Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn/Archive 7

message: I remember there were lots of accusations raised at one point (see: Talk:Bronze_Soldier_of_Tallinn/Archive_3#Petri_Krohn.27s_weird_manipulations); it looks that the user concerned continues with such 'controversial' practices (to say the least):
*Edit summary, which is inciting hatred: Yes - but it also proves that Estonians are racists, if not Nazis.
*Adding an image to the talk page with the comment “Is this the bus stop that started World War III?” (you hope the war has begun?)
*doing some canvassing with unabashed offensive comments: “defend both the Russian and the neutral point-of-view in this article, againt a horde of agressive and hostile POV pushers from Estonia?” 
Ands so forth. It's time you stopped, because the article (/talk) here is NOT your personal playground, nor is it a place for stimulating hostility. E.J. 07:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, (the comment now on archive page two) what I remember so well (probably because I commented on it then) is his comment that 9th of May celebrations would probably (or in his mind "should"?, taking into account other statements by him) end with Toompea burnt down. -- 82.131.52.22 07:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HANDS OFF PETRI KRON! ))) Beatles Fab Four 07:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: We can hope that - although, last time we had that discussion here, he didn't. Perhaps it is time for Petri to take a short wiki-break. Emotions may start running too high and accusations are flying already. But I must admit that his edit summaries are rather... not nice and his edits seem to push an agenda from time to time. Hopefully this will change without need to involve Wikipedia authorities. DLX 08:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That comment(Yes - but it also proves that Estonians are racists, if not Nazis.) unfortunately demonstrates that other users need to keep eye on neutrality of Petri Krohn's edits.--Staberinde 12:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll probably be labelled as a racist but some of the bias can probably be explained by Petri's russian ancestry. Alepik 16:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Come on guys, Staberinde, DLX and unonimous user from Estonia, you are no better than Petri (I mean non-neutral) Beatles Fab Four 21:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] again

message: Generally one should not read too much into edit summaries. They do not have the same authority as edits in talk pages or articles. Also, they are limited to 200 characters, so the true meaning may not fit into the space.
Regarding this edit summary: One should note it was part of a edit war with a pro-Russian editor. The whole exchange is repeated below:
#renamed section to - →Protest and riots - + photos: Tiblad Tõnismäel 26.04.2007
#what a link with RACIST nickname for non-estonians is doing here?!
#restored link. 1) Excellent set of photograps documents peaceful nature of protest. 2) Caveat clearly states out derogatory nature of page title
#I strongly disagree. It harasses non-estonian readers
#Yes - but it also proves that Estonians are racists, if not Nazis.
#Only few estonians are racists. We shouldn't follow this behavior. Be polite, please!
##ok?
#moved note to refs
Now that I have more than 200 characters available, I will rephrase the comment:
* You User:Beatles Fab Four, as an pro-Russian editor, should forget the insult and support this formulation, as it gives support to the Russian view that many Estonians are racists, even giving credibility the the depiction of Estonians as born again Nazis.
-- Petri Krohn 04:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, your formulation slanders the majority of good Estonians who don't hold the views of a small extremist minority. Should we characterise all Russians by the few Russian neo-Nazi skinheads we occasionally see in the media? Martintg 06:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am getting flak from both sides (I kind of expected it). I do not think I am the one slandering, but the creator of the web page. As for the popularity of the word see this Google search. The word also has an entry in both the Russian (:ru:Тибла) and Estonian (:et:Tibla) Wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn 06:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So what? Your google search shows 145,000 hits for the word "tibla", I get 42 million hits for bitch. Do you have a point? Martintg 07:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I was clearly stupid to expect Petri Krohn to realize his mistake and appologise. But I guess that as all Estonians must be racists then I do not deserve appologise in his view. And now Petri Krohn has openly admitted  that he is pushing anti-Estonian POV and is calling other Russians to follow his lead.--Staberinde 07:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no Russian ancestry, I do not even know the language. As for the dif you provided, it only points to my comment above. What are you trying to prove? -- Petri Krohn 06:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the find.  It answers a few things that have been puzzling me. Digwuren 18:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I do not demand an appology, just I thought it would be good way to calm down situation and show some respect. And I personally will not start RfC(although someone else may). Also I do not think that we need to continue discussing it here at the moment, but I seriously doubt that these remarks will be forgotten. Btw, I do not blame Russian-speaking community, stupididy has never recognized ethnic borders.--Staberinde 07:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit summary 

message: Yes, I did add an image of the grave site to this talk page, to the sections discussing the exact location of the graves and the bus stop. A also took the picture and uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons.
As to the comment/image caption. It has been speculated that this conflict may cause an new Cold War between Russia and the West. One must ask whether the Estonian government was aware of the consequences of its actions. It seems to me that they were aware, and acted partly as a provocation. In the parliamentary elections this was one on their themes, mayby even the deciding factor in the outcome. If this controversy ever leads to war, hot or cold, I hold the Estonian government responsible. -- Petri Krohn 05:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: This section has became very long and probably needs to be copyedited:
# In some cases (eg Serbia) we have a full statement included. I think that statements and reactions should be summarized and provide just the main point(s). Full statements should be avaible through reference links.
#::::Serbia does not not have the full statement. (I wish it had, as that statement best expresses the sentiment of the opposition to the "relocation". -- Petri Krohn 04:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a good time to spin off the political reactions into a separate article.  It's a well-defined part of the main topic and not affected with the need to wait for the dust to settle, as with some other subtopics. Digwuren 18:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Yes, that might be a good idea.  I wouldn't be against such a split. Esn 04:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *I add my support for the split.Of the current article's 103 KB, 35 correspond to the Political reaction section. - Best regards, Ev 19:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Political reactions

message: This article consists 4 pictures of the Bronze Soldier at Tõnismägi, and no pictures at the Cemetery of the Estonian Defence Forces. Do we have any photo of the monument at the new location? Also, probably the coordinates of the new location should be added? 80.235.55.122 17:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know if outside world can access these, but some pictures are available at delfi.ee: 
http://www.delfi.ee/news/paevauudised/eesti/article.php?id=15848451 
http://g.delfi.ee/images/pix/file15851844_Pronkssodur.jpg 
http://g.delfi.ee/images/pix/file15851814_Andrus_Ansipi_lilled_pronkssodurile.jpg 
Other issue is if these pictures can be used in Wikipedia. 194.204.35.117 19:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made photos on 27 May 2007 of the statue on the Cemetery of Defence Forces and at Tõnismägi (without the monument), and released four of them into the public domain and added them to Wikimedia Commons, and added some to the article. Slightly unfortunately, the Bronze Soldier was at a temporary location on the cemetery on that day, and not at its permanent new location (to which it was initially relocated, and to which it will again be moved once the stone structure construction has been completed). But well, at least a something. The photos have proper location coordinates added. Reimgild 23:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos and coordinates

message: Great Patriotic War is a Soviet propaganda notion. It should be replaced in the article by a neutral name.Xx236 09:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Propaganda not, POV yes. Only some ex-USSR countries use the name. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 14:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I also disagree with the notion of it being a Soviet Propaganda notion. If you consider that historically Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812 was known in Russia as the "Patriotic War" it explains the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union being known in Russia as the "Great Patriotic War". There's nothing necessarily there that has anything to do with Soviet Propaganda except that the name was coined by Pravda in the opening days of the conflict, which I personally feel in this case is no different than someone else coining the term "World War II". However I still believe that the use of the name has a relevance to the article. --86.133.142.70 14:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GPW isn't the same as WW2, though - it started with Hitler's invasion of USSR in 1941, as opposed to far earlier dates for WW2. Whatever happened before that, USSR considered 'business as usual'. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 14:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's sort of what I was trying to get at. It's like for Finland, is World War II one war, or really several wars - 2 (or 3 I forget precisely how many) against the Soviet Union then one against Nazi Germany? It's tricky, I think I may stand back from my previous comment. Certainly to the Soviets they were fighting the Great Patriotic War, but in full context all the events took place during or as part of World War II. What I will stand by is that the name is definitely not Soviet Propaganda.--86.133.142.70 20:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: (Offtopic) Yeah, we are very thankful for all the burning and torture that took place here. Fact is that the russian forces wouldn't have gotten anywhere without the trucks supplied by United States nor without the support of United Kingdom. No point in explaining anything to a ignoramus like yourself, though. Alepik 19:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Offtopic) Both arguments are flawed and ignorant. I don't think either are all that helpful either.--86.133.142.70 20:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As someone from a family who fought there for the Red Army, i can tell you it's bullshit. UK was falling appart, USSR was it's last hope. USA gave food, yeah, but it was little if you compare it to how much needed it. The USA weappon was bad, nothing compared to the Soviet. I read a book of someone who fought for the Nazis, and he fought a time both at the Easten and both at the Western front, and he said: "Reletivily to Russians, American don't know how to fight. One Russian is like 10 Americans". Nazis after fighting at the Eastern front only dreames about turning themselves in to the Americans. In the same book the writer told that when they came to Estonia, the Estonians already killed most of the Jews. The name of the book was Tiggers In The Mudd. The whole Europe was turned into slaves by Hittler and worked for him, the Russians were alone, and yet they have won. No one burned nothing to you, you invent yourself stuff that were co-done to you to reduce your shame. Say thankyou that we, as winners didn't delete you, allies of the Nazis, from this planet. M.V.E.i. 20:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The mentioned book: "Tigers in the Mud: The Combat Career of German Panzer Commander Otto Carius", http://www.amazon.com/Tigers-Mud-Commander-Stackpole-Military/dp/0811729117
194.204.35.117 20:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [], Military deaths: Soviet Union (roughly 85% russians) 10.7mln, Germany 5.5mln, US 407 000. You draw the conclusions. Considering the Soviet Army didn't have as many weapons as they had soldiers, that meant many of them fought with their bare hands. Also note the number of jews killed in Estonia, the number is much smaller in comparison to other eastern Europe at that time. Alepik 11:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Great Patriotic War" is a POV notion 

message: The International Centre for Defence Studies (Estonian) has published an overview: 
http://www.icds.ee/index.php?id=3&sub=2&L=1 
194.204.35.117 09:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This (Russian Intafada) is a strange piece of hatred, at least, if nothing more serious. 194.204.35.117 10:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It is also a veritable stash of various kooky conspiracy theories, from anti-banking to the classical Illuminati & Bilderberg stuff.  I'd say that nothing the site says can be used as evidence for anything else that the site has said it. Digwuren 17:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which site? ICDS or "truthseeker"? I had a look at both, and it seems to mee that the ICDS article is based on controlled facts (which may or may not be overinterpreted), but the "truthseeker" article seems to be a hysterical nonsense and contains several obviously wrong statements. Lebatsnok 08:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologise for the confusion.  My comment regarding lack of credibility is about "truthseeker".  ICDS' article looks reputable, though not very in-depth.  But it was a rush job; let's hope a final report will be longer. Digwuren 10:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia’s Involvement in the Tallinn Disturbances 

message: On another important note - about the teargas - the clouds that are seen on some pictures from first night at about 21:30 and clearly in many-many videos, was NOT teargas, as wrongly claimed in multiple Russian press articles !
What was used there was pulverised fire extinguisher, not hazardous to humans.
Only effect is somewhat dirty look, like it is visible in some later pictures of demonstrants.
http://tamrex.struktuur.ee/441
Nor the Estonian riot-police squad or ordinary police have large scale teargas devices, they carry miniature gascanisters on belt. The only massive anti-riot device that were used was two trucks with water cannons, the one used first night broke and second night another was deployed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.65.192.21 (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged use of teargas. 

message: Okay, this article is becoming overly long, and it might well expand well after this upcoming weekend, so:
#Split the article, create one called Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, dealing primarily with the monument and a short reference to the controversy, then another one called Bronze Soldier of Tallinn relocation controversy, dealing with the events leading up to the unrest, the move, the riots and the aftermath.
#Remove the whole section about international response, it does not add anything of value to the article. Or, possibly it can be rewritten into a much shorter paragraph. The only responses that might be worth saving for posterity are the official Russian ones, and the official Estonian, NATO and EU ones. The rest seems just to serve the purpose of saying "Yeah, they are on our side".
#Remove the names from the mass grave section. It is of no interest to the reader knowing the name and rank etc, just that there were Soviet soldiers there and that they were exhumed and relocated as well
#The first "Controversy" paragraph has too many subheaders. The text can be more concentrated. Unnecessarities should be removed. 
These are my five cents. --MoRsE 16:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yes, this is not a discussion forum! The entries here should be about the article, not your personal views on the incident! Remember that this is an encyclopedia and that this article needs to be written from a neutral point of view.--MoRsE 16:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Splitting has been agreed on previously. Though, as per consensus, we should wait with splitting until the promised retribution today (9th May). List of names is already faulty, as it has more names than there were coffins recovered. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 16:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think that the names of the Soviet soldiers should be preserved.  The monument was, after all, built to honor them.  Possibly the names should be moved to a box, like the boxes in the Columbine High School massacre article.  Also, I think we should be really hesitant about making a second article for the controversy.  Sometimes less is more, and the content, if written concisely, is not sufficient in my opinion for two articles.--Pharos 18:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree. Somehow some Estonians do not realize ot try to forget the fact that without efforts of those Soviet (Russian, Uzbek, Georgian, Ukrainin etc., yes, Estonian, too) soldiers their independent Estonia wouldn't exist AT ALL NOW. Names must be mentioned. Beatles Fab Four 18:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You are off the point now, this is not an article to honor the fallen, this is an encyclopedia. And their names etc are completely irrelevant for the description of the events this past weeks. --MoRsE 18:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The names can be added after DNA-testing has confirmed the identities? As I mentioned, the list contains more names than there were burials. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 18:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about the monument itself, not just the events of recent weeks.  And the monument was indeed built to "honor the fallen", so the inclusion of the list is in my opinion entirely appropriate.  As to the content of the list, we should just use whatever WP:RS give.  If the sources don't match the number of burials exhumed recently (I haven't actually checked this), then we should of course also note the discrepancy.--Pharos 19:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some comments 

message: I've removed all discussion of artistic criticism, both the idea that the Bronze Soldier is socialist realist and the idea that it is not.  As far as I can tell, this is an argument among Wikipedians, not art historians.  If someone can find WP:RS of art criticism that deal specifically with the Bronze Soldier I will be very glad to have the information in the article, as this is of course an interesting topic.  But interestingness does not trump the WP:NOR policy.--Pharos 17:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artistic criticism must be sourced 

message: Now that the May 9th has almost passed and certain user unable to disrupt the regular work of Wikipedia for a while - could we please get back to improving the article?
# Shall we split the article as has been repeatedly proposed? Or just rename it to Bronze Soldier Controversy? There are no other internationally known Bronze Soldiers (as far as I know) so removing of Tallinn from the name would have no negative effects.
# Is "Other reaction" section even needed? Perhaps it could be just a collection of links with the same headline?
# As has been proposed by MoRsE - how about keeping just relevant citations in "Political reaction" and move rest to "Other reaction"
# Sections "Ownership" and "Proposed Law on Forbidden Structures" are not really needed or relevant, in my opinion. Same goes for sections "Myths" and "Military foothold over government; excessive secrecy" - first is just one sentence and the other is partially unrefenced and may be POV - in any case, it can be included to "Controversy" section.
# Lead might be both shorter and clearer, but that is just my opinion.
After the status of these things have been decided - and work started on them - I think we should concentrate on finding better (and in English) sources for the article. After that, we should try to re-apply to good article status, perhaps asking for a peer review first. Last time it was very clearly too early to apply for WP:GA, not sure why it was even attempted. And, of course, if the article passes both WP:GA and WP:PR, we can also apply for featured article status - but that is a far future. DLX 19:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I must admit that. I was hoping that after the Beatles-fan was blocked, we could resume normal work, but apparently he is on a dynamic IP (see User_talk:Sandstein#User:Beatles Fab Four). Unless he stops his POV-pushing and edit warring, I don't see that we can avoid asking for article semi-protection again. Also, out of curiosity, does anyone understand the article by Konstantin Sonin like he does (Article: Impossible Symmetry; see  for his version and mine - however, note that blogs are not acceptable sources for Wikipedia, so his version is not valid in any case). DLX 19:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a great article, read it when it came out. Your digest is perfect, whereas BF4's version only displays his immunity to sarcasm. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 23:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving the article 

message: There's this quote in the article:
The idea of relocation was controversial among inhabitants of Estonia. According to the study of the Eesti Päevaleht in March 2007 only 38% of respondents supported the relocation of the monument, while 44% were against the relocation and 18% had not formed opinion on the subject. Relocation of the monument had slightly stronger support from the native Estonian speakers (47% of Estonians in favour of the relocation), while only 10% of the native Russian speakers supported the relocation Eestlased teisaldaks pronkssõduri, venelased mitte Postimees 12 March 2007
Unfortunately, the numbers do not match those given in the article.  First, the article is from April 25, not March 12.  Second, it reports 37% for (not 38%), 49% against (not 44%) and 14% without opinion (not 18%).
Obviously, the summary has gotten mixed up with a wrong source.  Anybody who's more familiar with the history of this passage want to fix it? Digwuren 06:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have corrected the facts to match the source, and provided a more original source (EPL, the newspaper that ordered the poll). I am not aware of how the wrong figures ended up in the article, though. (I have not dug in the article's history on this.) Reimgild 12:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll numbers?

message: Decorated Estonian "Freedom fighter of military merit". What more is known about her? Camptown 08:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, not much else to be found on the interweb. There's more data on Aili as she gave a few interviews, but Ageeda - even though she was more active 'back then' - has remained in background. Her name crops up every now and then in written memoirs of other labor camp prisoners, that's pretty much it - no further details. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 18:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, she is notable enough and I started her article based on all information I could unearth. --Camptown 10:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ageeda Paavel]] 

message: This section was removed for containing inflammatory political discourse completely foreign to the article's subject. Wikipedia talk pages are not a general discussion forum. See WP:TPG. Repeated trolling of this sort may lead to blocks. Sandstein 18:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have no shame do you? Suddenly when i win you delete, i havent seen you deleting what THEY wrote here. Your everywere i am, STOP SPYING ON ME. Anyway, whoever wants the links that proov that Estonians, Lithuenians and Latvians killed Jews more then Germans or anybody else, come to my talk page. M.V.E.i. 20:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you mean by "win", or who "THEY" are. This is an encyclopedia, not a discussion contest. I'm removing another incoherent and irrelevant discussion thread above that appears also to be about who killed more Jews in WWII. Everybody, please keep the discussion on the topic of the article. Sandstein 20:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well i havent seen you blocking the users from the other side of the argumment. As i said, whoever wants to continue this argument may come to my talk page here [here]. But what right did you have to block me for: 1. TAKING PART in an argument with many people. 2. Saying that WHO WANTS to continue the arguments may come to my talk page? So by what i see, you dont want to stop the argument here (Otherwise you would block users from both sides), you just take a side. M.V.E.i. 21:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: (Section removed)

message: I would like to see a section on the DDoS, or Distributed Denial of Service, attacks that occurred at the time of the monument's move. I have read several articles online, but haven't the expertise in either computers or Estonia to post here yet. This development (DDoS attacks) seems relevant, because the moving of the monument has now affected other NATO member countries and the NATO posture toward Russia.
::The Guardian ran an article and lead about those cyberattacks today: article, lead. DLX 09:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's incorrect to say 'occured at the time of the monument's move'. The attacks are still ongoing, and they reached their peak on may 9th (Most massive wave was launched at 00:00 Moscow time). Later assaults have been more targetted, but just as destructive. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 09:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, here's a nice link: http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/archive-052007.html#00001188 Edgar Vares-Barbarus 22:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BBC News: Estonia hit by 'Moscow cyber war'. DLX 06:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks 

message: BTLizard has added the "controversial topic" tag.  Please explain. Digwuren 12:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy? 

message: Beatle Fab Four is trying to push blog links into the article, specifically  and , claiming they're "independent news portals".  Even a cursory browsing of both belies the claim.  Neither appears to be notable.  And finally, it doesn't help at all of the apparently more respectable one of these two, Timely Thoughts, having issued a grand total of 12 articles during its whole existence. I have removed the links; Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Digwuren 19:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tellingly, Timely Thoughts appears to have gone defunct.  This "news source" has not published any new articles in the last two weeks. Digwuren 08:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So what? It expesses the opinion of the opponents. That's enough. News about the event is over, isn't it? It is you who dropped label "current event article", aren't you? Please. don't start edit wars again. Beatle Fab Four 11:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Beatle Fab Four, can you explain your reasoning?--Alexia Death 19:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The external links are out of the article body and came under the title "Opponents of the relocation". These news portals clearly express the opinion of the opponents, and do not contain ads unlike, for instance, link "Support Estonia". The articles are non-anonymous, most of them are written by professional journalists of well-known affiliation. Sources are verifiable. Beatle Fab Four 22:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And finally to clarify:
Link bronze-soldier.com exists at least since April.
Link Timely Thoughts exists since May 9.
DLX dropped these links yesterday.
Therefore, this is not me, who is “trying to push blog links into the article”. These are DLX and Digwuren, who try to purge the article.
Beatle Fab Four 22:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, BFF, I am sick of this bold fascination that you have. Learn to write without using bold. No one is trying to "purge" the article, I noticed yesterday an addition of blog links, which go against WP policies. So I removed them - all pro, against and neutral. For some reason you haven't insisted or tried to reinstate neutral or pro views... are you still claiming to be  holier-then-thou neutral? How about actually letting WP to work normally? Your silly edit warring practically stopped work on this article - that is, work by pro, against and neutral editors. Was that actually what you were/are trying to achieve? DLX 03:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe the inclusion of these links (especially bronze-soldier.com ) is worthwile as they allow to obtain knowledge about the backgrounds of the discussion and the points of view of the concerned parties. To this effect, a link to these sites should remain in the article. Thanks to Beatle Fab Four for reverting the deletion once more.  LHOON 12:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, as per WP:SOAP, and question the notability of these sources.  If you find some particular article especially relevant to the article, linking to it might be considered, but a handwave towards a volatile collection of articles serves no legitimate purpose.  After all, we don't link to  saying "Here, look, nice anti-violence articles here". Digwuren 12:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Digwuren. "Timely Thoughts" is a classical group blog - which therefore doesn't belong to WP, bronze-soldier.com might have a reason to stay, as an example of hate promotion site (for example, see how they try to pass pastor's blessing as something else, . How low can you go?). DLX 12:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, www.bronze-soldier.com will be removed or "(hate site)" will be added to it. I prefer removal because it gets really ugly if people start adding hate sites from both sides, especially as those sites do not even try to be balanced.--Staberinde 15:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Staberinde, first of all, there is nothing personal. I have 2 points to add 1) no one added bronze-soldier.com recently. It was here from the very beginning, then it was dropped by we-all-know-who-is-he 2) Why sites of the opposers or supporters should be balanced? They can't be balanced by definition. I'm not against that sites of supporters are unbalanced. These are just external links anyway. Beatle Fab Four 16:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lord Voldemort edits Wikipedia? Wow, babe, we are going places! DLX 16:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Boy, Wiki is not a place for personal attacks. Beatle Fab Four 16:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And what exactly was personal attack there? And as for "boy", I am 31. You are... what, 19? DLX 16:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Boy, this is a page for discussing the article... Beatle Fab Four 16:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You are wrong there - they are sponsored by Russia. And I must admit I most definitely believe Baltic sources (which are not "sponcoured by any political or govermebtal organization", btw - we have still free media) anytime over Russian and perhaps so should you - see Journalists quit over censorship. And, do remember that Wikipedia is about verifiability and not truth - although in this case, both happen to be the same. DLX 18:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for an amusement - World Press Freedom Index 2006. Estonia is 6th, Latvia 11th, Lithuania 27th. Russia is 147th. DLX 20:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This article is about a current and highly controversial event, so all views on the subject are deemed worthwile and links should be included to places like bronzesoldier.com, which does not mean they are endorsed as such, since they are placed correctly under either opposing or supporting views. This allows visitors to the page to get hold of both viewpoints as well as neutral ones. I write these words from Belgium, with a neutral point of view, although I do have my opinion on the matter which I vented on my blog  (in Dutch - I can summarize it as that it is a good thing the monument was given a dignified place on the cemetery rather than being scrapped which would be very bad since it is part of the Estonian cultural heritage; the socialist-realist Soviet artworks are very worthful indeed, superior to much of the so-called modern "art", and one does not have to be a communist to appreciate them, just as one does not have to be a catholic to appreciate things like the Sistine Chapel; my viewpoint being artistic and not political). But to come back on the focus of this matter, for as long as the discussion goes, all current viewpoints should be allowed, the article being neutral and NPOV, with external links allowed their POV of course. LHOON 21:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which WP:POLICY of Wikipedia prescribes waiving the notability requirement in controversial events? Digwuren 22:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisement 

message: There's an analysis of the monument's political and historical significance and a following discussion in the blog of Mart Laar, a historian and a former prime minister of Estonia, at .  Should this be referred to? Digwuren 12:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:V specifically states that "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.", but also "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Mart Laar is both well-known and professional, so normally I would say 'yes', but after BFF&Co tried to push group blog link into the article, I think we should not go down that road. Probably we should add it to links (not sure if it is "neutral" or "pro") and perhaps see later if there is anything that cannot be cited from other sources. DLX 13:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laar's analysis 

message: New stub, as most sources are in Estonian - all improvements are welcome. --Camptown 09:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ülo Jõgi]] 

message: I believe the sign fits well into the section on 'Echoes'.  Concerns of WP:UNDUE are misplaced, given this context. Digwuren 09:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess nice ad from Estonian newspaper "tibla (Russians) need not apply" will be good to add here too. Could you please add it from ? RJ CG 16:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Timely thoughts" certainly doesn't qualify as a WP:RS.  However, what makes you think this is an 'echo' of the events?  I expect this remark to have been older. Digwuren 18:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The ad was never in any newspaper, it is from the website of Siili Majahooldus, some kind of minor unknown company - see image here. And it was heavily condemned in Estonia and taken down immediately. You shouldn't believe everything from that racist Timely Thoughts blog. DLX 17:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In fact, it's wise to *doubt* everything said by that blog. Digwuren 18:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  It says in Trud.ru that Russian sign had been taken down too "табличка как появилась неожиданно, так и исчезла." Taking into account that newspaper is dated May 5, I assume it is reasonable to say that it had been taken down too. Importance of some restaurant in one Russian city can be discussed too, if you think that weight of hate speech is defined by importance of speaker. I can't understand why Russian derogatory sign should be in Wiki (although none of cited sources contain the posted image) and Estonian derogatory sign should not. RJ CG 18:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every nation can have a single idiot racist posting stupid and rude ads and signs. The difference is in the attitudes of rest of the people. In Estonia the reaction was clearly condemning. Your nation had however a strong support and pride to inherently nasty and racist sign even up to being posted here. You didn't see us flaunting this shameful ad do you?--Alexia Death 19:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'd say it's more significant that the Yaroslavl sign was considered notable enough by several major Russian news agencies, such as lenta.ru, to pick up. Digwuren 22:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Racist sign in Yaroslavl

message: The "See also" section is intended to provide futher reading on the topic, on other topics or on closely related topics. There are thousands of wikipedia articles abolut monuments, cemeteries, racism, hholiganism, etc. This section must point to something directly relevant. I may be wrong, but I fail to see how articles about various cemeteries in Russia and Estonia address the topic of the current article.  `'юзырь:mikka 18:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This particular selection of cemeteries and a monument is not a random listing of some cemeteries; it's a list of the landmarks most often contrasted with the mass grave under the Bronze Soldier.  It belongs to the article for a reason similar of that of the inclusion of Monument of Lihula.  (By the way, I disagree with characterising that one as 'opposite' controversy of the Bronze Soldier, but I appreciate a number of contrasts, and as these contrasts were reported in media (of various kinds), pointing towards them through the See Also section is merited.  The Nashi (Ours) reference deserves more narrative, but the cemeteries in particular probably do not deserve anything more than mere mention; even though they're notable, and so is the comparison, this notability is rather slight. Digwuren 19:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK I now understand the point: Kalamaja cemetery was destructed by Soviets while Soviet graves were moved. If this comparison is made in public, it worth referring in the article. Otherwise just listing in "see also" without any hint why they are listed is a puzzle to solve rather than information to find. `'юзырь:mikka 21:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think :et:Jüri Kuuskemaa, a historian, made the point explicitly in some sort of popular analysis.  Can't recall the circumstances, unfortunately.  Should I stumble upon them, I'll elaborate in the article.  In any case, the media paid much more attention to the comparison with the Khimki case. Digwuren 00:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also" section 

message: This makes Estonia one of the few countries in the world that has a major share of permanent residents without the right to vote in any national elections, domestic or foreign.
-removed false statment, every permanent resident in Estonia has the right to vote in municipal elections http://www.traveldocs.com/ee/govern.htm +such thing like "foreign election" doesn't exist, please specify if needed/* Background */--Termer 09:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy-Background

message: It's very sad that some restaurateur in a provincial capital in Russia put up a racist sign which was taken down a few days later. What makes this information relevant to the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn? It's an example of anti-Estonian sentiment but its inclusion seems to be a bit of a stretch. Perhaps the relevance is asserted in the Russian-language references, but I don't do Cyrillic.
Eleland 14:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sign was generally presented in Russian-language news media and blogs as an echo.  Since this happens to be one of the echoes whose summarisation would be guaranteed to be haunted by accusations of bias, the article includes just the photo and keeps commentary to minimum. Digwuren 15:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of racist sign in "echoes" section 

message: Hello, the use of "mass grave" in the article is inaccurate and not according to the facts. A mass grave refers to a burial sites where multiple people are piled together into one grave, usually without coffins etc. since the buried at the site under discussion had a proper burial ceremony after the WWII, every body had it's own coffin, they were buried separately, there are no basis what so ever to talk about a mass grave in this case. Therefor please have the referring to the "mass grave" removed from the article ASAP and rephrase the relevant entrances according to the facts. 
The fact is, it was a Soviet WWII burial site (-proper), not a mass grave.
Thanks!--Termer 09:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there have been no objections Ive replaced the uses of mass grave with burial site, witch is indeed more accurate.--Alexia Death 14:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: mass grave?