Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn/Archive 8

message: Now that the "international reactions" article has been deleted in an AfD (which I initiated), how shall we proceed? I propose, as I did in my AfD nomination, that we remove all but a few reactions and keep only the most relevant. I suppose other options include keeping them all, or another split, this time along 1947-2007 / 2007- lines. What say you? Biruitorul 01:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reintroduced all the deleted material into the section it was in originally, and express my belief that it is too soon to make a selection.  However, we might consider reintroducing the deleted content in the Appendix namespace. Digwuren 09:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving forward

message: As of now, there are two distinct sections in the article dealing with 'what happened afterwards', the Echoes one and the Epilogue one.  This is intentional: Epilogue is for events regarding the main process of relocation and reburial, Echoes is for events more remotely associated with the topic.  This is possibly not the ideal arrangement, however; proposals of a better approach will be appreciated. Digwuren 00:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable. I have been thinking about the structure, but not come up with anything ingenious. For a while, I thought that the Epilogue could be merged with Events surrounding relocation (the Epilogue being just a chronological continuation of the story of events), but then, on second thought, it seems good to have the "hot" events (those that caught international awareness) in one chapter of their own — Events [immediately] surrounding the relocation — and the Epilogue (like now) separately afterwards. It also emphasizes the fact (that was not known in April/May, but is now) that the "hot" events were an isolated, short-term business, and not the beginning of a lasting chain of events. (Thank God, I might add.) Reimgild 12:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Echoes'' v. ''Epilogue''

message: making a pass on it. most likely I'm going to remove all the political controversies from the header and make it strictly factual. Since there is a section for political controversies, and everything is repeated over there, that should do it as it is necessary to tighten the article up.--Termer 05:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job! Especially your rearrangement of Background, by putting Interpretation of history first, and starting the chapter with the summary of political controversy in 2007 (to tease the reader to read on; OK down here), and also the rewording in Background/Interpretation of history is a major improvement, I think. I was spontaneously alarmed at first, seeing such massive change to the lead section — the lead section shall always be a mini-article on its own, and shall cover all major aspects of the article. Since the controversy is a major aspect in this article (at least now), it need be covered. Over time (I mean years, decades) the particular events in 2007 will fade and the monument (statue) will be central. Maybe some short sentence /fragment/ would be needed in the lead section to hint at controversies. But I support the general idea of moving details (dates of particular steps of the relocation etc.) away from the lead section. It was certainly bold of you to do such a change, and I'm curious what reaction may follow. Spontaneously, though, like I said: Good job! Reimgild 09:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tightening Up

message: "Despite the fact that in 1940 those who had failed to have their passports stamped for voting Estonia into the USSR were allowed to be shot in the back of the head by Soviet tribunals,[36]" - smells POV to me. What does it have to do with Bronze Soldier? Nevermind the source is Time Magazine (Borism 13:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your opinion Borism. Even though the fact of soviet terror in Estonia must be embarrassing to Putin's government of Russia that attempts to whitewash the Soviet history, and for those who believe that they liberated Estonia. This is still a fact and the core of the controversies surrounding the monument. Therefore please stop pushing the political agenda of the current Russian government by altering the facts on WP that are common knowledge in democratic countries anyway. Also, since all the viewpoints are cited in the controversies chapter and thereafter, the article is in compliance with NPOV policies and that should be the end of the discussion--Termer 03:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: Well, it seems like Ilya1166 is not sharing the opinion about it should be done with wikilinks to relevant articles and has chosen to dig deeper into the controversy. Thats also  fine by me, every point has a counter point and these are going to be added. Perhaps it's about time to split up the article, one about the monument and the controversy?--Termer 03:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there really any point to add all Russian accusations of fascism in Estonia to the article, like  has been trying to do? Especially using only Russian/pro-Russian sources (there is a reason why Russia is 147th in World Press Freedom Index. Estonia is 6th). I guess we all know that the accusations are baseless - and although they may merit an article of their own, I don't think they should be included to this article. Sander Säde 07:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: "there's no fear that Russia will invade the Baltics today, especially now that they're part of NATO"
That's not really up to you decide whether there is or is not any chance for that, or whether russia cares about NATO or not. Current status is that they haven't yet tried this, but nobody assures that they won't in future, although it is highly unlikely. Still saying "never" is original research. Suva 15:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Current status is that they haven't yet tried this, but nobody assures that they won't in future? That is like saying Estonia has not yet tried to invade Russia, but nobody can say whether they won't in the future. Do you seriously think that those post-Soviet fears of being invaded by Russia in 1995 are still valid today? Find me a source from the last 3 years where the Baltic are seriously fearful of being invaded by Russia.--Ilya1166 04:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: She is a nobody, it was published in her University newsletter.--Ilya1166 04:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I have to say is NEVER say never. Even saying that Estonia will never invade Russia is pretentious and not neutral. We are not psychic and the future is not yet written .--Alexia Death the Grey 09:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you User:Termer for explaining to us "Kara Brown from Indiana University's" degree. It remains that "Kara Brown" is a nobody with a degree.--Ilya1166 09:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That "nobody with a degree" is still a valid source. Your opinion however is not. --Alexia Death the Grey 09:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to be rude, Alexia, I am not trying to substitute my opinion for hers, nor is it my intention to censor information.--Ilya1166 09:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rudeness not intended. I apologize if I left that impression. I was merely stating a fact to make it clear how pointless this "nobody" talk is.Alexia Death the Grey 10:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Kara Brown had been a student when she wrote this article. See article from 2002  calling her "a Ph. D. Student" and her dissertation from 2007 . So if you want to keep musings of a student in a (supposedly) encyclopedian article, you're free to do it. RJ CG 21:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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

text: In no way is independent researcher and PhD my opponent. What I'd like to have is proof that there has ever been threat of invasion to Baltic States due to problems with minorities. Any official statement from government official that has control over military would suffice (i.e. if Putin said that invasion is possible is fine, but if Zhirinovski said that - it's not fine). Otherwise I'd suggest such speculation be removed. Borism 08:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Never culminated" 

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

message: Time to split off into a separate article? Seems like an ongoing phenomenon and worthy of an article in it's own right. Martintg 20:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently I am opposing this split on a very simple ground. Those aren't so much "accusations of Nazism in present-day Estonia" but "accusations of glorification of Nazi past" at this point. I provided sources number of times, but idea did not seem to sink in among Estonian editors. I would like to avoid edit warring over the name and therefore think split should be postponed until somebody manages (1) to translate Russian accusations correctly and in the same time (2) to avoid tendency of Estonian editors to present Russian POV through comments of Estonian political elites. Impossible task, I know. RJ CG 22:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's call the article Russian accusations of Estonian glorification of the Nazis, we can always change the title later, the main thing is the content. You could translate these Russian articles, or at least give a synopsis, couldn't you? I don't get your second point, don't Russian editors also present the Russian POV through the comments of Russian political elites too. NPOV isn't about excluding one view, but presenting both views. I'm sure you and your compatriots could easily balance up anything these Estonian editors could come up with. Martintg 23:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, the part about accusations of glorification of Nazi collaboration does not belong here, not to say that terminology "collaborating" is biased. The word Collaboration is used to describe a part of a resisting nation that collaborates with the invaders. It is those who welcomed the Soviets were collaborators if you stick to the true meaning of the word. Besides what other off-topic subjects should be included: Accusations of satan worshipping? What does it have to do with the monument? I tagged the section NPOV.--Hillock65 03:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I have to completely agree with Digwuren's  tags. There are appropriate places to place the information (or simply link to appropriate article). This article has morphed into another "let us explain the complete history of...". It requires major pruning. Not to gnash teeth, whatever is pruned will be available in prior history... —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 18:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed. Lets stop it. any further addition of irrelevant text to the article should be interpreted as WP:Vandalism under Excessive lengthening Adding copious repetitive or meaningless content to a page and should be reverted ASAP. I'd suggest going back to the last stable stage of the article and taking it from there--Termer 21:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. On reflection this whole "Background" section, apart from the "interpretation of history" part, really constitutes WP:OR, we don't really know if things mentioned in the background section really contributed to the events surrounding the Bronze Soldier events. I vote we should remove this section as irrelevant. Martintg 05:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I support the removal of this section. If anyone finds some encyclopedic information in it, it could be merged somewhere else. Definitely not here. It is definitely synthesis, and incorrect one at that aswell. The citizenship issues and other stuff mentioned there is not what contributed to the events. Unfortunately correct reasons can't really be ever mentioned in wikipedia, because they have snowball chance in hell to survive on a page. Suva 16:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I also support moving most "Background", except the "Interpretation of history" part, to a separate article (as has been done already). Even though I myself had a part in the structuring of the "citizenship" and "language" parts, I felt already early on that "it is not really obvious that these things are a background to the Bronze Soldier events; they are only things that are often mentioned in general discussions about Russia's views regarding Estonia". Martintg and Suva put it very right above, identifying it as WP:OR — the things (citizenship, language) mentioned themselves, one by one, are not WP:OR, but the act of listing them in Background to Bronze Soldier events is. Different interpretation of history, on the other hand, is the core background of the controversy. Reimgild 15:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statue and movement thereof? And direct reactions to? 

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

message: all the irrelevant stuff from here is headed to Estonia-Russia relations#Controversies for now. Hope everybody is happy with it.--Termer 23:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have continued this work. User:Ilya1166, Nothing is deleted, its just moved into an article where it belongs and linked.--Alexia Death the Grey 09:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies

message: I would point out that the claim removed in  is not only a case of WP:TE, but also factually wrong.  Thanks to Martintg for catching it. Digwuren 22:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed it too, thanks for taking care of it!--Termer 01:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent tedious editing by [[User:RJ CG|RJ CG]] 

message: Ok, here goes.  Original:  by Paavo Kangur, a journalist of Kroonika -- the leading yellow weekly magazine of Estonia.  The title of the story is "Blueprints of gas chambers are almost ready".
Translation notes: yes, this is how the article deals with supposed direct speech and "etc.".  The 'six beers' refers to a song popularised by the scandalous singer and politician Aivar Riisalu.  'People's self-defence' is a humorous radio programme reviewing recent political events by the two humorists mentioned; somewhat comparable with The Daily Show in its genre, but the humour is of a different kind.  "The fucker of Paris" is an exact translation of Pariisi keppija, with all the relevant connotations. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 14:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a sidenote, to balance the article we should add something from Andrus Kivirähk as he has written quite some articles on that topic. Suva Чего? 14:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a side-sidenote, Andrus Kivirähk is, indeed, the creator of the well-known grotesque character of Ivan Orav, who, by the way, is responsible for popularisation of the word 'tibla' among post-Soviet occupation Estonians. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 15:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a side-side-sidenote why don't we have article on the notable Estonian social analyst Andrus Kivirähk yet? :) Suva Чего? 15:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would have gotten to him by now, had I not been forced to fight ridiculous battles on the Wikipedia. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 15:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OMG, you were forced to fight! It's case for a European Court of Human Rights for sure! (Borism 18:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The joke ''The Cartel'' wants in the article