Misplaced Pages

Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:17, 1 May 2007 editDigwuren (talk | contribs)11,308 edits →Estonias Independency← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:07, 12 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,264,274 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 7 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 5 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Soviet Union}}, {{WikiProject Estonia}}, {{WikiProject Russia}}, {{WikiProject Architecture}}, {{WikiProject Visual arts}}. Remove 6 deprecated parameters: b1, b2, b3, b4, b5, b6. Keep 1 different rating in {{WikiProject Death}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProjectBanners
{{ArticleHistory
|1={{WPSU}}
|action1=GAN
|2={{WikiProject Estonia}}
|action1date=1 May 2007
|3={{WikiProject Russian History}}
|action1result=not listed
|4={{WikiProject Russia|class=B|importance=mid}}
|action1oldid=127554701
|5={{architecture|class=B|importance=mid}}
}}
{{talkheader}}


|action2=PR
{{FailedGA|oldid=127323500}}
|action2date=21:42, 16 July 2007
{{Archive box|] ]}}
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Bronze Soldier of Tallinn/archive1
|action2result=reviewed
|action2oldid=145073097


|currentstatus=FGAN
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Estonia|importance=Mid }}
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=Mid|mil=yes|hist=yes|pol=yes|art=yes}}
{{WikiProject Architecture|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Visual arts|public-art=yes}}
{{WikiProject Death|class=C|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|b1=n|b2=n|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|Memorials=yes|WWII=y|Russian=y|Baltic=y}}
}}
{{Archives|small=no|auto=long}}


==Bronze Night==
==Splitting the article?==
Is it just me or is there a tendency to call the happenings surrounding the relocation of the statue the Bronze Night? So why don't we move forward with splitting up the article, make one about the statue and another about the Bronze Night?--] 01:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Some people have decided to split the article, without consulting anyone here; see ]. If there is indeed support for this, I suggest that most of the information from this article be ''moved'' there, rather than simply duplicated. For example, all of the international reactions, and the explanations for the controversy, should be on that page rather than on this one. The only thing on ''this'' page about the incidents which began this year should be a very short paragraph and a link to that page.
: I think time is ready for that. Although you have to make sure the scope won't leave out following events and propaganda waves, or we need three articles instead. ] <small>]</small> 10:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That's assuming that there is indeed support for the move. Currently, all it's creating is two articles with similar information that's updated at different rates. ] 07:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

:'''Oppose:''' I see no reason for the split. At the moment the new article just mirrors information here. If/when there are more riots, then the article can be re-created. There was some small talk about it in edit summaries, I think - and did you check ]? ] 07:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

:'''Support:''' It has been already done in . Let the unrest be in a separate article. My opinion is the same as Telempe's. ] 08:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

::It may be, than on Estonian wikipedia, the split is done to push a POV: the unrest is presented as acts of ] by drunken ]s, without any political content. In the end we may have to create a page on ]. Right now we are not there yet. -- ] 13:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

:'''Strong Oppose:''' That article is just a duplication and very confusing. We now have a situation with updates taking place on two different articles covering the same topic. Important developments are expected within the next few days. Let this article be the sole and only article for that. ] 08:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

::'''Already voted:''' To all of you opposers: you do realise that having only one article decreases possibilities covering the unrest (e.g. Claims of police brutality, external links to more info on looting and so on). -- ] 08:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

:::I think Telempe has good point. But right now that article is a complete disaster, and totally misses the point. For example: It doesn't deal with the background of the riots, and it actually implies that the international reaction is focused on the riots, and not the political controversy (more violent riots take place on a regular basis without any statesman rising an eyebrow). Although, it may have been created with a good intention, the article ís a kind of vandalism or ] which has become a major problem with Misplaced Pages. I would support a '''possible solution''', where the details of the riots are moved to a seperate article, with the major development (including the most important aspects of the riots, political reaction etc) left to this main article about the statue (which indeed has a greater political than artistic/architectual value. ] 09:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

== Protection ==

Please protect this article. And add pov tag. The article is compromised with false statements and vandalism. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 10:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:I disagree. As it is now, article is pretty NPOV, especially considering the "hotness" of the topic. ] 10:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:Looking back, I would have hoped the that the page had been soft protected earlier. The page has received a barrage of edits from IPs in countries involved in the dispute. Most of these IPs have no other edits on Misplaced Pages; their edits on this page have been focused on POV pushing: edits wars over wording and deletion of sourced content they dislike. -- ] 12:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::This is a current event article, every minute something notable may happen and we would not be able to proper account the new info if the article is protected or even semiprotected. Having said this I would obviously approve any level of protection if the level of vandalism would become unbearable. IMHO, so far it not that bad ] 13:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I agree that this article needs semiprotection - it is blown up by irrelevant info already ] 19:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

==September 22 ==
Was that day (anniversary of the Red Army entering Tallinn) officially observed in some way during the Soviet years? --] 10:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

== Morning of 26.04 ==

It says in the article: "Members of protest organizers "Night Vigil" reported that police had attacked three of their members monitoring the situation in a car parked nearby, injuring one of them."

This is not accurate as they were not monitoring the situation nearby, but their car was actually parked in the area which the police was clearing out and where no civilians were allowed. The police gave repeated orders to the three member of the "Night Vigil" to clear the area, but they locked themselves in the car and refused to leave. The police tried to get to make them leave peacefully, but as they refused to show any cooperation, the police had to break the car window and use force to get them out and during that one person obtained some minor injuries. With the current wording it seems as the police attacked them without any reason which is not true. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 10:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:Actually I think this should be removed, as it is not relevant to article and has only provocative meaning. ] 11:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
: The injuries were caused by broken glass, as was the case with vast majority of injuries during the riots. ] 11:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::Any sources to back that up? ] 11:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::: This presse release byt Estoniain Foreign Ministry , quoting Estonian Health Care Board. ] 12:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:It is notable, as it shows the determination of the people protecting the memorial. Also provocations are likely to cause more violence later. -- ] 12:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

== References to russian media ==

The Russian media is running large provocative campaign by uttering lies towards the events. I don't think the estonian media is compromised by so hevay propaganda, but I still think neutral references should be used instead. BBC, CNN and other news sources seem to be more neutral. For example the arrest of and violence to the Night Vigil members is compromised by this issue. ] 11:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

:Even BBC isn't neutral. For example, their correspondent who covers events in Estonia is in Moscow and uses Russian sources. ] 11:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::That is controversial issue, but they are definitely more neutral than russian media. We should possibly cite both russian and estonian sources for neutrality. ] 11:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==
What is known about the Estonian sculptor of the monument? --] 11:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::not much, I'm afraid;-)
:::If somebody reads Estonian and might be of some help ] 13:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Well, there are many people here, who do. And those who read Russian - there are many such people here as well - might ], former Estonian MP, son of the famour ].] 14:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::Have not found anything about Enn Roos in this interiew, maybe you misplaced the comment? ] 03:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

==Update, new sections==

I'm adding news about the current protests in Moscow against Estonia's policies. Also, Russia's delegation has arrived in Estonia and made its first declarations - those have to be covered as well. Wil lgive my best, unless the page gets semiprotected :S ] 11:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

British reactions:
http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article2496635.ece <br>
] 13:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

:Yeah! Maybe the British can recreate the ] to liberate the Balts from the evil ]s. -- ] 13:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::Hmm, interesting... any links describing the campaign? I gather it's about British naval support for Estonian forces during the war of indepencence? ] 13:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::: See ]. - How is this related to the issue at hand. The Estonian view fails to acknowledge that Estonian independence was gained through two foreign occupations and interventions, against the wishes of a large portion of Estonians. (These same Estonians were demanding joining the Soviet Union in 1940 and fighting Nazis in 1944.) -- ] 14:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::Estonia's independence gained 'against the wish of a large portion' of Estonians? Which figures lead you to conclude that? ] and ] didn't make up but a very SMALL portion of society in 1918-1920. Вот так, товарищ Крохн. ] 14:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::Would like to see a quote as well. During the interwar period, Estonian Communist Party's support hovered around 5%. Their smashing victory in 1940 elections can be attributed to ongoing Soviet military occupation (stand as non-communist, get visitors in middle of night) ] 14:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

:Petri, you are talking total bs. Support for independence was so strong in 191x that schoolboys joined ''en masse'' the Estonian army.
:Why would anyone but small group (perhaps 15..20, with supporters maybe 300..400) of communists join Soviet Union in 1939? Estonia, with better living standards then Finland - and Soviet Union, with GULAG, famine, hunger. If you look at the photos of "mass meetings" from that time, you can actually see, how the meeting is surrounded by circle of Soviet soldiers/navy. First elections after the war reported "99.8%" support, while in some counties they had less then ten valid election tickets, according to the eyewitnesses. ] 14:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::Can't find a source, but remember reading that Estonian Communist Party had 53 card-carrying members pre-occupation in print media. ] 14:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
: Alternative Russian view http://www.dp.ru/msk/news/politics/2007/04/29/216245/ <br>
] 18:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

==The soldier is up==
The soldier is now at the cemetery of Estonian Defence League. Pic: http://www.epl.ee/pic.php?suurus=s&file=164643 (Reminds Batman, doesn't it?) The text in front of it reads "To an unknown soldier" in both Estonian and Russian. The stone wall will be added later since it'll take time to build it. ] 14:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:Sounds like the Grave of the Unknown Soldier. --] 14:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:This image settles it, I am restoring the ]. -- ] 14:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::Well, the Tallinn monument is history now... Maybe there are categories for ''relocated parts of monuments''? And, curiously enough, the statue actually comes out much better without the ''mastaba''. ] 14:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::''Mastaba'' will be re-built later , may take up to a month - which is understandable, as it needs a solid base etc. And ] is totally invalid now, as statue was the important part of the memorial (hence ], not ]). Also, the name isn't invalid, as the military cemetery is in Tallinn as well. ] 14:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::::That's a pitty, because the bronze statue does look much more dignified without its back against a stone wall. ] 15:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:Reappearance of the bronze soldier threw Duma's factfinding mission off course. They canceled all appointments for today, including a press conference. ] 15:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::But they still want the Estonian Government to resign... Maybe the Duma deputies would better consult a Public Relations agency next time...] 16:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:A friend of mine now says that the "To the Unknown Soldier"-stone is ''not'' at all new, and that the bronze statue has been put behind the stone (grave?) probably only for the time being; there is simply not room enough for the stone wall to be erected behind the statue, unless other graves are removed... Can somebody confirm this? --] 16:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::The stone was there before, to accompany the graves that lie before it (military cemetery, after all). There are no graves in the bushes behind the statue, though. Check the video accompanying this newsbite: ] 17:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


==Serious ] issues==
==Helmet / gefreiter ==
Folks, Looking through the article and the ongoing variable pace edit war it is clear that large parts of the article are being used for presenting material unrelated to the Memorial. Much of the article seems to cover a battle between Estonian and Russian viewpoints rather than anything directly related to the article's title. It is hard to see what a section like the "Accusations of glorification of fascism" is doing in the article if not to present someones dislike of Estonia(ns). Given the intemperate edit summaries being used I won't be foolish enough to add an {npov} tag but it is clearly not presenting a neutral point of view except in a few places. - ] ] 10:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
What kind of helmet is depicted on the stone in front of the statue? It almost looks German! Pic: http://www.epl.ee/pic.php?suurus=s&file=164643 --] 14:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, I was thinking too that this article was becoming a coatrack. Is there a tag for coatrack issues to identify the dubious sections? ] 10:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
:Soviet make. German helmets had a distinctly different shape/profile. ] 14:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:: This has been gone through several times. Basically this article should talk about.
:The phrase "]" in the modern Estonian ] may however be a reference to the Estonian ]. -- ] 18:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:: Where did you hear/read that out? ] 18:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::Give it up. The stone was obviously placed there during soviet times, as though the main text is bilingual, the date is followed by cyrillic 'g.g.' - russian notation. ] 18:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Would it have been in Estonian and ''English'' had it been during post-Soviet rule? ;) --] 19:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Still estonian & russian, with possible addition of german & english. I was pointing out the 'g.g.' part. ] 20:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I've heard that the Estonian ''unknown soldier'' may refer to the ] (restistance movement). Right? ] 19:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::::There's a distinction between 'sõdur' (soldier) and "võitleja" (fighter). Forest brothers are described as "vabadusvõitleja" (freedom fighter), whereas "tundmatu sõdur" (unknown soldier) implies membership of a military. ] 20:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


* Statue
On a related note, how come that Dmitri Belov, one of the buried Soviet soldiers, has the (German) rank of ]? Sounds fishy.
* Construction, location
* Its history
* Controversy (not longer section than 3 - 4 paragraphs)
* See also links to other related events.


Other crap. Like timelines, responses, accusation sof nazism should be deleted or moved somewhere else. ] <small>]</small> 10:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
==Graves==
:Indeed the material should be deleted. I have little doubt it is a repeat of material elsewhere here. I may have a small attempt to see if the article can gradually be chipped into shape - ] ] 11:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
According to , by this evening they've found nine coffins out of (possible) twelve, archaeological digging continues. They hope to identify the remains by end of May or early June. ] 14:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:So they are not expecting to find 13? Does it say if the coffins are marked with identity tags? ] 15:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:: 12 coffins were found, 2 rows of 6. 9 sets of remains will be recovered by tonight (archaeologists don't like to hurry). Coffins were identified by the help of archive photographs of burial - the handles were of same unusual make. ] 15:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Does anybody know why the soldiers were not buried in a military cemetery in the first place? --] 16:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I wonder this too. How they died and when? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 16:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:::::This yet to be determined. The official sources are quite unclear about this. ] 16:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


==Split?==
== War Graves Protection Act ==
It was suggested before to split the article into two: an article about the 2007 controversy and an article about the structure itself with the link and a minimum commonly agreed factual text about the controversy. This proposal seems to be neutral over the different POVs but will greatly streamline the text allowing the chronological order in both articles.


Obviously the article about the structure does not need section about the alleged glorification of Nazism, human right problems in modern Estonia and very little or none about the annexation of Estonia and deportations in the post-War period.
The citation of "The law was passed to legitimize removal of the Bronze Soldier as it was not legally possible before." keeps appearing and disappearing in the article. The statement is somewhat correct, the main reason for this law was to protect/move the bronze soldier and war graves from the critical place. Although statement that it was not legal before are false. There is no law forbidding moving of statues and reburial of war graves. I wish this statement to be included, but modified to be NPOV. Here is also another source to claim the views but from different perspective: http://www.postimees.ee/290606/esileht/siseuudised/207552.php (Estonian) ] 17:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:Ok, i changed it. --] 18:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


On the other hand, in the article about the 2007 riots we have to mention annexation, deportation, Soviet crimes, etc. as without it the reasons for the relocation of the monument are unclear. On the other hand we have to explain the frustration of a large section of the Russophones with the human rights situation as well as the perception that the relocation of the monument is a link in the larger chain of rehabilitation and glorification of Nazism. Without it the position of the opponents of relocation including the rioters is absolutely unclear and the article is biased.
There's a whole paragraph discussing that the law was implemented in order to bypass local government, and further claims that local government most likely wouldn't have allowed the move. However, there are no citations for this, and it all adds up to speculation: The law covers all military graves in the country, not just this specific one. They are also moving military graves all over the country, not just Tallinn.


As far as I rember the proposal was already stated in the past and rejected as it might compromise the chances of the article to get the GA status or something. It is not actual now maybe it is time to reconsider?
==Name of this article? ==
It has been suggested to rename this article to the ''']''', and at the same time merge and delete the article ] (which basically is a copy of parts of this article). Currently, there seems to be a ''']''' for deleting and merging the competing article. What do you think? --] 17:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:'''Neutral:''' Only a small fraction of this article is about the design and building of the monument. Creating a separate article about the reaction of the monument's relocation and exhumation of the corpses is practically difficult without creating another identical article about the monument. It's probably correct to assume that the monument was only the ''trigger'' of the current unrest, which has more to do with demographic problems etc. Yet, I think that the background information gives at least a ''somewhat'' good picture of the problem. Somebody said that the reaction was mainly symbolical, but the monument is also symbolic (as its ''artistic'' value is rather questionable - we are not really dealing with a Piccasso statue, or is its aristic value mainly ignored...). Therefore, I think that the suggestion is worth some consideration. ] 17:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:At the moment I '''oppose''' a rename. This article has been nominated a good article. It has also achieved a level of stability, despite the widely defering opinions and points of view. If we rename the article, then we would need to bring all the POV material to the intro. An impossible task at this point. -- ] 18:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:'''Weak Oppose'''. First of all, this article is not ''just'' about the controversy, but about the statue as well. To rename it to "Bronze Soldier controversy" would not be accurate. Although it may make sense to have two separate articles (one about the statue's history, etc, and one about the current controversy), there is no exact agreed-upon date for when the information relevant to the controversy begins, since most of the background information is relevant as well. I really think that for the moment, it is best to keep everything in one place. For a split to make sense, there needs to be a thorough discussion on the best way to split it. The article is just changing too quickly at the moment for any such discussion to be effective. I suggest that we keep everything in one place for now, and have a new vote to split it later on - in a few weeks at the earliest, maybe months (depending on how long this story takes to conclude). ] 20:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:'''Support''' --] 21:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::Just as a friendly note, a vote of support counts more if you give a persuasive reason. ] 23:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Ok, its because the article is now mostly about the events of April 2007, not directly connected to the statue itself, but rather inspired from it. --] 07:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


At any rate there should be either all or none of the following:
== City of Tallinn ==
*Annexation
*Deportations and other Soviet crimes
*Rights of the Russophone minority
*Perception of the glorification of Nazism
None of the list is directly related to the structure all of them are directly related to the background of the 2007 controversy.
Inclusion of some points from the list and not the other makes the articles biased. Obviously we not need 20 page sections on any of the points but they should be present ] 12:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


::Considering that only yesterday, you were into the article, I do not think you have the article's best interests in mind with this proposal. ]<sub>]</sub> 14:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
What is the position of the City of Tallinn on the location/relocation/removal/demolition of the monument? Have they made any ] plans for the park? Is it still zoned for the WW II memorial?


== Split ==
As I understand it, the removal is done against the wishes of the City and the ]. It is purely an ] operation orchestrated by the inner "national security council" of the ]. Unlike theethnically restricted ], the City of Tallinn has a "democratic" government, with electoral ] by the ]d ethnic minorities. I do not think the City or mayor ] would like to have any part in this demolition business. -- ] 19:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Folks, it's an article about a statue/monument. Sure there has been a lot of ill-feeling, rioting, nationalistic fervour and dredging up of past misdeeds ''associated'' with the concept of the statue, but at the end it's a statue. The article is hardly about this now, is absurdly long, packed full of trivial and repetative detail and simply a vehicle for soviet/estonia/WWI/etc... opinions to be expressed . This talk page has been a ] for so long it's hard to find talk about the article at all. From the commentary on this page and in the archives it is clear that this is unlikely to change and the article will not improve.
:Uh, what? Estonia is democratic country, accusing the military of meddling into civilian affairs is, frankly, absurd. Thanks for informing us about your pet theory, though. ] 20:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:Just to clarify on ] - all citizens of Estonia, regardless of ethnicity, are eligible to participate in the elections. Remember, a third of local russian-speaking population ''do'' have citizenship. ] 21:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


I can see that at various times many editors have supported the split. How about a rough straw poll on the split ? - ] ] 21:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
=== Ownership ===
Has the question of legal ownership been discussed? It seems to me, that the City of Tallinn ordered and paid for the construction of the monument. If so, how is it possible that the Estonian Defence Forces have ]/taken posession of the monument and the statue. Has the City of Tallinn made demands for their return? -- ] 19:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:I understand that the monumement was removed due to a new state law on "forbidden structures", (i.e. a kind of expropriation) and that law was challenged for not being constitutional - which might have been a question of violation of a fundamental right, such as property e.g. (our '''Estonian pundits probably know the details better'''). But, as the challenge was dismissed, the property in question was banned, and had to be removed, no matter who happend to own it. Maybe the owner, whoever that may be, can ask for legitimate compensation for his possible damage. Time will tell. ] 20:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::The owner was either the city of Tallinn, or the Government of Estonia. I've sent a couple of e-mails to people who should know it, but I'm not expecting a too hasty answer - it's ]. ] 20:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::But tomorrow is ], an ordinary working day in post-communist Estonia? ] 20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::::No, ] has no communist origin - it's an international holiday. In fact, most employers gave monday off as well, so people are having a nice 4-day long weekend over here. ] 20:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::This "international" day of labor celebration is not observed in countries such as the United Kingdom or the United States. And Soviet was supposed to be communist, even though modern socialist refrain from tagging this failed economic system as "true" communism.... The markets on Wall Street will be open as usually on May 1, but Estonians may have a day of hang-over and head aches instead. Which they certainly deserve after all this turmoil. ] 20:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Apparently the lockdown on alcohol sales has limited people's Walpurgisnacht enjoyment as well. As I was told, the park the statue was located at belongs to city, but the state claims all military memorials in public spaces. ] 21:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::No, that's not the law. The monument has been removed in accordance with another law, the Law on War Graves. The proposed law on Forbidden Structures was vetoed by the President and never became law. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 22:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
::Evidently the bare statue cannot be banned as it is now being set up by the Defence Forces. Also our Estonian pundits are claiming / reading from Estonian language sources that the whole mastaba would be rebuilt. What we end up is a ] process where the pieces will return to their legal owner, once the evil spell of their Soviet dedication have been removed by a re-dedication by the Estonian (some say Ethnofascist) government. -- ] 20:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Blast, I _knew_ someone would come up with a better idea once I picked my name. Anyway,it's a purely civilian operation. Reassembly of the mastaba (nice how fast we settled on a name for it) is delayed as the foundations need to be poured - and the construction-site look was deemed unsuitable for Alyosha on 9th May. ] 20:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Just my speculation: Technically the law banned the public display of monuments that glorify the Soviet Union, which this monument certainly did on its location in a busy intersection downtown the capital of Tallinn. By incorporating the monument in a context of a regular military cemetary outside the city, its glorification of the dead would be less controversial, or say: more ''justified''. ] 20:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::I'll answer with a speculation of my own: the relocation is partially designed to change the meaning of the monument, from 'Monument for Soviet Liberators' to 'Monument to Honor War Dead', as the 'soviet' connotation was what kept annoying local population, together with the display of soviet flags ever 9th May. ] 21:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::Yeah! A bit like relocating the ] to ] and renaming it ]. Now, THAT would solve a lot of problems! -- ] 22:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::Officially, the statue is now considered a grave marker, and it is relocated as a part of the relocation of war victims' graves from an unsuitable place onto a proper graveyard. The Law of War Graves was necessary for that because Estonia does not have a mutual war grave protection treaty with Russia, whose soldiers most or all of the victims in question were. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 22:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->


:I'm all for it, just that , how about calling the split the ] or something like that? That's the way the events have been called in general.--] 22:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
== Photos of relocation ==


::Usually the articles of that sort have more boring and longish names starting with the year like ] or ], etc. On the other hand is the ] name appear to be NPOV I would support it - at least it can be consistently typed without cut-n-paste. One of the problems is that we want to talk about at least two nights + background + epilogue. Would it be hindered by this to narrow name? ] 02:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
http://news.mail.ru/politics/1317880/


:Split supported. In fact, I tried once already, but the eternal SPA troublemakers stopped that horrible "estonazi" action. -- ] 02:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This is the new site for the Bronze Soldier ] 19:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC) ZealotKommunizma


To ], I wouldn't see any problems with including + background + epilogue, + events before and after to an article about the ]. Every story has its prologue and epilogue, + BG.--] 06:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
::Here's another video as well (scroll down): http://www.postimees.ee/010507/esileht/siseuudised/258058.php. It's apparent that the photoshopped pictures distributed by the government about Alyosha's new location depict the very same spot (bar the mastaba for now). ] 21:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:], although not in common use in English language press, looks like a good name to start with. It appears to be a common name for the night and common names are what we should use. - ] ] 07:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
:: Actually it was Bronze Nights as there was two of them. ] <small>]</small> 08:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


:::Using the ever popular GoogleBattle, Bronze Night seems to be used far more -- ] 08:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
:::That picture was done by Postimees, not the govt. - ] 21:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::: That is logical. Because "On the first '''bronze night''', there were ....", "On the second '''bronze night''' there was...", so generally "'''Bronze nights''' were...". But article should talk about both bronze nights not about only one. ] <small>]</small> 08:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


I haven't seen or heard anybody talking about Bronze nights. Although the second night is the ripple effect and surely should be included and everything else that has anything to do with the Bronze night, the night the statue was relocated.--] 08:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
::::I stand corrected. Still, it did depict the right spot. ] 22:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


:Well, let us do the article as ] and redirect ] (and some other suggested names) there? Should be acceptable for everybody? -- ] 09:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
==Video from inside the tent ==
:: Yes works for me. :) ] <small>]</small> 10:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Tonight, Russian television broadcasted a video taken from the inside of the tent, showing forensic experts digging in what appeared to be a 2 meter deep hole and possibly some bones in the bottom of the grave. ] 20:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:Any objections then if I do this in the next few days ? I was thiking of splitting off basically most of the article from ] onwards and leaving a small summary. That way we get an article about the statue and a separate one about the move and resulting echoes.] ] 09:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
:Same on Estonian TV news. Apparently recovery of second row is somewhat more difficult, due to the bus stop, and the trees around it having grown their roots through those. ] 20:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::Not from me. That split is needed - as is general cleanup. -- ] 10:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


:::I agree with the split. The sub-article can be could Bronze Nights i think. It looks nice. -- ] 11:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
==Mastaba! ==
Misplaced Pages seems to set the trend: A Google-search on Mastaba+Tallinn generates 319 hits. That is roughly 319 more than just a week ago... ] 21:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC) ::::I totally agree too. I think that the events on that(these) night(s) were important enough for a separate article. Only the first 3 chapters and maybe a short roundup of the events should stay here. ] 21:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


== ] ==


'''Done''' - I've used the opening section of ] as the summary. It seems to cover all of the pertinent points without going into too much detail. I'll leave Bronze Night article for a few days but it really does need culling and editing to make it neutral and encyclopediac. - ] ] 09:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone made a POV pushing attempt at adding unrelated material to the page. I used the material to create ]. -- ] 21:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:Thank you. Though factually correct, it has no place here. ] 21:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


== Historical background - section ==
==Pro-riot propaganda ==
This entry was recently deleted as vandalism, but I think it should be further reviewed, as the "Russian" perspective is also valuable in order to understand the conflict:


Folks,
<blockquote>


This section clearly does not belong here. It appears to be another coatrack section designed to continue the battle raging here. Does anyone have any good reason that this section should not be removed ? - ] ] 11:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
==Pro-riot propaganda ==
Before and during the events strong propaganda war as launched to upset the Russian speaking population. A photo shopped picture was circulated that depicted the statue sawed of at feet. Strong effort was put into trying to depict Estonia as a fascist country resulting in videos of arrests made by police in the first night of rioting being posted on YouTube tagged as "eSStonia" and while being actual videos showing only police action not the causes for the actions, like looting of shops. Leader of the Constitutional party Andrei Zarenkov claimed on Friday morning that the bones had already been dug up and thrown away and the statue cut to pieces and scraped and was never going to be restored <ref name=polling> ] ] ]</ref>. A day later the same man claimed that more than 350 ethnic Russian police officers have already or will be resigning shortly in protest to having to discipline rioters. His claims were soon said to be an outright lie by police officials ] ] ].
</blockquote>
--] 21:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


I didn't come across the post here yesterday but I noticed the problem in the article. It looked like the Historical background had been left hanging there during the split and it actually is more the background for the reasons of removal rather than the monument. So I moved the section down there. The Historical background would have context with the Preceding monument though, the one that the girls blew up back then. But in current state it was way over proportioned. Also, the historical background for the removal reasons can be tightened up in this article and spelled out more in the Bronze Night. As long as it makes sense in the end why ''Estonians considered the Bronze Soldier a symbol of Soviet occupation and repression''. --] 06:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)<br />
:Oh, well, somebody put it back again... --] 21:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
PS. Also, It seems that it's not spelled out in the article anywhere, and there are factual inaccuracies: previously the monument was called "to the Liberators of Tallinn" etc. now it says so on the tablet and it is Monument to perished during WWII.--] 06:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
::It has stood. I would like to point out, however, that "Russian perspective" is not necessarily "pro-riot propaganda", nor vice versa. ] 15:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:The claims of police brutality are thus far uncorroborated. Should they be moved under pro-riot propaganda? ] 15:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::Offtopic: Just to show that people can still laugh in these times: . Images are in universal language. ] 16:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


== The Meeting in Tallin in commemoration of the Bronze Soldier relocation on April 26, 2007 ==
==Law enforcement for non-nationals ==
Heading: "Law enforcement response": ''An estimated of 40-60 of the rioters were not citizens of Estonia, and were residing in Estonia under residence permits. The law enforcement and the Immigration Office are reportedly working on getting them exiled through revocation of the residence permits, pending conviction in a court of law.''
:What is the status of permanent Estonian residents with Russian citizenship? I understand, there are many of those living in Estonia. Do they also risk being expelled to Russia if convicted? ] 22:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::That's whom that quote descibed (where from?). About a third of ethnic russians in Estonia have Russian citizenship, and they could, tehnically, have their residence permits revoked. Those with 'alien's passport' can _not_ be expelled, as there's no place to expel them to. (Coincidentially, that's claimed to be a reason why Russian attempts to have all non-citizens take on Russian citizenship havent' been very successful). Anyway, in a TV interview today, foreign minister Urmas Paet said that expulsion isn't considered a realistic option, apart from one detained russian national who broke the conditions of his tourist visa by participating in the riots. He has already been handed over to Russian authorities on border. ] 22:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::The central issue here is about citizenship. Two thirds of the 1/2 million ethnic Russians are without citizenship. I am astonished if only 60 of the almost 1000 arrested are without Estonian citizenship, I would assume the numbers were the other way around: 60 of one thousend had Estonian citizenship. -- ] 22:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, most of those detained were released the next morning, after they were identified. Judges only granted longer detainment for those whose active participation in riots was positively proven by evidence on hand. While at it, you're wrong about 2/3 having no citizenship (half of them are Russian nationals), and there are 350k, not half a million ethnic russians in Estonia. ] 22:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:For "technical reasons" expulsion to Russia is not possible for anyone. Russia will simply refuse to accept any expelled Estonian residents, even if they have taken Russian citizenship. Estonia manitains a kind of "concentration camp" for people it wants to expel but Russia refuses to accept. At the moment the camp only houses a few ex-Soviet military retirees. -- ] 22:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:: Whatever the place is, it isn't a "concentration camp". If you insist of calling it that way then you should be aware that even Finland has similar institutions/places for the same purpose. ] 05:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:::What ever you call it, the people interned 1) Were never committed of a crime. 2) Never entered Estonia illegally. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 15:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:Ah, stupid me - the quote was from the article itself. I'm sorry to say, the referenced newspaper article has been mistranslated. It's saying it 'would be legally possible' to deport foreign nationals who took part of the riots, not that 'it's being worked on'. ] 22:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::I understand that the Estonian police is known to be relatively competent in solving crime. Some years ago, a foreign businessman was murdered in Tallinn and the Police ''started'' the investigation by saying: "We'll have the murderer within 48 hours", and so they did! (We shall hope they caught the right guy..) Regarding all surveilance cameras and private pictures and video clips from the crime scene, the local prosecutors may have a busy time to look forward to. --] 22:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::They had 16-hour workdays after the riot nights, so you could say they already have their hands full of work (my information on this aspect comes directly from one of them, a personal friend). Police asked for extension of the nominal 48-hour maximum detainment for majority of detainees - to have enough time for processing all photographic and video evidence, but judges blocked all cases for which the evidence at hand wasn't good enough. Thus, their personals were taken down and they walked out. ] 22:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I would guess that even if they could walk out, they didn't automatically escape justice. Or is the legal enforcement so overwhelmed with cases that many of the criminal acts would just be written off? ] 22:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::Not overwhelmed, but everyone was working serious overtime (only 4 prosecutors, for example). Those who walked (or, in many cases, were picked up by parents) were identified, photographed, had their fingerprints taken, etc. The circumstances of their arrests are on file. ] 23:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, to sum things up - source has been misquoted. ] 23:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


A meting held in Tallinn in commemoration of the Bronze Soldier relocation (that happened on April 26, 2007).
==Historical comparison ==
The Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt pointed out that he understands why the popular reaction about the statue has been so sharp:
"If somebody had errected a statue of King Christian the Tyrant in Stockholm 500 years after , it would also have been subject for controversy."
:This unexpected twist must be music to Estonian's ears. Although, the statement sound like having been delivered at 3am at a party with too much hard liquor. ;) ] 22:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::Nice comparison, though I've read better: ''Imagine a statue honoring Japanese liberators on ]''. ] 22:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::In Denmark, king Christian the Tyrant (a "liberator" who organized one of the worst massacres in Swedish history) is curiously enough called "Christian the Good". Reminds me of some Russian perception of "Great Soviet leaders" in the last couple of days... ] 23:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::::If it had not been for ], the "] of the North", you too would be calling him Good. Bildt really fails to see the big picture. -- ] 23:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::''Pol Pot of the North'', sounds like the Finnish tabloid reporter H. Lindqvist? --] 23:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:Such comparisons are totally BS, they fail to take into account the fact that the Soviet Union DID win the war against fascism, AND Estonia has a half a million ex-Soviet residents. If Hitler had won the war, there would be a statue of him in central Moscow and 5 million Germans saluting it. So what! -- ] 23:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::That's the thing. Who Soviets fought against and whether they won or not doesn't enter the equation. It's about the brutal occupation of Estonia. If a rapist has great CV and wonderful references, he's still a rapist. ] 23:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::Well, after the war, Estonia became a closed military zon for more than 40 years, with purges and a demographic churn that turned the poor country upside-down! --] 23:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:::To all of you: Please look at the notice at the top of the page: '''"This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."''' If you can't say something relevant to the improvement of this article, '''don't say anything at all!''' ] 23:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::::"they fail to take into account the fact that the Soviet Union DID win the war against fascism". So you're saying Soviet Union fought against Mussolini? Interesting.. ] 08:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::See . -- ] 12:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


April 26, 2008 - the defenders of the monument initiated the meeting. They demand to create the International Commission for detailed investigation of the events on April 26, 2007.
== DDoS attacks ==
During the two days, April 26 and April 27, 1,500 people are arrested. 50 are injured, 1 dead.


http://news.mail.ru/politics/1731767/et
From news: The ] attacks crippling access to Estonian governmental sites from outside world aren't the usual, distributed ] type. Incoming connections have been traced to ]s used by Russian government. ] 23:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:If verified, it should be added to the text. ] 23:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC) ] (]) 09:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
::It was Minister of Justice who claimed it. I'll try to dig up an actual linkable quote (in english) tomorrow morning, best I can do right now is (in estonian). Won't edit anything here until I've worked my way through the rules and regulations governing submissions. ] 23:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:This was also reported on Finnish (]?) TV news. The source of the traffic was not attributed to Russia but to armies of hijacked ] machines troughout the world. -- ] 23:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
::Naturally, as most major botnets are attributed to russian hackers, these being put to use was expected. Usual botnet activity shows a distributed pattern, though, apparently in this case abnormally large chunk of connections come from abovementioned IP ranges. Or (and that's a scary thought), Russian govt computers have been infiltrated by botnets. ] 23:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
:The Minister of Justice, Mr. Lang, is not necessarily knowledgeable at such things and his record on exclamations on technical issues is not, shall we say, stellar. It may easily be he's confusing something, or misassessing botnet zombies within Russian government networks. Unfortunately though, no notable source has yet followed up with clarifications, refutations, or even a proper ] assessment. ] 15:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::Foreign minister has now confirmed the accusation, identifying for example computers in Federation President's Administration. IP logs have been provided to foreign journalists for verification. Personal take: supporters of russian policies running by now freely available scripts tailored to hit Estonian sites on their work computers. ] 18:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:::I concede that Mr.Lang is well known for jumping the gun. Foreign Minister waited with his confirmation until enough evidence had been collected. ] 19:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


: Not to mention millions of dollars of damage done to private property by looters high on heroine and booze. Also, we shouldn't forget that most of the injured were police officers who got hit by a pavement stones or garbage bins, or the looters who got cut by broken glass while trying to get tampons out of the nearby kiosk. ] <small>]</small> 15:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
==Failed GA==
indicates that the article is nowhere ''near'' stable. ] 02:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
*It's probably impossible for an article like this to meet all GA-criterias while being featured on ITN. Having followed the article for the last couple of days, I'm actually surprized of its comparably high level of stability. --] 07:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Reference is needed to the statements by ]. ] (]) 23:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
==Juhan Kivirähk ==
News media have found resentment among the Estonians! Referring to Estonian newspapers who are quoting an Estonian sociologist named ] who is critizing the Goverment and asks for its resignation. According to Kivirähk, the Estonian government created the riots in order to show the world that it was impossible to negoitate with the Russians. This seems interesting (who is Juhan Kivirähk?), but we need direct sources to confirm this story! --] 09:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
: Everyone is free to speculate, but it does not prove anything about the case at hand. ] 09:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:This is already mentioned in the article. But Juhan Kivirähk is some random sociologist who thought it was his time to shine. It's not really notable figure, or atleast he wasn't befor these events and his statement. ] 09:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::He had some social study & poll company named Emor, IIRC. --] 09:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::He's held in fairly high regard, so definitely not an unknown. This refers to his op-ed piece is one of Estonia's larges daily newspapers ] on 30/04. It has caused quite a ruckus, drawing many counterarguments from his colleagues, as he's been the only notable figure to have voiced such opinion apart from ] (Centrist party, Estonian ''de facto'' russian party) functionaries. ] 10:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::His connections with keskerakond are also ruomored, his beliefs to be one with keskerakond are confirmed. ] 11:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Another Sociologist named ] also expressed his concerns about the whole issue and so did 12 professors of Estonian Universities '''before the whole mess''' ] 11:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Andrus Saar was one of those critisising Kivirähk's article, and last night 28 professors of Estonian universities (estonians, ethnic russians, western nationals) sent an open letter in support of govt. ] 11:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::If you have sources, that petition along with Mr Kivirähk's remarks may be added to the developing story. ] 11:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::Here's a source on the letter of the 28: . ] 15:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


: Talk pages don't necessarily require references. This was all reported on the news. —] (]) 02:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
== The Heroization of the deceased rioter ==


== Denial-of-service attack ==
Should we mention this in pro-rioter propaganda. As the deceased Dmitri who got stabbed during the riots is largely heroized in russian media as one who gave his life protecting the holy statue. Statements go as far as blaming police in killing him. The information from eye-witnesses suggest that he was killed in conflict with other mareuders over a pair of jeans or something. Police hasn't confirmed anything concrete, but has denied any connetions between the death of the Dmitri and police activity. Also the police is holding someone named Oleg in captive as the suspect of murdering Dmitri. We need some sources to confirm both the russian media attitude towards the event and official and eye-witness statements. ] 09:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:Accoring to Russian News show ''Vesti'', demonstrators are surrounding the Estonian Embassy in Moscow in a peaceful rememberance of Dimitri. ] 09:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::Their actions are nothing but peaceful. (sarcasm) ] 10:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::Yesterday a pregnant woman managed to escape the peaceful rememberance vigil with her small child, and the ambassador (with eventual assistance from militia) could get out to attend one meeting. Apart from that, the embassy is completely blockaded. ] 10:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Sources sources! I can find estonian ones myself, but I am currently more interested in russian ones. ] 10:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::::According to the Russian news show ''Vesti'', the Estonian Consulte at Moscow (where the peaceful demontration takes place) is currently not issuing viza to Estonia. An upset woman - who had her viza application delayed - was interviewed, comparing Estonia with ''fascism''. One might wonder if she ever gets her viza... Actually, I think that kind of news reports ("We present the propaganda - you decide") are more honest than they appear to be in the first place. ] 10:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::A russian TV journalist has claimed the youth blocked her entry to the embassy when she was trying to apply for visa a few days ago: ''We live in free society and we don't want you to go there'' was a quote attributed to one youth org's leader. If required, can dig through my browser history for a link to russian newssite that published it.] 11:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::::This article ] ''Russian youth organisations have blockaded Estonian embassy'' confirms the fact of blockade, quoting embassy workers. 'Pregnant woman evacuated with OMON assistance' is also mentioned. ] 11:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::::In the early stages of the riots, there were concerns that Russian citizens could come to Tallinn to support the riots. Issuing of new visas to Russian *residents* (not citizens) was temporarily ceased for security purposes. Similarly, buses from Northeast Estonia towards Tallinn were, for a while, stopped en-route and passenger lists taken. The visa issuances would have been restored after the riots; unfortunately, the blockade at the embassy has made it impossible. ] 11:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::: The actions may be peaceful or not; however, the heroisation of somebody who died in random riot-related violence (latest news have the original suspect as being another victim, and the killer being so far unidentified) as a ] of the political cause is a clear case of ], and belongs in the propaganda section. ] 15:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Newest theory is that he was indeed an innocent bystander, and was stabbed when he tried to take a video of the looters on his cellphone. ] 18:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


The article is missing info on this; see --] (]) 13:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
== Arguable relevance of sections 3.2-5 and their excessive POV ==


:It should be mentioned in ], which is referenced in the ] article. This article is about the statue itself, for the political and criminal consequences, those other articles are more suitable. ] (]) 19:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd argue that Claims of police brutality, Situation at the Estonian embassy in Moscow, Pro-rioter propaganda and Law enforcement response sections are irrelevant to statue itself but rather are excessive POV of both sides. ] 11:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::Don't you think there should at least be a sentence or two mentioning the attacks with an in-text link to the other article? --] (]) 06:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
:Since we are dealing with "the worst riots seen in Estonia", the claims (and denials) of police brutality are justified. ] 11:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:I don't agree, as the whole article tries to concentrate on the events surrounding the bronze soldier, not only the statue itself, otherwise it would only talk about the contstruciton of the solider and controversy section would only contain: "The statue was relocated because of the ethnic estonian and russian different representation of history". We should rather concentrate on keeping those sections NPOV. ] 11:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:I think they should remain, and it would be obviously relevant if the article was renamed "Bronze soldier controversy".--] 11:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::Right now, and because of the problem with competing articles, it has been agreed that this article is dealing with the Monument + Controversy. So, let's stick to the agreement from previous votes for the time being. --] 11:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:::I removed some of the POV tags. And I plan to remove others after I have reviewed the content. Shall we call some sort of vote on the relevance? ] 11:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


==Modelled after... whom? == == Another edit war ==
''Radio Moskva'' is citing a woman who supposedly is the daughter of the Estonian athlete ]. She says that she misses the statue (which she claims to be her father) and that she would "bye it back", had she only the financial resources. On the Estionian version of this article, Kristjan Palusalu, is mentioned among others in what I understand is speculation of who was sitting model for the statute.
''Nimetatud on raskejõustiklast Haljand Hallismaad, vasaraheitjat Helmut Pormeistrit, kunstitudeng Vello Rajangut, puusepp Albert Adamsoni ja isegi maadleja Kristjan Palusalut.'' Maybe our Estonian pundits could give us a hand solving (or explaining) the mystery? ] 12:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:Nothing definite. It's been claimed the sculptor said he 'modelled it after a young man from his neighborhood' (pointing to Albert Adamson, most likely), or that there were several models. For obvious reasons, the model hasn't been willing to come forward to be associated with the statue. Palusalu is unlikely - he deserted from Red Army after forced mobilization, such background wasn't well viewed upon by soviet authorities. _If_ he was the model, his participation was likely to have been kept secret from them. ] 12:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:: Oh, and he was in a Soviet prison camp when the statue was made, hence making his participation a ''tad'' unlikely. ] 13:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::What is known about ]?, --] 13:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:::I wonder where the 'Johannes' part came from. Anyway ] was a carpenter in some local factory, managed to avoid both soviet & german mobilizations (due to physical disability, crooked arm? Other sources inndicate he was simply in hiding). He reportedly ended up a drunk, thereby disqualifying him as an acceptable model figure for the authorities as well. ] 13:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Do you know when he lived, and where he lived? ] 13:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::Born on the island of ], worked in western Estonia before and during the war, moved to Tallinn after war for a better job, lived indeed in same neighborhood with the sculptor. Can't find any info on his time of death, apart from that his alcohol problems peaked in early 60s. ] 18:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:I suspect there are two options, really. Either Alyosha was modelled after various people, or the model was known to the authorities, but not of acceptable moral and political character to be publicly recognized as a model for such an important statue. ] 13:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::I understand that the Soviets were very good in collecting and storing all sorts of information. Do you think the secret about the model is buried in the archives of the local KGB office? ] 13:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Folks, over a dozen pointless revert edits about a picture. Pointless as no one is discussing the dispute here on the talk page. Can you please come here to talk through the issue then edit the article once consensus is clear ? - ] ] 21:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
== Extremely Pro-Estonian ==
: Smiling. Amazing collusion is going on. Interesting timing of events. His mate once again deletes the picture with vague explanations ''' 21.01''' and requests the page to be protected '''21.04 '''. Then his reply about the so called "another edit war" '''21.00''' ] (]) 00:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
::You have the timing wrong there - Martin left the talk page message after I pointed out the idiocy of this. As for the ''mate'' bit - look at the map....Australia is a very big place full of lots of strangers. Perhaps you will discuss your point of view on the article here now ? - ] ] 04:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Flowers on the former site are fine. Signs threatening "I'll be back" (as in fringe threats of invasion) does little to inform an article about the statue and serves only to push an anti-Estonian POV. —] (]) 02:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


:The reason I removed the pic the moment I noticed it was explained in the edit history. This is a political poster that violates ] and ] . The origin of this quote "I'll be back" comes from the withdrawing Russian troops that had the line written on their trucks when they pulled out from the Baltic states. Therefore the poster suggest for the return of occupation and it is a Russian ultra-nationalist statement and should be removed from WP because it violates the policies mentioned above--] (]) 05:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
So, everything from Russians are "propaganda". Everything from Estonian police/government is "truth". Do anyone dare to add that there are drunkards, looters and deserters buried there? This came from Estonian prime-minister, so it should be surely stated as an example of Estonian "NON-PROPAGANDA". <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 14:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:I´know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but... Pray, tell, in what way has any major Estonian source been biased? Anything they have reported has happened. Estonian government and officials have delivered exactly what they promised. Now, Russian newspapers on the other hand have reported that monument is destroyed, that dead were "thrown out", that "police attacked peaceful protesters", that Estonia has "Nazi past" and is "pro-Nazi and Germanophile", glorifying the dead looter as national hero (well, perhaps getting killed in drunken knife-fight over a pair of stolen jeans gives that status to him in Russia, cannot be sure about that). ] 14:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::art of propaganda is tricky, you know. Some can collect all erroneous and disrespectful information from russian sources but not the truthful and correct ones and collect all accurate and polite news postings from Estonian sources but not Estonian hatred and lies. First of all, Estonian Prime-Minister Ansip said this about fallen soldiers under the monument, but somehow this is not showed in the article. Interesting, right? Second, please find SOURCES about the "dead looter" that he was killed for stolen jeans. Otherwise, apologize for the disrespect of dead person. Third, I've seen Russian sources myself. They are much more neutral and accurate, then you are trying to portrait. I.e. lenta.ru posts that "russian MPs state that the statue was cut, Estonian government state that this wrong", but not "Statue was cut" as fact. Fourth - police indeed beated the people, and not in self-defence.
] 15:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Ansip said that the excavations are required to find the truth, rumors going from "no one buried there at all" to "shot drunkards, looters and deserters" (which, considering what happened when Tallinn was "liberated", isn't that hard to believe). So how exactly was he insulting anyone? Also, please come up with a source for "police indeed beated the people, and not in self-defence", as of now that has as much basis as my claim that president Putin is in fact a tooth fairy. As for the Dmitri, let us wait for the police investigation - and you can be sure it will be unbiased, as a case with this high profile cannot be done in any other way. One thing is sure - he wasn't killed by police, as a) police was not there when he was killed and b) police doesn't carry knives.
:::Also, please let me point out that Misplaced Pages is not a forum, it is an encyclopedia. If you want to express your opinion, get a blog or go to a relevant forum. In the future, please stay on topic of improving Misplaced Pages. ] 15:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:: ]: I have so far detected bias mainly in two areas: sensationally cut headlines, and repeated but not properly supported insinuations, especially on TV, that the riots were organised by FSB or the Russian embassy. So far, both of these areas have been kept away reasonably well from this article. ] 15:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::: Follow-up: supports the Russian embassy connections. I do not yet know where it fits in the article. ] 15:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)\
::::Notable part being the date of this article, well ahead of the riots. Thank you for the link. ] 19:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:::"which, considering what happened when Tallinn was "liberated", isn't that hard to believe" - Great. So typical fairy tales about Evil Russians (tm) I am done here. ] 15:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


::I'd request Beatle Fab Four not restore the picture the next time it is deleted. It is, indeed, a POLITICAL poster representing anti-Estonian "we'll invade them again" threats. I would consider such action similar to past edits which appear to push an anti-Estonian/Baltic POV, as an example, Beatle Fab Four's edits and . —] (]) 14:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
:::: Liberation? ] 16:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::: Nonsense, own research and throlling. Reasoning like that of kids. "I'll be back" is from Terminator by the same stupid analogy. ] (]) 16:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
::: Restating rumors do not make the statements to ones point of view so again you've proven that some sources just are not trustworthy, quite contrarily to to your point. ] 17:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::::It's been rumored here that Estonian Police are preparing to release surveillance footage. ] 19:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::Surveillance footage of what and rumored by who? ] 19:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::Of meetings between Embassy officials and riot organizers before the riots took place. Rumored by 'the people' (no credible source), but Foreign minister has said he has enough evidence to back up all claims made in his press conference tonight, which included that very claim mentioning ] park on the outskirts of Tallinn as one of such locations. ] 19:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:I've removed excessionally pro-estonian statements from background section. this is not article about estonian history and I think it is made perfectly clear in this article that estonians (many, but not all) view Soviet presence as occupation while immigrants (Russians, Ukrainians and many others who were able to come to Estonia during Soviet time) view it as liberation from Nazis. So please do not bias it towards estonians POV. Thanks! ] 18:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::There was no freedom of movement in USSR, so 'were able to come' doesn't hold. They were relocated to Estonia. ] 19:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:::What USSR are you talking about? Of course there was no freedom of movement under Stalin. In USSR I was born freedom of movement was around from 60-70s and my parents were able to come to ESSR freely ] 20:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::Viewing Soviet presence as occupation is not a matter of opinion. See . ] 18:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


I don't know.. can anybody explain this posters meaning and what value does it add to the article? The message itself is quite bizarre, in Estonian and in Russian it actually says "I'm back", in English it says "I'll be back". I personally don't agree that this sentence has some kind of hidden deep meaning, like suggested above and consider whole poster as total nonsense (however, this suggestion brought one recollection, couple of years ago on the tribunes of the Estonian-Russian football match there were some football-fans from Russia, with USSR flags and with banner "Masters are back", masters as "proprietors" - хозяйны)) - so maybe there really is some hidden meaning I don't know or remember anymore. Anyway, I would delete this picture too, but only on the basis that it's message is quite unclear and it doesn't add anything substantial to the article.
:::Depends on your POV. Misplaced Pages tries to express NPOV and in that case it means respecting both sides POV, or what? ] 18:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


BTW, Beatle Fab Four, your statements are starting to look like personal attacks, so please, tone down your rhetorics. ] (]) 18:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
::::Soviet occupation of Estonia is not a matter of POV or NPOV, but a fact and Misplaced Pages should express facts not some political fairytail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/Molotov-Ribbentrop
"Although officially labeled a "non-aggression treaty", the pact included a secret protocol, in which the independent countries of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania were divided into spheres of interest of the parties. The secret protocol explicitly assumed "territorial and political rearrangements" in the areas of these countries. Subsequently all the mentioned countries were invaded, occupied or forced to cede part of their territory to either the Soviet Union, Germany, or both."
] 19:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


:Compared to the thousands of flowers on the site, this single political poster indicates a tiny minority viewpoint and thus its presentation here is undue. ] (]) 20:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::Political fairytale or not is not a matter of this article. Different views on history are cause of this conflict, this is a FACT and you're trying to silence this ] 19:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::: Ha-ha-ha. The poster simbolizes the virtual presense of the monument on the original site. Flowers on the same original site simbolize the same thing. Even kids can understand that. ] (]) 21:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Then, you should document the differences in viewpoints, not discount the legal state of affairs as "POV" and remove it as such. ] 21:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::::No, it is a picture of an Estonian deportee who was dragooned into the Red Army but escaped across the frontline to the Finnish side at the first opportunity. ] (]) 22:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
::::::I fail to understand what you did try to say. Please, reword it. ] 20:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::::: Weeeeell, Peripitus, you can clearly see the root of the problem. ] (]) 22:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
:::::::He's claiming that ] is a fairy tale. ] 20:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::??? Something factually incorrect about my statement? ] (]) 22:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
:::: Whose presence, Palusalu's or Bronze Soldier's? Yes, there is one theory that Palusalu could be the prototype of the Bronze Soldier, but I don't think that anybody could argue about their virtual equality in current context, nobody connects them on that level, I could bet that 99% Estonian people (including local Russians) don't even know this fact. ] (]) 10:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Folks, would this be solved by removing the entire gallery and adding a {{tl|commonscat}} link at the bottom. Galleries are usually discouraged here as that is what commons is for. ] ] 21:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
{{commonscat|Bronze Soldier of Tallinn}}
: Really? What about here and here . Peripitus, the problem is not in the gallery, the problem is that someone can't grow up. ] (]) 21:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
::]. I think ] makes a good suggestion. I would support moving the entire gallery to commons. ] (]) 22:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
: Support. But I can already see what is going to happen... ] (]) 10:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


== Sourcing ==
I am not claiming that Estonia wasn't occupied. What I'm saying is, that there are two completely different views on it in estonian society and this fact is a reason for conflict. So I believe this fact must be retained and even promoted throughout this article. Thanks! ] 20:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:This is a factor in the political conflict indeed. However, what you're doing is removing *facts* that disagree with *your* POV, not documenting the difference of views in a neutral manner. I suggest you gather the non-"pro-Estonian" POV into a separate section, say "Soviet-era immigrant views on proper legal status of Estonia". ] 21:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


I've just noticed that all 18 sources are either pro-Estonian or anti-Russian. Is there a reason for this? ] (]) 10:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
== Polish reaction ==


: Could you clarify, please? What do you exactly mean with "pro-estonian" and "anti-russian"? And how do you define those categories in given context? ] (]) 12:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Digwuren has moved link about poland removing ther soviet history from other reaction where I have placed it to political reaction
dig: borism on jälle poola reaktsiooni ära koristanud. :(
I moved it there because it is nothing to concern monument directly but rather an consequence. Please move it back to "Other reaction" or under "Consequences". Thanks! (and please note that I don't remove something without a reason)
:Yet, it's a Government reaction, and the Poles have repetedly refered to the development in Estonia when drafting their new legislation on Soviet related war memorials. Maybe, the Estonian example implies that the longer you wait removing "occupation-related" monuments, the harder it gets...] 21:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


There has a lot of political commentary sneaked in again over time into this article. Please note that all propaganda articles that are straight out lies are going to be removed from this article. For example claiming that ''Estonian nationalists reportedly tried to put a wreath of barbed wire decorated with a swastika on the statue.'' That's not what you'd call ]. Please stick to <u>reliable, third-party, published sources</u> while editing this article! POV can be tolerated only if it;d say that Russia Today claims this and that. But since the report about swastika is a straight out lie, I think the text should be just removed.--] (]) 05:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
== Estonias Independency ==


: Russia Today is the mouthpiece of the Russian Federation. Completely unreliable with regard to anything about the Baltic states in particular. ] <SMALL><SMALL><span style="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="background-color:#ffffff;">&nbsp;</span><span style="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></SMALL> ]</SMALL> 00:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Currently, in the "Backround" topic, it says that ESSR declared itself independant, but thats POV, because the Republic of Estonia is had been around for a long, but simply became ESSR temporarly by the soviet occupation. So what happened in 1992 was NOT a "political tantrum" so to speak, but in fact a reinstation of independancy. Also Arnold Rüütel was not president at the time this happened. I have tried to edit these biased and untrue statements, but every time I do it, they get edited back. Somebody do something. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 18:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->


== Motions for "destruction" ==
:It says that Rüütel was president of ESSR, not Republic of Estonia, doesn't it? ] 19:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
All the posturing over destruction of monuments is interesting, but my understanding is that there are treaties between the Baltic states and Russia regarding the ''preservation of war memorials''. Let's make clear what contentions and motions are rhetoric and which are not. Not a single war memorial anywhere has been destroyed or will be destroyed. Yet blogs are full of invective over Estonians destroying monuments to and graves of fallen Soviet soldiers. ] <SMALL><SMALL><span style="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="background-color:#ffffff;">&nbsp;</span><span style="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></SMALL> ]</SMALL> 00:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
::There was no 'president' in ESSR. He was Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Council (basically, head of government) during USSR's breakup. ] 19:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
==File:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, 2007.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion==
{|
|-
| ]
| An image used in this article, ], has been nominated for speedy deletion at ] for the following reason: ''Other speedy deletions''
;What should I do?
''Don't panic''; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Misplaced Pages. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is ] then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no ] then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try ]


''This notification is provided by a Bot'' --] (]) 03:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
:What happened in 1991 was reinstation of independency, both de jure and de facto (except for removal of the Russian army, which took three years longer). It is factual that this reinstation was made through a declaration which was passed using the legal framework of Estonian SSR. However, it is irrelevant. Relevant to the context of the background of the monument is only that the reinstation happened, not who did it, who were the political leaders, or what their party allegation is. These useless tidbits have been repeatedly injected by ], pushing a weird POV I have not yet managed to understand. They should be removed. ] 19:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
|}
::The reinstation of Estonias pre-war independence was a long process: the removal of Soviet symbols is the last step in this process. The process already started in 1988. The declaration of independence in 1991 and the international recognition of the declaration were only steps in this process. Equally important were the reinstation of the old citizenship laws, and abolishing the ] in 1992 (See ]) after the election of ] as the "first" post-war president of Estonia. It is POV, if not totally wrong to say that the pre-war independence was reinstated in 1991. -- ] 19:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:::What you're arguing for is that gathering all aspects of independence took more than a single declaration that could be localised in time. However, all of these other aspects are less important than the Declaration of Independence, which gave Estonia de jure independence from the Soviet Union, and the August Coup, which gave Estonia de facto independence from the Soviet Union. Both happened in 1991, relatively close to each other (indeed, the former depended on the latter). Removal of Soviet symbols is not a factor of independence *at all*. Estonia would be just as independent as it is now if all the Lenins had been left in place, or if sickles and hammers were printed on Estonian money. ] 20:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::::The phrase "reinstation of independency" is an euphemism for cutting the legal continuity with the ] and its 1988 - 1991 successors. This severing of ties happened in 1992 at the earliest. -- ] 20:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::::No such "severing of ties" happened. The Republic of Estonia recognises itself as a successor of the ], which is considered a distorted and suppressed (or, shall we say, "occupied") form of the continuing earlier Republic of Estonia. I have been at a judicial trial deciding a case of real estate ownership and involving various versions of property law from 1960 onwards up to around 1995; for events in their timeframe, the ] laws were given appropriate consideration. ] 21:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::::However, it's probably important in the context of this article that reinstating the independence significantly changed status of the immigrants: before, they had been citizens of USSR living in a region of USSR; afterwards, they were citizens of USSR living in an foreign independent state, and thus, ]s. Since they had gotten into the territory through ] policies of the ] Soviet government, many called these people "occupants". As ] points out, this became the beginning of important fork in the perception of Estonia between the natives and the immigrants. ] 21:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::'''P.S.''' Now I find this: ]. He claims to be the president of the ]. It seems that some people (on the right) disagree with the claim that Estonia's pre-war independence was reinstated. -- ] 20:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::: I fail to see the reason for all of this to be in this article. Theres an article about Estonian history... BUT the Estonias official view on the matter is that the state has existed since it was declared on February 24 1918, was occupied and was reinstate on 20th of August 1991. This is the factual history as our historians see it. Not debatable. We celebrate the birth of republic on February 24. End of story. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 20:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
::: *P.S* The official view should prevail over someones personal opinion IMHO ] 20:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Misplaced Pages is not a tool of governments, even independent and intenationally recognized governments. Misplaced Pages has a ]. -- ] 20:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::::: Labeling FACTS as POV makes no sens to me. We might then simply call a heliocentric world view a POV. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 20:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
::::: Continuity of the Republic of Estonia is not a matter of POV, and hasn't been for the last 15 years. It is now a matter of fact, and of law. Surely you can't seriously claim that the proper way to handle controversial laws in Misplaced Pages is to censor them, instead of reporting them and pointing out the controversies. ] 21:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:::]? Ots's claim to presidency has no legal ground. ] 20:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
'''And why''' is this this relevant? The central issue in this Estonian/Russian dispute is the legal continuity of the Estonian state. As ] so nicely put it, the (right wing) Estonians unequivocally see the present state as a continuation of only the 1940 republic. Russia and Estonian Russians equally unequivocally reject this notion, seeing legal continuity between the ] (and its 1988 - 1991 followers) and todays Estonia. Stating that "Estonia reinstated its independence in 1991" in introducing one sided POV into the article and thus making the whole article ]. -- ] 20:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:I concur ] 20:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::I live in Estonia and I have never heard anybody contradicting the fact that this state we currently have is a continuation of the state we has before WWII. It simply is not possible because of the legal grounds this state stands on. It has been debated whether occupation occurred or not, and whether the republic evenrceased to exist but not that that this one is the continuation of the the first state. ] 20:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:::You're too young to remember that, but there was a long and thorough debate over this in the Constitutional Assembly. The continuation side won, as you can read in the Constitution of ]. (It should also be mentioned that international law supports continuity in case of Estonia, but it does not require it.) By now, any legal debates of continuity have been ended for 15 years; while some people still do entertain ideas of non-continuity, these are private viewpoints and have no legal or factual merit at all. ] 20:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:I disagree. Current Republic of Estonia being a continuation of the Republic of Estonia established in early XX century is a matter of established legal fact and so accepted under international law. Right-wingness does not come into play. Rejecting the notion is a POV that should probably be documented, but it is not factual, or legal. ] 20:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:I disagree. Estonia's continuity is a legal fact, not POV. Someone contesting the ] doesn't automatically make the theory POV. Russia's position should only be added if it's clearly defined as Russia's position against the international concensus. ] 20:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


== The Red Army wasn't Russian but multinational ==
==] (Tallinna Kaitseväe kalmistu) ==
I created a stub about the military cemetery. I'm not 100% sure about its official name, so, please, feel free to improve and expand the stub. --] 19:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:How about "Defence Forces Cemetery of Tallinn"? (Defence Force = Kaitsevägi) - ] 20:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
::Aha... I was wondering about that word. ] is probably more correct. The cemetery seems to have been cited as the ''Military Cemetery'' in recent reports, so that should go an inofficial name. --] 20:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


] (]) 11:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
== Estonian Embassy in Moscow ==
about Thursday, 26-th


== Common name? ==
news from Friday, 27, in russian:
http://lenta.ru/news/2007/04/27/embassy/


This statue is broadly known as “The Unknown Rapist”, why is this fact no longer mentioned? —] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added 15:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
google translation to english:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Flenta.ru%2Fnews%2F2007%2F04%2F27%2Fembassy%2F&langpair=ru%7Cen&hl=en&safe=off&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 19:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

Latest revision as of 05:07, 12 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Former good article nomineeBronze Soldier of Tallinn was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 1, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
July 16, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconSoviet Union Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEstonia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconBronze Soldier of Tallinn is part of WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.EstoniaWikipedia:WikiProject EstoniaTemplate:WikiProject EstoniaEstonia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconRussia: Visual arts / History / Military / Politics and law Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the visual arts in Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.
WikiProject iconArchitecture Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconVisual arts: Public art
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the public art task force.
WikiProject iconDeath C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
CThis article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Memorials / Baltic states / European / Russian & Soviet / World War II Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Military memorials and cemeteries task force
Taskforce icon
Baltic states military history task force
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
Taskforce icon
World War II task force

Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8

Bronze Night

Is it just me or is there a tendency to call the happenings surrounding the relocation of the statue the Bronze Night? So why don't we move forward with splitting up the article, make one about the statue and another about the Bronze Night?--Termer 01:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think time is ready for that. Although you have to make sure the scope won't leave out following events and propaganda waves, or we need three articles instead. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 10:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Serious coatrack issues

Folks, Looking through the article and the ongoing variable pace edit war it is clear that large parts of the article are being used for presenting material unrelated to the Memorial. Much of the article seems to cover a battle between Estonian and Russian viewpoints rather than anything directly related to the article's title. It is hard to see what a section like the "Accusations of glorification of fascism" is doing in the article if not to present someones dislike of Estonia(ns). Given the intemperate edit summaries being used I won't be foolish enough to add an {npov} tag but it is clearly not presenting a neutral point of view except in a few places. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking too that this article was becoming a coatrack. Is there a tag for coatrack issues to identify the dubious sections? Martintg 10:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
This has been gone through several times. Basically this article should talk about.
  • Statue
  • Construction, location
  • Its history
  • Controversy (not longer section than 3 - 4 paragraphs)
  • See also links to other related events.

Other crap. Like timelines, responses, accusation sof nazism should be deleted or moved somewhere else. Suva Чего? 10:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed the material should be deleted. I have little doubt it is a repeat of material elsewhere here. I may have a small attempt to see if the article can gradually be chipped into shape - Peripitus (Talk) 11:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Split?

It was suggested before to split the article into two: an article about the 2007 controversy and an article about the structure itself with the link and a minimum commonly agreed factual text about the controversy. This proposal seems to be neutral over the different POVs but will greatly streamline the text allowing the chronological order in both articles.

Obviously the article about the structure does not need section about the alleged glorification of Nazism, human right problems in modern Estonia and very little or none about the annexation of Estonia and deportations in the post-War period.

On the other hand, in the article about the 2007 riots we have to mention annexation, deportation, Soviet crimes, etc. as without it the reasons for the relocation of the monument are unclear. On the other hand we have to explain the frustration of a large section of the Russophones with the human rights situation as well as the perception that the relocation of the monument is a link in the larger chain of rehabilitation and glorification of Nazism. Without it the position of the opponents of relocation including the rioters is absolutely unclear and the article is biased.

As far as I rember the proposal was already stated in the past and rejected as it might compromise the chances of the article to get the GA status or something. It is not actual now maybe it is time to reconsider?

At any rate there should be either all or none of the following:

  • Annexation
  • Deportations and other Soviet crimes
  • Rights of the Russophone minority
  • Perception of the glorification of Nazism

None of the list is directly related to the structure all of them are directly related to the background of the 2007 controversy. Inclusion of some points from the list and not the other makes the articles biased. Obviously we not need 20 page sections on any of the points but they should be present Alex Bakharev 12:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering that only yesterday, you were pushing this joke into the article, I do not think you have the article's best interests in mind with this proposal. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 14:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Split

Folks, it's an article about a statue/monument. Sure there has been a lot of ill-feeling, rioting, nationalistic fervour and dredging up of past misdeeds associated with the concept of the statue, but at the end it's a statue. The article is hardly about this now, is absurdly long, packed full of trivial and repetative detail and simply a vehicle for soviet/estonia/WWI/etc... opinions to be expressed . This talk page has been a forum for so long it's hard to find talk about the article at all. From the commentary on this page and in the archives it is clear that this is unlikely to change and the article will not improve.

I can see that at various times many editors have supported the split. How about a rough straw poll on the split ? - Peripitus (Talk) 21:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for it, just that , how about calling the split the Bronze night or something like that? That's the way the events have been called in general.--Termer 22:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Usually the articles of that sort have more boring and longish names starting with the year like 2007 Tallinn riots or 2007 controversies over the relocation of the Bronze Soldier monument, etc. On the other hand is the Bronze night name appear to be NPOV I would support it - at least it can be consistently typed without cut-n-paste. One of the problems is that we want to talk about at least two nights + background + epilogue. Would it be hindered by this to narrow name? Alex Bakharev 02:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Split supported. In fact, I tried once already, but the eternal SPA troublemakers stopped that horrible "estonazi" action. -- Sander Säde 02:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

To Alex Bakharev, I wouldn't see any problems with including + background + epilogue, + events before and after to an article about the Bronze night. Every story has its prologue and epilogue, + BG.--Termer 06:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Bronze night, although not in common use in English language press, looks like a good name to start with. It appears to be a common name for the night and common names are what we should use. - Peripitus (Talk) 07:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually it was Bronze Nights as there was two of them. Suva Чего? 08:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Using the ever popular GoogleBattle, Bronze Night seems to be used far more -- Sander Säde 08:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
That is logical. Because "On the first bronze night, there were ....", "On the second bronze night there was...", so generally "Bronze nights were...". But article should talk about both bronze nights not about only one. Suva Чего? 08:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen or heard anybody talking about Bronze nights. Although the second night is the ripple effect and surely should be included and everything else that has anything to do with the Bronze night, the night the statue was relocated.--Termer 08:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, let us do the article as Bronze Night and redirect Bronze Nights (and some other suggested names) there? Should be acceptable for everybody? -- Sander Säde 09:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes works for me. :) Suva Чего? 10:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Any objections then if I do this in the next few days ? I was thiking of splitting off basically most of the article from Bronze_Soldier_of_Tallinn#Controversy onwards and leaving a small summary. That way we get an article about the statue and a separate one about the move and resulting echoes.Peripitus (Talk) 09:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Not from me. That split is needed - as is general cleanup. -- Sander Säde 10:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the split. The sub-article can be could Bronze Nights i think. It looks nice. -- Magioladitis 11:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree too. I think that the events on that(these) night(s) were important enough for a separate article. Only the first 3 chapters and maybe a short roundup of the events should stay here. H2ppyme 21:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


Done - I've used the opening section of Bronze Night as the summary. It seems to cover all of the pertinent points without going into too much detail. I'll leave Bronze Night article for a few days but it really does need culling and editing to make it neutral and encyclopediac. - Peripitus (Talk) 09:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Historical background - section

Folks,

This section clearly does not belong here. It appears to be another coatrack section designed to continue the battle raging here. Does anyone have any good reason that this section should not be removed ? - Peripitus (Talk) 11:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't come across the post here yesterday but I noticed the problem in the article. It looked like the Historical background had been left hanging there during the split and it actually is more the background for the reasons of removal rather than the monument. So I moved the section down there. The Historical background would have context with the Preceding monument though, the one that the girls blew up back then. But in current state it was way over proportioned. Also, the historical background for the removal reasons can be tightened up in this article and spelled out more in the Bronze Night. As long as it makes sense in the end why Estonians considered the Bronze Soldier a symbol of Soviet occupation and repression. --Termer 06:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
PS. Also, It seems that it's not spelled out in the article anywhere, and there are factual inaccuracies: previously the monument was called "to the Liberators of Tallinn" etc. now it says so on the tablet and it is Monument to perished during WWII.--Termer 06:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The Meeting in Tallin in commemoration of the Bronze Soldier relocation on April 26, 2007

A meting held in Tallinn in commemoration of the Bronze Soldier relocation (that happened on April 26, 2007).

April 26, 2008 - the defenders of the monument initiated the meeting. They demand to create the International Commission for detailed investigation of the events on April 26, 2007. During the two days, April 26 and April 27, 1,500 people are arrested. 50 are injured, 1 dead.

http://news.mail.ru/politics/1731767/et Victor V V (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention millions of dollars of damage done to private property by looters high on heroine and booze. Also, we shouldn't forget that most of the injured were police officers who got hit by a pavement stones or garbage bins, or the looters who got cut by broken glass while trying to get tampons out of the nearby kiosk. Suva Чего? 15:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference is needed to the statements by Suva. Victor V V (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages don't necessarily require references. This was all reported on the news. —PētersV (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Denial-of-service attack

The article is missing info on this; see --Espoo (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be mentioned in 2007 cyberattacks on Estonia, which is referenced in the Bronze Night article. This article is about the statue itself, for the political and criminal consequences, those other articles are more suitable. Martintg (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't you think there should at least be a sentence or two mentioning the attacks with an in-text link to the other article? --Kraftlos (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Another edit war

Folks, over a dozen pointless revert edits about a picture. Pointless as no one is discussing the dispute here on the talk page. Can you please come here to talk through the issue then edit the article once consensus is clear ? - Peripitus (Talk) 21:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Smiling. Amazing collusion is going on. Interesting timing of events. His mate once again deletes the picture with vague explanations 21.01 and requests the page to be protected 21.04 . Then his reply about the so called "another edit war" 21.00 Beatle Fab Four (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You have the timing wrong there - Martin left the talk page message after I pointed out the idiocy of this. As for the mate bit - look at the map....Australia is a very big place full of lots of strangers. Perhaps you will discuss your point of view on the article here now ? - Peripitus (Talk) 04:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Flowers on the former site are fine. Signs threatening "I'll be back" (as in fringe threats of invasion) does little to inform an article about the statue and serves only to push an anti-Estonian POV. —PētersV (talk) 02:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason I removed the pic the moment I noticed it was explained in the edit history. This is a political poster that violates WP:Point and WP:BATTLEGROUND . The origin of this quote "I'll be back" comes from the withdrawing Russian troops that had the line written on their trucks when they pulled out from the Baltic states. Therefore the poster suggest for the return of occupation and it is a Russian ultra-nationalist statement and should be removed from WP because it violates the policies mentioned above--Termer (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd request Beatle Fab Four not restore the picture the next time it is deleted. It is, indeed, a POLITICAL poster representing anti-Estonian "we'll invade them again" threats. I would consider such action similar to past edits which appear to push an anti-Estonian/Baltic POV, as an example, Beatle Fab Four's edits incorrectly changing European Victory Day to coincide with Russia's/Soviet Victory Day and deleting the reference to the Baltic States not observing the Russian version of Victory Day because they consider it re-occupation by the Soviets. —PētersV (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense, own research and throlling. Reasoning like that of kids. "I'll be back" is from Terminator by the same stupid analogy. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know.. can anybody explain this posters meaning and what value does it add to the article? The message itself is quite bizarre, in Estonian and in Russian it actually says "I'm back", in English it says "I'll be back". I personally don't agree that this sentence has some kind of hidden deep meaning, like suggested above and consider whole poster as total nonsense (however, this suggestion brought one recollection, couple of years ago on the tribunes of the Estonian-Russian football match there were some football-fans from Russia, with USSR flags and with banner "Masters are back", masters as "proprietors" - хозяйны)) - so maybe there really is some hidden meaning I don't know or remember anymore. Anyway, I would delete this picture too, but only on the basis that it's message is quite unclear and it doesn't add anything substantial to the article.

BTW, Beatle Fab Four, your statements are starting to look like personal attacks, so please, tone down your rhetorics. Ptrt (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Compared to the thousands of flowers on the site, this single political poster indicates a tiny minority viewpoint and thus its presentation here is undue. Martintg (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Ha-ha-ha. The poster simbolizes the virtual presense of the monument on the original site. Flowers on the same original site simbolize the same thing. Even kids can understand that. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it is a picture of an Estonian deportee who was dragooned into the Red Army but escaped across the frontline to the Finnish side at the first opportunity. Martintg (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Weeeeell, Peripitus, you can clearly see the root of the problem. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
??? Something factually incorrect about my statement? Martintg (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Whose presence, Palusalu's or Bronze Soldier's? Yes, there is one theory that Palusalu could be the prototype of the Bronze Soldier, but I don't think that anybody could argue about their virtual equality in current context, nobody connects them on that level, I could bet that 99% Estonian people (including local Russians) don't even know this fact. Ptrt (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Folks, would this be solved by removing the entire gallery and adding a {{commonscat}} link at the bottom. Galleries are usually discouraged here as that is what commons is for. Peripitus (Talk) 21:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Really? What about here and here . Peripitus, the problem is not in the gallery, the problem is that someone can't grow up. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF. I think Peripitus makes a good suggestion. I would support moving the entire gallery to commons. Martintg (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Support. But I can already see what is going to happen... Ptrt (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing

I've just noticed that all 18 sources are either pro-Estonian or anti-Russian. Is there a reason for this? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify, please? What do you exactly mean with "pro-estonian" and "anti-russian"? And how do you define those categories in given context? Ptrt (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There has a lot of political commentary sneaked in again over time into this article. Please note that all propaganda articles that are straight out lies are going to be removed from this article. For example Russia Today claiming that Estonian nationalists reportedly tried to put a wreath of barbed wire decorated with a swastika on the statue. That's not what you'd call WP:RS. Please stick to reliable, third-party, published sources while editing this article! POV can be tolerated only if it;d say that Russia Today claims this and that. But since the report about swastika is a straight out lie, I think the text should be just removed.--Termer (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Russia Today is the mouthpiece of the Russian Federation. Completely unreliable with regard to anything about the Baltic states in particular. PetersV       TALK 00:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Motions for "destruction"

All the posturing over destruction of monuments is interesting, but my understanding is that there are treaties between the Baltic states and Russia regarding the preservation of war memorials. Let's make clear what contentions and motions are rhetoric and which are not. Not a single war memorial anywhere has been destroyed or will be destroyed. Yet blogs are full of invective over Estonians destroying monuments to and graves of fallen Soviet soldiers. PetersV       TALK 00:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, 2007.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, 2007.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Misplaced Pages. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The Red Army wasn't Russian but multinational

Xx236 (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Common name?

This statue is broadly known as “The Unknown Rapist”, why is this fact no longer mentioned? —NoApostropheInIts (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Categories: