Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn/Archive 5

message: This line has changed from fascism (incorrect) to nazism (correct) to nazi germany (historically correct, but symbolically incorrect).  Based on the context of the statement, it can be inferred the bronze soldier is meant to symbolize the more abstract victory of soviet ideology over nazi ideology (a common theme with the soviets), not the soviet state over the nazi state.  Additionally, listing it as a victory over fascism is both historically and symbolically incorrect, as nazi germany was not a fascist state, and the soviet victory over germany did not end fascist regimes elsewhere around the world (nor did it stop new ones from springing up from time to time) - which mostly fell later without soviet intervention (Italian Social Republic, Franquist Spain, Estado Novo, et al).  It did, however, spell the end of state nazism. --NEMT 14:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The symbolism is Soviet victory over "evil". Depending on country and language "evil" might be replaced by any one of these. For American readers the word Nazi Germany would be easiest to undestand, as this word has come to represent WW II genocidial enemies. The Soviets however would always use the word "fascism". -- Petri Krohn 21:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate that first wiki link.  Additionally, while the soviets may not have made a distinction between nazism and fascism, history and logic have.  --NEMT 21:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the "evel" link. As for faschism vs nazism, do we want to mirror Soviet POV (As you yourself note) or internationally agreed-upon consensus? Ethnonazi 00:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Knievo-Soviet War is too often forgotten in history.  Anyway, this article says "nazi germany" --NEMT 04:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet victory over... 

message: Pealinna tuntud kriminaalid kaitsesid pronkssõduri (in Estonian, "Known criminals protected the statue" (freely translated/quoted): "Other criminal activity was reduced by half in Tallinn during the protests, despite the fact that almost whole police force was in the city center. Photos and videos of the protesters and looters, however, show many well-known criminals among them - quite often as group leaders and most active." Not sure if it is relevant or not - probably is, to show what kind of people were leading the protesters - but how to include it to the article? DLX 16:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Kosovo Liberation Army also started as a gang of criminals. Now they are handed a state on a silver platter. So, what's your point? -- Petri Krohn 21:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're still a gang of criminals. --NEMT 21:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These persons were no ordinary "criminals", but known figures from organised crime syndicates. MAFIA. 123
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.54.91.25 (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The article quotes policemen saying they recognized many faces - as in, previously arrested for criminal conduct - among the crowd. Pickpockets, drug dealers, etc. Ethnonazi 23:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This can still be viewed as personal and possibly biased judgement call.  It's probably more significant to add the fact that a number of previously unsolved crimes were solved due to DNA testing of the people arrested on the riots.  Unfortunately, I'm too sleepy to hunt down the quotation for that right now. Digwuren 10:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please find a source about that - should be definitely included to the article. DLX 05:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criminal element among "protesters"

message: USA official press statement
related press conference transcript
The Americans do not seem to get it! No mention of the main party in this conflict, Estonia's Russian non-citizens. Reconciliation among Estonia's citizens will not help in this dispute. -- Petri Krohn 23:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: State Dept's phone number is 202-647-4000. Enjoy. Ethnonazi 23:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This page is semiprotected already; there is no facility to fully protect only one section of an article. To request protection in general, please use WP:RFPP. CMummert · talk 15:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  International responce 

message: Amid the developing dispute between Russia and Estonia, the Swedish National Radio's senior correspondent to Poland, (and its correspondent to the Soviet Union for more than a decade) Kjell Albin Abrahamson, has namned the Russian President Putin - "Gazputin", saying: "With oil and gas, he has succeded, where the Soviet Union - despite having neuclear weapon - failed". Gazputin. --Camptown 09:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gazputin 

message: "On January 10, 2007, Riigikogu passed the War Graves Protection Act, with 66 votes in favor and 6 against[18], initiated by the Estonian Reform Party, Social Democratic Party, Res Publica Party and Isamaaliit Party."
Why does it lists votes and involved parties? If the law was passed then it is for everyone to follow and to indicate that some party made the law has no relevance in this article. 194.204.35.117 09:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as there is no separate article on that Act there is no other place where to put the details. Andres 12:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The details are irrelevant in this article's context.  You're welcome to *make* that separate raticle, though. Digwuren 21:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It may be speculation by its content.  However, it is not a new or independent speculation, and such speculation formed an important basis for considerations of the War Graves Act.  Somebody with confidence in handling parliamentary stenographic records should try to find out the specific quotations for sources, though.  It's a pity TV transmissions of the Parliament are not recorded on the web like ETV news are. Digwuren 11:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this is not POV and not speculation but it needs reference. Andres 12:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It may be appropriate to reduce the speculation to the present municipal government refusing such cooperation.  This is easier to back up, as that has been published in newspapers, and we won't need to dig through the stenographic records. Digwuren 21:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Graves Protection Act 

message: I would suggest to replace the current title to Bronze Soldier of Tallinn removal controversy. This article hardly goes about the statue itself (only a short section about the building and design), but goes about the controversy surrounding the removal of the statue. Sijo Ripa 10:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there is very little on the statue itself - mostly about the controversy. I support splitting the article. --MoRsE 10:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: A vote on this has been held, and unfortunately archived.  The consensus was that it is too early for splitting.  I agree, but I also agree with splitting once the controversy is over, the monument has been fully relocated, and clearer dividing lines can be drawn between the monument as a structure and the controversy around the monument. Digwuren 11:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article may perhaps be renamed when the controversy has settled down a little bit. For the time being, it's probably a good idea to keep the name as it is. result of latest vote, Camptown 14:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would probably support that, too. Digwuren 17:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I never suggested to split the article up, just to rename it... Sijo Ripa 09:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but if you renamed it, another article would certainly be created about the statue itself.  That's where you'll start to get duplication of effort... although, I think it would be prefferable to rename THIS article to "Bronze Soldier of Tallinn controversy" and create a new article for the statue than the other way around.  That way, the outdated information on current events will be in the statue article. Esn 04:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename article proposal

message: Why did the Putin loyalis who were protesting outside the Estonian Embassy disappear only hours after the NATO had demanded the Russian Government to observe the Geneva convention? --Bondkaka 11:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because ambassador Marina Kaljurand had left Moscow. -- Petri Krohn 12:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The russian delegation in estonia stated that they can but they won't call back the наши because they were afraid of the riots in moscow. The early vacation of Marina Kaljurand was good enough "victory" to serve them and to solve the situation peacefully, so they were called back. The vacation lasts only two weeks though. Suva 12:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Not calmed down yet, though, nashists stormed press conference of estonian COnsul in St.Petersburg . Edgar Vares-Barbarus 18:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Наши 

message: I started an article on Dmitri Linter. -- Petri Krohn 12:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest renaming the article to Dmitry Linter which is the correct transribtion of Дмитрий Линтер.  Camptown 14:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you mean by "transribtion"? There are many ways of Romanization_of_Russian. In ISO-9 transliteration Дмитрий  would be "Dmitrij"; other possible ways are "Dmitriĭ" or "Dmitriy". Transcription is another thing, but I think in an encyclopedia, names should be transliterated rather than transcribed. -- On the other hand, if that person has a passport and his name written in it, I can't see any reason for not writing his name as it is written in passport. Lebatsnok 10:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Dmitri Linter is an Estonian citizen and his name is transcribed in his passport etc as Dmitri Linter, not as Dmitry Linter. You don't have to transcribe names already officially written in Latin alphabet. 80.235.55.122 18:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the English transcription Dmitry or possibly Dimitry focuses on the Russian spelling of a Russian name Дмитрий (with its slight y-phonemed "ий"), not of an Estonian transcription of the same Russian name. --Camptown 11:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct. At the same time, e.g. if Dmitri Linter will apply for the U.S. visa, the U.S. Embassy will issue the visa to Dmitri Linter, not to the Dmitry or Dimitry. Also, if Dmitri Linter prefers that his name is transcribed with "y", he always has the right for changing his documents. So far this didn't happen. Differently from Latvia and Lithuania there is no "estofication" of names. 80.235.55.122 11:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's hope that Wikipedia has higher standards than the kids issuing visa ducuments in Tallinn... Camptown 18:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, aren't there quite a few people claiming to be leaders of the "Night Watch" organization? When Í listen to Radio Moskva, several young people who have been arrested by the Estonian police are said to have been Night Watch "leaders". Maybe, this organization applies shared leadership? Interestingly enough, the Наши protesters of Moscow seems pretty "syncronized" with the Night Watch, aren't they? --Camptown 18:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, whoever gets airtime is considered the leader. About synchronization... well, both orgs are ran, eventually, by same people. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 20:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dmitri Linter]] 

message: A number of editors are using great effort to create a section on the German occupation, that keeps appearing and disappearing. The section has not found a proper place, it now interferes with the flow of the text. I do not know if there is really need for including anything about Nazi Germany in the article. I can however think of a few points-of -view the section can illuminate. If you can think of a good reason why the section should stay, please state the POV here. I have no general objection against the section, as long as it is accompaned with the proper ilustration. (As we are talking about Nazis in Estonia, there is but one image.) -- Petri Krohn 13:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not strictly needed, as the positions of both sides are concisely and clearly described in last paragraph of 'Background'. _If_ this gets reintroduced again, I'd say we need to add a paragraph describing Soviet occupation ahead of Nazi invasion as well. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 15:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on German occupation 

message: An unofficial Estonian Scandinavian-style cross design flag has been spotted in recent news reports. How popular is this flag? Camptown 15:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spotted where? Last I remember it was illustrating an op-ed piece about our need to move closer to other nordic countries, and that was 4-5 years ago. Not seen it since. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 15:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a BBC news flash, a man was holding the flag. I think the flag would make a suitable naval ensign. Camptown 18:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Riight, that refreshes my memory somewhat. The article was followed by a few weeks of debating (slow news period) about wherher we should change it, with the eventual consensus being 'why?'. Didn't know some actually got made. Quite possible that some org uses it nowadays. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 20:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternate flag of Estonia 

message: Because of a concern raised a little way above, I think it would be a good idea if people take the time to list translation websites that do a good job of translating these different languages.  That way people who don't speak those languages can check if they really need to.
For Russian, Google translate and babelfish do an acceptable job.  Google is usually easier to read, but it sometimes makes really weird errors (eg. translating a sentence as the exact opposite of what it means) so I recommend checking it against the babelfish translation.
What about Estonian or Finnish, or the other languages?  What are the best translating websites for them? Esn 05:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if there is a page like Google translation or AV Babelfish for Estonian, but the "Institute of the Estonian Language" English-Estonian dictionary is here. And more can be found in the External links section of Estonian language. -- 82.131.29.83 05:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not found any online translators for Finnish, least for Estonian. Now most of the references in the article are to Estonian language articles in Postimees and Eesti Päevaleht. Postimees also has a Russian language version online. Whe should try to find the corrsponding Russian language article to the one referenced, and include both links in the reference. This way monoglot readers can run the article through Babelfish to acces the information. -- Petri Krohn 05:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  From Finnish to English you could use this online translator http://www.translation-guide.com/free_online_translators.php?from=Finnish&to=English, but of course, the translation is not the best one. 80.235.55.122 06:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation websites

message: Is the monument really a good example of socialist realism?  Ignoring the hammer and sickle, I really don't see it.--Pharos 07:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't. But try explaining it to whomever injected that... Edgar Vares-Barbarus 10:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Ghirlandajo makes an interesting point: "It is a rather boring example of Socialist Realism", and, the "mastaba-like structure may be compared to the colossal pedestal for Worker and Kolkhoz Woman. The existence of such architectural appendages does not make architectural terms applicable to the statues in question. The core of the dispute is the statue, not the structure behind it".  --Camptown 10:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not Socialism Realism, its a statue dedicated to the Soviet Liberators Of estonia. M.V.E.i. 17:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting, it doesn't sound that boring... ;) Anyway, do think you could start the article Enn Vetemaa ? --Camptown 17:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Started, futher work needs an Estonian contributor Alex Bakharev 15:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "Stereotypical Estonian" can't be defined so easily, POV. The wall on the background features the hammer and sickle, the primary symbol of the Soviet Union and communism. Alepik 11:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, but you almost need a magnifier to detect the hammer and sickle. It's not a main feature of the monument, and I would guess that the hammer and sickle was added on at a late stage of the design of the monument. --Odengatan 12:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: USSR had other symbols than hammer&sickle combo. The stone halo is a WW2 soviet order. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 16:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely!; the solider even has some decorations on his chest, but these symbols are not prominently featured. As does the soldier not rise his iron fist against the sky, crying for revenge, etc, etc... Camptown 16:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialist realist? 

message: http://www.kalmistud.ee/eng/siselinna_cemetery/introduction as I understand the first grave is from 1916 - Ahsoous 07:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, the site, though, seems currently blocked for foreign internet users. Camptown 10:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be because of ongoing cyber-attacks. 80.235.55.122 11:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If the link is not accessible, here's a copy retrieved today. -- Telempe 16:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that was very helpful! Camptown 16:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: An interesting detail from TV tonight. When the Soviets took over, the monuments and grave markers (from independence war burials) were demolished, with only the original gate remaining. Some years later, the graveyard was once again designated as 'military' and reopened, this time for soviet soldiers. As a result, quite a few locations there have 2 layers of burials - estonians tend to bury their dead deep, ~2 meters, whereas soviet recruits (cheapest menial labor source in USSR) rarely went deeper than 1.20-1.40. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 18:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Defence Forces Cemetery of Tallinn]] The first grave 

message: Some co-editors are pushing wording that "Red Army re-taking Tallinn from Nazi Germany in 1944". Technically it's not correct.  The general withdrawal of German army from Tallinn began on 17 September 1944. I absolutly agree with Irpen, that "they left not on their own volition but because the Red Army was on their shoulders". However, on 18 September 1944, acting President of Estonia Jüri Uluots appointed a new Estonian government led by Otto Tief. The government published the first Riigi Teataja (State Gazette), and over the radio, in English, declared its neutrality in the war. As German forces were evacuating from Tallinn, the Estonian national flag was raised on Pikk Hermann Tower, over the seat of the Estonian government. However, that's true that this government was not recognized by Germans or by the Soviet Union. The Red Army entered Tallinn only on 22 September. So, it's not correct to say, that Red Army re-took Tallinn from Nazi Germany. I think that it would be technically correct and most neutral to say that Red Army re-entered Tallinn on 22 September 1944.80.235.55.122 08:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a standard position conflict in nearly all WWII articles (at least on Eastern Front): liberation vs liberation from Nazi vs taking vs retaking vs entering vs clearing Nazi vs occupation vs ... It is amazing how much time were spent there with so little result. Re-enetring seems a good choice for the arguments above. Personally I would agree to any wording but liberation and occupation Alex Bakharev 01:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: From Russian viewpoint Uluots declaration has minimal importance in grand scale of World War II. But from Estonian viewpoint Uluots declaration was importnant demostration that annexation of Estonia by USSR in 1940 was illegal. Also that has big importnace on Estonian view of Red Army occupation/liberation of Tallinn as it could be said that Tallinn was "liberated" from legal Estonian government. Whole bronze soldier controversy is result of Estonian and Russian different views on WW II history, so I support "re-entered" which is as neutral as possible.--Staberinde 14:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry for not making myselfly clear. If we say "re-taken from Nazi Germany" then we immediately assume with that that Otto Tief government that existed between German and Soviet control was unimportnant which is clearly POV(for reasons that I explained at my previous comment).--Staberinde 20:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There were no serious battles in Tallinn so re-entered works fine. And from Estonian viewpoint Thief government is importnant. And current bronze soldier controversy is very strongly related to Estonian view on WW II so Thief government is completely relevant.--Staberinde 20:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we are talking about Budapest or Berlin, then I would agree with Irpen that "re-takes" is appropriate. However it is a fact that the Nazis vacated Tallinn some three days before the Soviets arrived, therefore "re-enter" is more appropriate. Recall that the Nazis also withdrew from Paris before the allies arrived, and we always talk about the allies re entering Paris, not re-taking it. I also agree with Staberinde that the Tief government is relevant to the Estonian view leading to the Bronze Soldier controversy Martintg 20:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, the Soviets arrived when the german forces had left - they took down the Estonian flag from the parliament building, not Nazi Germany's. Alepik 11:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: September 1944 in Tallinn

message: "The Bronze Soldier is usually referred to as an example of the socialist realism. However, the monument is arguably not a typical example of that style as it violates some important socialist realistic clichés of its time. This is a statue of a stereotypical Estonian - with every effort put to show that he is not Slav - in a Red Army uniform. The soldier does not wear any prominent communist or Soviet symbols. He is not showing triumph of victory or a desire to revenge the dead; nor his love to Stalin and communism, nor people friendship. His weapon is barren on his back and only a burden for him; and he is in a deep sorrow. There is no direct clue to the cause of his sorrow; it could be interpreted as everything from the sorrow about his fallen comrades from Soviet Army, to the sorrow about lost independence. But most significantly: sorrow is not a valid emotion regarding the World War II in the Soviet Union of 1947."
I've noted that this section is continuously deleted by (presumably) Estonian editors for reasons of being "POV". It is, indeed, hard to define perfect truths when it comes to art and artistic styles. But this section is important in order to understand the artistic values of the monument, as it gives new perspectives of a monument that is supposed to be just another tool in the Soviet propaganda; as well as raising justified doubts whether the statue is a just another piece in the social realistic jigsaw. The section should therefore be expanded - not deleted! --Odengatan 08:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The passage refers to statue, not the whole monument. It's POV alright - we can leave (well-sourced) comments on it's artistic merits out until the current controversy is over and the article gets split into the 'monument' and 'controversy' parts. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 09:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My view: the statue sans mastaba is beautiful, and quite fitting for a cemetery where many soldiers from different sides are buried. The 'sorrowful' look was a reason why a separate, appropriately victorious monument was planned not long after this one's unveiling. But Stalin died and it was cut from the to-do list. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 18:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you say here is grounds for expanding the section, not removing it. Do you have a source for the planned "victorious" monument? -- Petri Krohn 01:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The fragment is my talk entry in the "socialist realism?" section above. It is based on some discussion in the livejournal space. I cannot back it up with reliable sources, thus, I obviously agree with the fragment removal (unless you want to attribute it to the "amateur art historian and plastic engineer by trade Alex Bakharev". BTW I am affraid that mastaba comparison is an OR as well Alex Bakharev 00:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed that paragraph.  If you can find any WP:RS for artistic criticism, of course that would be great.--Pharos 04:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prototype and style 

message: Maybe it would be a good idea to split the article into two sections, of which one is about the recent controversy? --Winterus 14:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per recent votes: No, not before May 9. Bondkaka 16:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split