soviet times. Digwuren 21:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has commented on it.  I will consider it documented consensus, and reflect so on the main page.  If anybody would disagree, please express the reasoning here. Digwuren 17:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Nobody has commented on it. I will consider it documented consensus, and reflect so on the main page. If anybody would disagree, please express the reasoning here. Digwuren 17:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Nobody has commented on it. I will consider it documented consensus, and reflect so on the main page. If anybody would disagree, please express the reasoning here. Digwuren 17:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on the misconceptions listed above

message: In Estonian tradition, secular statues are not "dedicated", nor "lustrated".  Such statues, however, can be "opened", or "unveiled"; this can be done several times to a single statue.  Declarations of the Estonian Ministry of Defence are clear that what will happen on May 8th will be an opening ceremony combined with a celebration of the VE-Day; another opening ceremony will apparently be held in June when the mastaba will have been reerected and the exhumed war victims reburied.
The important parts of an opening ceremony are the opening speech and a ceremonial removal of a veil, a cover, or a curtain placed on the statue (or sometimes, just a ribbon set up around it or in front of it) before the ceremony.  It is symbolic of presenting the statue publically, and the statue having been public earlier does not prevent such a ceremony from taking place.  However, it's customary to only have opening ceremonies when something new can be presented.  A new location will qualify; so will newly restored mastaba.
The tradition has been practiced in this form at least since 1920s, and the ceremony can also be performed on a building, a sign on a building, or various kinds of memorials.  In rare cases, farming machines and industrial production lines were "opened" in this manner in the Soviet times. Digwuren 21:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has commented on it.  I will consider it documented consensus, and reflect so on the main page.  If anybody would disagree, please express the reasoning here. Digwuren 17:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Purification, dedication, lustration

message: This is a peculiar one.  As far as I can tell, no notable source has raised this question in the form you have pushed it.  However, there are two possibly related concepts.
There have been rumours, now clearly shown unsubstantiated, of the bronze statue having been cut off from above feet, or cut into pieces and then welded together when the protesters required its reinstatement.  (Even the Russian Duma's special fact-finding mission repeated these rumours.)  This has not happened; in part because there was no need to cut the statue for transportation; in part because it's very hard to actually weld bronze.  The seam the Duma representatives fingered is technological, derives from the original casting process, and has been on the statue before its removal, as can be seen on high-resolution photographs taken before the removal.
Furthermore, in the early hours after the removal, there were also rumours of the whole monument having been trashed and irretrievably lost.  Most of these rumours can be traced to Mr. Linter, and, also, are now clearly shown unsubstantiated.
No "continuity" or "sameness" issues have been raised by notable sources; it's consensus among Estonian population (both Estonian-speaking and Russian-speaking) that the statue has been relocated, not destroyed and rebuilt, and the only even remotely relevant notable issue has been that the new location of the statue is somewhat unfamiliar to most people that care for regularly visiting it. Digwuren 22:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has commented on it. I will consider it documented consensus, and reflect so on the main page. If anybody would disagree, please express the reasoning here. Digwuren 17:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Demolishion of the statue / building a new statue from parts of the old one

message: It is a fact that the monument is legally a property of the city.
However, it merits no more than a mention in the overall narrative, and a claim that it was first erected by the city is incorrect.
First, in Estonian governance practice, the border between city and state property is not always clear; it is routine for the state command city property through legislative or administrative acts. For property ownership purposes, municipalities of Estonia are not distinct from the state; instead, they are departments or subsidiaries of the state.
Second, the property aspect has only been covered in a single declaration of the Mayor of Tallinn; it was not even considered worthy of response by any state official. (Mention of it in this declaration is the only reason it merits mention in Wikipedia at all.)  No actual legal claim against state has been made by the municipality of Tallinn, neither through a court of law nor through the Chancellor of Justice; all that has been made is a single claim in a press-oriented declaration by the mayor.
Third, in 1947, when the monument was erected, Estonia was under early Soviet rule, and 'city' was not a legal entity that could own property or perform actions. Instead, the erection would have been done by either some sort of 'committee' (most likely, the 'executive committee of the city') or a branch organisation of the Communist Party. Property issues of public monuments was not clearly regulated under the Soviet legal system, there being no need for such regulations, and it was only after the events of 1991 that it became possible to say that the monument was a property of the City of Tallinn.
Digwuren 22:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has commented on it. I will consider it documented consensus, and reflect so on the main page. If anybody would disagree, please express the reasoning here. Digwuren 17:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: City property claims on the statue