Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 →

Contents

Soviet victory over...

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)

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)
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)
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)
The Knievo-Soviet War is too often forgotten in history. Anyway, this article says "nazi germany" [1]--NEMT 04:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Criminal element among "protesters"

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)

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)
They're still a gang of criminals. --NEMT 21:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
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).

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)
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)
Please find a source about that - should be definitely included to the article. DLX 05:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

“Disproportionate use of force?”

Quoting the article: International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights: "According to media reports as well as reports received by the IHF, police in some cases used disproportionate force against riot participants. - Could anyone specify, which media reports did the Federation use as sources? Russia Today, NTV? Estonian Television? E.J. 16:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The writing genre is clearly artful, not documentative, which has raised concerns of mixing fact with fiction in this account. Unfortunately, it means this account can not be used as a proper source. Digwuren 19:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
-BStarky 19:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

International responce

USA official press statement related press conference transcript

“ We welcome President Ilves' call today for reconciliation among Estonia's citizens and for dialogue between Estonians and Russians. ”

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)

State Dept's phone number is 202-647-4000. Enjoy. Ethnonazi 23:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The USA supports actions of Estonian authorities, you said? It's normal. What else one could expect from the country with ~ 350 years of history, based on violence Sea diver 06:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please consider protecting section 6 "Political reaction" of the main article due to frequent vandalizing by unregistered users. I think I have exhausted 3rv rule already. See reverts made by me and other users.--Bete 16:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Causality and secrecy

The Estonian side seems to be pushing two (non-factual) POVs that contradict each other. The first is, that there were originally no plans to remove/relocate/demolish the memorial, only to conduct excavations. The lead now states:

“ In April 2007, work was began to exhume the graves for reburial at a military graveyard. A number of people saw it as a danger to the monument, and as a possible final preparation in removing it, and several protest pickets were held in support of the monument on April 26. On the evening after the pro-monument demonstration, the worst rioting Estonia has seen ensued, and early next morning, a crisis meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers decided to relocate the statue immediately for security purposes... ”

The above clearly tries to imply, that the removal was a response to the riots and the security threat. At the same time, the same editors claim that there was no (state) secrecy around the plans, and everything (except for a detailed timeline) could be freely read from the Estonian press. Both of these views cannot be true at the same time.

It seems clear to me that plans for the removal had been done in secrecy well in advance, without consulting Estonia's Russian minority. Suggesting some kind of a causality beween the the riots and removal is a blatant lie, and political propaganda by the Estonian government. -- Petri Krohn 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You're incorrect. The _plan_ for relocation lead to _riots_ which lead to faster than planned _relocation_. Ethnonazi 23:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
There have been general plans to relocate the monument since about the last winter. However, the *work* that was begun in April 2007 involved only archaeological digs, to check on the hypothesis that war graves were under the monument. This was important to establish the legal classification of the monument: if war graves would be found, it would be a grave marker, and would be relocated to a graveyard once reburial of the war victims was completed; if war graves would not be found, it would be a political art ensemble and would be relocated to a museum. The rules for the archaeological investigation, as well as detailed handling of the first scenario, are detailed in the War Graves Act.
However, rioting broke out. One of the security concerns was that the rioters could damage the monument, and this was considered unacceptable. Factoring this and other considerations, the Security Council advised the Government to remove the statue; the Government held a crisis meeting, and agreed. It was published in an early morning press release shortly afterwards (which meant that the release was too late for newspapers of the day, but it was covered in early morning TV news and, of course, the newspaper's Internet editions), and a few hours later, the monument's relocation was confirmed complete. As by that time, it was still not yet clear whether war graves would be found (the first digging attempts having yielded no graves; also, monument's removal required vehicle access, which disrupted digging), the monument was not moved straight to a graveyard but first, to an undisclosed workshop.
When first confirmations of war graves were reported, work was commenced on reinstalling the statue on the military cemetery; the mastaba could not be reerected without a proper concrete foundation due to its weight, and works on getting the mastaba back were postponed to after the May 8-9 celebrations, mainly out of aesthetical considerations for the look of the monument's new environment during the celebrations. The mastaba consisted of calcium-cemented dolomite and was not hollow, which means that not only pouring the new foundation but also relaying the mastaba will take more time than the few days that were left between end of April and May 8. Digwuren 11:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There now appear to be signs that the claims of secrecy are not entirely baseless, but not through any actions by the Government of Estonia. Instead, there are signs that several important tidbits, such as the intent to relocate, not just tear down, the monument, were not duly published in a number of Russian-language newspapers, even though they were widely covered in Estonian-language newspapers; thus, it is not unreasonable to expect that many ethnic Russians would not have had access to those tidbits in advance, and would believe they had been secret once they learnt of them. If confirmed, this should probably be documented in the article. I think it ties to the Language Divide issue slightly explained in Bronze Soldier of Tallinn#Background, and interacts with Bronze Soldier of Tallinn#Pro-rioter propaganda. Digwuren 22:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me In what country aren't the topics discussed in security council a State secret? This tidbit Is totally irrelevant in this context as in the article cited. It was a stamp response of a press bureau to an inquiry, the same response that would be given on questions of any other security council meeting, nothing more. --Alexia Death 09:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant?

'Estonian support for Nazi Germany'

'Also, many Estonians tend to regard the Nazi occupation as less harmful for Estonia than the Soviet one, in terms of human loss, violence, economic destruction etc.[citation needed] This, and the fact that during WW2 Estonians were conscripted to the Waffen-SS (notably the 20th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Estonian) as well as to the 8th Estonian Rifle Corps of the Soviet Army, has led to accusations of pro-Nazi (or fascist) sentiments among Estonians.'

First, the headline is POV, designed to draw attention in TOC. Secondly, the 'Background' section presents both sides' positions and grounds thereof cealry and concisely, hence this snippet is unneeded fluff. Thirdly, it's logically faulty: 'Estonians were conscripted by one side as well as other side, leading to accusations of them being partial to one side'. Hmm? Ethnonazi 23:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I removed that section, it was all irrelevant, POV and unsourced. DLX 05:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not entirely agree. The headline was, indeed, POV. However, the view of Estonians as die-hard Nazi supporters and adherents to fascist policies is an important issue regarding the monument's fate in minds of a number of people, and the view was also a major thread in the surrounding propaganda campaigns. Hence, the background of these claims, and the misconception that military (forced) allegiance means sharing political views, should probably be briefly explained. Unfortunately, I lack proper understanding of the full background, so I won't be doing that.
I do agree, however, that the section as it stood was unserviceable, and I believe it's a good thing it was removed until a better section would be written. Digwuren 11:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Gazputin

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)

New intro

I think we should create new intro which should start with the information about what and where the bronze soldier currently is, not what it was. The history part should ofcourse be mentioned, but it is quite POV to start with it as if the statue was demolished. Also the main image should be replaced with the current one. Estonia will never return the statue to it's previous place, so we should get over it. Suva 09:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget, though, that the article is about a monument and a mass grave, and not just the bronze sculpture. Camptown 10:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not yet time to declare that the monument is on its new location. The mastaba has not yet been relocated, and the war victims have not yet been reburied. Furthermore, the statue's former location is still politically important. In an important sense, the statue standing alone in its new location is just a pictographical sign: "The monument will be here.".
I will support stating the new location as primary after June. Digwuren 11:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is about the Soviet war memorial and its symbolic meaning to Russian and Estonian people. Any information to the relocated bronze statue can go to Defence Forces Cemetery of Tallinn. -- Petri Krohn 02:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

War Graves Protection Act

"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)

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)
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)

Following paragraph is a POV and speculation: "Another effect of the law was that it placed all war graves under the jurisdiction of the Estonian Ministry of Defence. Tõnismägi being city land, municipal cooperation would have been necessary for exhumation and/or monument removal without such legislation. As Estonian non-citizens are allowed to vote in municipal elections and are largely in support of retaining the statue, the City Council of Tallinn has a large Russian representation; any approval was unlikely in the foreseeable future. The law eliminated the need to negotiate with the municipal government for war grave related business — specifically, exhumation of the buried bodies and, if the corpses would be found, relocation of the monument which would then be considered a grave marker." 194.204.35.117 10:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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)
I think this is not POV and not speculation but it needs reference. Andres 12:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
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)

Rename article proposal

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)

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)
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)
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)
I would probably support that, too. Digwuren 17:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we keep this article under the present name and split off / start a new article under Russian - Estonian diplomatic controversy or Russian - EU diplomatic controversy (or something similar). -- Petri Krohn 16:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose: I vote for keeping all information in one place until things slow down. If we split it up now, with edits happening every few minutes, what we'll get will be two or more articles with similar information, some of which will always be out of date. Somebody aready tried to split this article up, and the resulting article is likely to be deleted for the abovementioned reasons. As for the above suggestion, figuring out where the "statue controversy/riots" ends and the "diplomatic controversy" begins is far, far worse a task than separating "statue" from "statue controversy", and likely to result in even more confusion. So at the moment, I think we should keep everything in one place until things cool down. A few weeks, perhaps. Esn 07:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I never suggested to split the article up, just to rename it... Sijo Ripa 09:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
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)

Inappropriate use of "Russian" instead of "Soviet"

"It is also seen as a symbol of mass murder and deportation of Estonians by Russian occupation forces in 1949, when around 20,000 innocent Estonians were deported to Siberia to the GULAG."

I think one should should change "Russian" to "Soviet" because it happened in the time of Soviet Union. Otherwise, one can assume that only ethnic Russians deported ethnic Estonians, which is obviously untrue. I would also mention that Russians have suffered from the Soviet rule in much greater proportion.

I agree, it should be changed in places where Soviet is appropriate. DLX 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, but it probably needs some explanation.
This sentence explains feelings of the Estonian population. In feeling of many, many Estonians, the occupation was performed by "Russians", not a widespread coalition of "Soviet states". Hence, it is correct to say that many Estonians see the monument as a symbol of Russian occupation, even if technically, the occupation was performed by the USSR, not Russia.
Furthermore, "Russia" and "Soviet Union" are frequently used synonymously in Estonian political discourse, similarly to how in Russian political discourse, the Nazis are invariably called "fascists".
Perhaps, something like "... seen as a symbol of mass murder and forced deportation of Estonians by Russian (see USSR) occupation forces ..." would be a good wording. Digwuren 17:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Side note: The Russian Federation is a successor of USSR, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.204.35.117 (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
As are a whole bunch of other countries, some of which have preserved the Soviet system to a much greater extent than Russia has. No, I vote for changing to "Soviet", but with a note beside it that many Estonians see "Soviet" as synonymous with "Russian". And THAT statement would have to be sourced, of course. Esn 07:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, I could find only one case of "Russian" being used instead of "Soviet", and I've changed it (see this edit). Esn 07:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:V

Most en.Wikipedians, including myself, do not speak Russian or Estonian. Citing Russian or Estonian sources endangers WP:V, as it is impossible for contributors to verify these sources. Especially, in controversial events, non-involved contributors could increase the NPOV. Considering the worldwide media attention to this controversy, I think it should be possible to replace most non-English sources with English language sources. Sijo Ripa 09:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with finding English sources. I am afraid, that we must go mostly with current sources, as English sources tend to give just overview and not to go into detail. Also, with Russian sources, it is possible to use Google Translate to translate them into English - but of course we cannot refer/cite to them like that. DLX 10:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
And using Finnish sources is even worse, because no one can check them also citing some back water Finnish news paper you can confirm or removing anything since the vas majority of Finns will go above and beyond to paint any form of Russian in any shape in a bad way And it does not fit with Credible sources since the only reason THE ONLY REASON it exists is to diss Russians in any way shape or form. "but also their claim to rights in Estonia" is nothing but Finnish propaganda spewed on by anti Russo people who only want ONLY want to kill all Russians and paint them in a bad light RUSIIA HAS NO CLAIMS TO ESTONIA, the sentence is nothing but anti Russo propaganda by an anta Russo person which he found in an anti Russo paper in an anti Russo country and the source is not in English Soliddoes 10:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see Sources in languages other than English. Besides, there are several editors here who speak/read Finnish just fine, including myself. Also, don't claim that they are in any way things like "vas majority of Finns will go above and beyond to paint any form of Russian in any shape in a bad way", unless you can back your claim with valid source, because right now you are spreading hatred and prejudice. If you cannot stop it, please leave Wikipedia. I can promise, that Finnish source will be replaces with English as soon as source can be found - however, as of now Finnish source will have to be reinstated, because as a source it is better then no source. Stop removing perfectly valid source, please. DLX 11:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The most important thing where did the article creator get his facts from did he make a poll in Russia Polling all 140 million people and asking them OR did he just write what he FEELS like and his PERSONAL view and what he FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELS like and not based on a real scientific research, where are the hard facts that PROVE that the MAJORITY of RUSSIANS believe that they have claims to Estonia and that the STAUE symbolizes those claims, where are the scientific polls that prove that the MAJORITY of the 140 million believe that the statue is a symbol of their so called claims to Estonia and where are the scientific polls that prove that they believe that they have any claims to Estonia? Please stop adding false lies that are not based on any scientific research and I would urge you to read the link you yourself just posted because it clearly says to use reliable sources and not just what one person in one country that happens to write for a news paper thinks. Soliddoes 11:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Only Russian government could conduct such a large-scale and expensive research in Russia (considering the massive area Russia has). But I kinda doubt they would. --82.131.58.134 17:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
You have violated WP:3RR rule and various other Wikipedia guidelines. As you are new to Wikipedia, I will refrain from reporting you at this time, but please stop now. DLX 11:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Your assumptions on the bias of the Finnish language source are totally wrong. You may be right that Finnish sources are generally anti-Russian. This article is one of the few exceptions. I am not going to translate for you the article, but I will give you a summary of the comments it has generated on the web page.
Of the five commentors, two are threatening to cancel this subscriptions, not only to Taloussanomat, but to all of Sanoma WSOY magazines and newspapers. Two are calling for all Russians in Estonia to be sent "back to Russia". All seem to be outraged by the pro-Russian tone of the article. -- Petri Krohn 11:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. As to the article and its content: The article is published in Taloussanomat, one of the two leading business papers in Finland. (The other being Kauppalehti.) It is published by Sanoma WSOY, Finland's largerst and one of Europe's leading magazine publishers. The Article is titled "Russains Saying Farewell to Bronze Statue". It is an interview of members of Nochnoy Dozor done at the memorial the night before its demoli relocation. The one of the people intervied is German Katkowski; he says that there is no worse way to insult the minority, than to tamper with the statue. He adds that moving the statue is the worst way imaginable to hurt him personally. Artur (refuses to give last name) of Jewish - Estonian backgound says that for Estonia there is no way more effective in informing the minority population, that they have no rights in Estonia. Larissa is saying farewell to the statue because she has no trust in the promise of the Government of Estonia to reassemble the statue at the Military Cemetery in Pirita. -- Petri Krohn 11:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Shows what she knows, Pirita is on the other side of town from the militaqry cemetery. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 15:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree with Sijo Ripa. Right now the article is hardly verifiable for me. Hopefully, when the controversy dies out, the content gets cleaned up (it happened this way with many Wikipedia articles on current events).Yury Petrachenko 07:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why this Taloussanomat article is referred to at all in the description of the background, as it is only an interview of a handful of people with a question "How do you feel right now?" (see Krohn's translation). I have seen an article where this "but also their claim to rights in Estonia" appears (the phrase was not in its direct form in this article), but the content of the phrase was not a claim of Russia on territory or anything such, but rather equal rights to the ethnic Russian minority with the ethnic Estonians. Unfortunately, I cannot remeber the paper, but I guess it was Aamulehti. My suggestion is to replace this reference with something that really sheds light on the background.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.197.149.114 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 7 May 2007

Наши

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)

Because ambassador Marina Kaljurand had left Moscow. -- Petri Krohn 12:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
Not calmed down yet, though, nashists stormed press conference of estonian COnsul in St.Petersburg [2]. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 18:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

POV-ness and relevnace of Linter story

On the night of April 27 Dmitri Linter was at home keeping multiple contacts with the press [1] still, according to his wife , Marina Linter[2], he was arrested by unknown people, some in uniform of Estonian police. After two hours after his detention Linter appeared in the Mustamäe hospital under an intravenous line. After arrival of his family Linter in unconscious state was moved by police in an undisclosed location and on the next day his arrest was officially announced. Despite all the pleas of his wife neither Linter's location nor his state of health were revealed [2]. On the other hand according to representatives of the prosecutor-general’s office of Estonia, it was part of an "ordinary investigation." "The content of the interrogation and the testimony are not made public in such cases in the interests of the investigation" [3]

Looks like POV psuhhing and IRRELEVANT to this story. It has Nothing to to with the soldier at all except the fact of arrest witch was already mentioned, and I cant verify the sources since they are ALL in russian. Belongs to an article about Linter, if not rejected as POV.--Alexia Death 12:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Well the phrase as it stated now alleges that there is something unusual in request to meet this activist. On the other hand, bearing in mind that his wife a Russian citizens feels internet with her pleas for any information about the health of her husband the demand to check the conditions of the guy appears to be reasonable (unlike some other demands of the Duma group). There are quite a number of automatic translators from Russian (unlike Estonian, BTW) so reading online sources should not be very difficult. Anyway, since there is now an article about Linter I would try to shorten the text Alex Bakharev 13:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Please do keep in mind that throughout this conflict Russian media has shown his disregard for telling the truth. Im not saying anything concrete because I have no time to investigate this right now, but still --Alexia Death 13:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
It's simply false. Even ITAR-TASS reports [3] that Linter was detained on 28th _after_ 2 nights of rioting. Recommend deletion of whole paragraph as based on false information. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 14:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I commented out the details about Linter's arrest until some non-Russian sources can be found. Left a comment as well:

There are no non-Russian sources verifying this. Considering that otherwise Estonian newspapers have followed arrest of Linter very closely and reported every detail, I am commenting this our until more sources can be found. Please don't uncomment unless you have non-Russian (or derived from them) source for this.

The claim that he was "taken from the Mustamäe hospital been under an intravenous line is a lie, he was taken to the hospital because he claimed to have "various ills", he was given a full medical and declared healthy (http://www.postimees.ee/280407/esileht/siseuudised/257797.php).
I recommend doing the same - ie. commenting out - on Dmitri Linter as well as not reliably sourced. DLX 15:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The Finnish Aamulehti reference was created at 20:21 (updated 22:22) on April 28. Either Linter was arrested on April 27, or we have very fast reporting. -- Petri Krohn 01:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Second option. Estonian media reported the arrest on evening of 28th as having taken place 'today' [4]. However, his apartment was searched on 27th already [5]. Chancellor of Justice visited detained Linter on 29th, reporting he didn't lodge any complaints. Quoting chancellor 'Linter was in similar cell to other detainees, he had no complaints about the conditions of his detention nor use of excessive force during it' [6]. Edgar Vares-Barbarus 09:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Dmitri Linter

I started an article on Dmitri Linter. -- Petri Krohn 12:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - We would need the Russian spelling of the name. -- Petri Krohn 13:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest renaming the article to Dmitry Linter which is the correct transribtion of Дмитрий Линтер. Camptown 14:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Let's hope that Wikipedia has higher standards than the kids issuing visa ducuments in Tallinn... Camptown 18:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)

Section on German occupation

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)

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)

Alternate flag of Estonia

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)

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)
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)
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)

Translation websites

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)

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)
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)
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)

Socialist realist?

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)

It isn't. But try explaining it to whomever injected that... Edgar Vares-Barbarus 10:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)

Well, every officially accepted by the Soviet officials piece of art created in the Soviet Union since 1930ies was automatically labelled socialist realism. Any other ism automatically meant that it is some sort of an underground or forbidden art. The Bronze Soldier was created in the SU afte in 1947 and was obviously officially accepted, ergo it is a socialist realism. On the other hand if we assume that socialist realism is an art movement with some principles then the Bronze Soldier is obviously not socialist realism.

This is a statue of a stereotypical Estonian (with every effort put to show that he is not Slav) in a Red Army uniform put against a stylized old fortress wall (might be the walls of Olde Tallinn or historical Estonia in general). The soldier is in a deep sorrow. There is no clue what he is sorrow about. You can put everything from the sorrow about his dead multinational comrades from Soviet Army to the sorrow about the lost independence. The Sorrow was a valid emotion regarding the WWII in 1947 (later since Khrushchev Thaw it would become a common place but in 1947 it was not). The soldier does not prominent communist or Soviet symbols on him. He is not showing triumph of Victory, no 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... Sorry but for 1947 Soviet Union it was an absolutely outrageous violation of Socialist Realism cliches. In 1949-1953 it would send the author to GULAG. In 1960ies it would be a brave novation. In 1980ies it might be a common place.

In the days of my youth Estonian writer Enn Vetemaa (shame on all us that he is a red link) was hugely popular in Saint Petersburg - in Russian translations obviously. He had a novel The Monument about a young Estonian sculptor designing a monument to WW2 dead. The monument cannot be the Bronze Soldier but all the problems and compromises of the hero are applicable to the Bronze Soldier. Alex Bakharev 13:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Defence Forces Cemetery of Tallinn The first grave

http://www.kalmistud.ee/eng/siselinna_cemetery/introduction as I understand the first grave is from 1916 - Ahsoous 07:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, the site, though, seems currently blocked for foreign internet users. Camptown 10:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Could be because of ongoing cyber-attacks. 80.235.55.122 11:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
If the link is not accessible, here's a copy retrieved today. -- Telempe 16:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that was very helpful! Camptown 16:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
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)

September 1944 in Tallinn

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)

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)

I did not use "liberation", but just vague "re-entered" makes an impression of a sleepy army wondering around Europe "entering" cities like a drunk man roaming the neighborhood "entering" houses with no purpose. The territory was a theater of war between Nazi Germany and the USSR. As the Soviets were on offensive, the Nazis were on the run. That's how this happened, so "re-taken from Nazi Germany" applies. We take no position on Uluots' declaration and legitimacy. In any case his power was a token one (again for the reasons that belong to other articles.) Two major forces were in struggle for the domination over the Eastern Europe and at the time of these events one of them was successful in returning what it earlier lost to another back under its control. --Irpen 02:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Where do you see anyone pushing for "liberated"? "Re-entered" simply lacks clarity. "Re-taken" is much more contextual. --Irpen 19:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

The existence of Tief's government was important for the History of Estonia where it belongs but not in every article left and right. This article is about the war memorial. We are talking about the moments of military history that brought about the monument. "Re-entered" in this respect is totally misrepresenting the history. Red Army was not wondering the Eastern Europe in semi-comatose entering cities here and there. It pushed out the Nazi forces retaking the control of the USSR pre-war territory. The details indeed belong elsewhere, including the government of Otto Tief. --Irpen 20:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

Prototype and style

"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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Split

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)

Per recent votes: No, not before May 9. Bondkaka 16:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)