Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Excavations

"Amid political controversy the Estonian government started excavations of the buried people." Did they? As far as I know, it was postponed until the situation calms down. Or am I just behind with the news? --82.131.12.35 22:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right. The excavations were postponed after the riots started. 84.50.11.236 22:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand that - so far - only the bronze statue has been moved to a secret location. Are there plans to move the stone wall as well, or is it going to be demolished? Camptown 22:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Both the statue and its foundation have been removed. This is what the tent currently contains: http://etv24.ee/failid/73926_01.jpg Picture courtesy of the Estonian National Television —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.196.91.249 (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

nice picture. EvilAlex 23:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Who these buried people are? How they died? Were they fighting a) against German forces (which started war against Soviet Union) or b) were they fighting to occupy state of Estonia? As it's said, Estonians made guerilla attacks against Soviets by forest brothers during 1944-1948 even when German troops were withdrawn from Baltic countries. Maybe they died during those days? Latest Estonian soldier who was fighting against soviets was discovered and killed in 1978!! So lot's of things for historians to investigate.

What shall we call this?

"Excavations" - "Removal" - "Relocation" - "Demolition" - what shall we call this?

I would call it demolition, as it is was a place of worship, and thus can not be "relocated". The Estonian government initially called their secret operation "excavations", but it was clear from the begining that the intention was to dismantle and later possibly relocate the statue (minus Soviet symbols?).

What eventually happened (after the nightly emergency meeting) was demolition. This is the word used by Estonian Minister of Defense Jaak Aaviksoo in the statement broadcast (and translated) by BBC. -- Petri Krohn 23:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What was the Estonian word? All I heard used was "teisaldamine" and "osadeks võtmine", which mean relocation and dismantling, respectively. Either way, someone mistranslating or misusing a word does not change the fact that nothing has been demolished, the masonry was dismantled and removed with the intact bronze statue, to be relocated to the Military Cemetery in Tallinn. Demolition implies irreversible destruction, and other than your esoteric notions of materialist mysticism, nothing has been destroyed (apart from countless window panes, but that's neither here nor there). Unigolyn 05:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

And, a few hours ago Ansip again said the statue was in one piece. --82.131.56.56 17:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as the statue is in one piece or in such a state that it can be restored to its original condition it has not been demolished. It has been removed, it is being relocated, and excavations is to be conducted at the site. That is at least how I see it. Uhu219 11:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

My edits to intro - who's point of view?

I made some edits to the intro, including exhanging the order of Monument to the Liberators of Tallinn with Tõnismäe Monument. The statue is something revered by a group of people, one could even say it was a place of worship. When writing about sacred objects and people (saints) one should primarly cover why they are important to the people who worship them. Atheist should not have their criticism of religion placed first in the introduction of articles on churches and religion. Critisism should be included, but only after the issues primary importance is explaned from point of view of those that find it important. -- Petri Krohn 00:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"One could even say". Well, yes, you've been saying it a lot. Your ridiculous pet theory isn't grounds for encyclopedic content. The official names for monuments are decided de jure by the governments under whose internationally recognized sovereignty they lie, not by appeals to dubious politicized reinterpretations. If you want an edit war, you're on. Unigolyn 01:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As the monument no longer exist, it is irrelevant what the Estonian goverment decided to call it. -- Petri Krohn 01:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That's your POV. The monument wasn't destroyed, it is being relocated. Consult a dictionary. Unigolyn 04:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Increased levels of violence?

Unigolyn removed the phrase "increased levels of violence" from the intro, replacing it with references to alcohol consumption. The reports (BBC) from tonight include the use of:

1. Molotov cocktails
2. Rubber bullets
3. Watercannon

I definitely belive these are an escalation of violence. -- Petri Krohn 02:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The BBC article seems erroneous. Molotov cocktails and water cannons were used and deployed but not used respectively on Thursday and the image seems to be from Thursday night as well. Neither the Estonian nor the Finnish press has reported Molotov cocktails, nor have I seen anything of the sort in any of the TV news coverage. Regardless of the accuracy of the article, there was certainly not an escalation of the violence, as there were: a) less protestors b) less police clashes c) no deaths or serious injuries d) a dozen stores looted instead of the 99 on Thursday e) order was restored an hour earlier. As far as alcohol consumption goes, the demographics of the rioters are reportedly teenagers and young adults instead of the more widely age-variable group of political protesters seen on Thursday, and instead of overt political protests the majority of them preoccupied themselves with breaking into liquor stores and setting fire to trash cans. Unigolyn 04:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I find BBC most reliable, aas they have been reporting live from Tallinn through out the night. I will check on the dates of Molotov cocktails. This I know: They were not reported yesterday. neither were rubber bullets. Also use of water cannon was denied and removed from article. Tonight I have seen TV coverage of both rubber bulllets and watercannon. -- Petri Krohn 05:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"This I know" is a really shoddy argument. Your claim that violence escalated is baseless regardless of whether the cops used truncheons or rubber bullets. Less people, less violence, less damage, and less injuries overall != escalation. Unigolyn 05:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, I once more saw the BBC report from this morning. It makes clear that 1, 2 & 3 were used on 28 April. It also mentiones the use of stones. On 27th the protestors only broke windows. On 28th they used Molotov cocktails. This is a weapon, making this an instance of armed resistance. You can of course say that this is not protest or resistance, but drunkenness. Whatever, it is more violent. -- Petri Krohn 06:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, tone down the hyperbole and misuse of the English language. On both nights they used stones against police, also bottles. These are all weapons. And what exactly were they "resisting"? The efforts of the police to stop them from breaking into stores? Let me get this straight, if I break into a store, and the cops try to stop me, and I throw heavy objects at them, I'm engaging in "armed resistance"? Unigolyn 06:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If you take up arms for a political cause, then it may be. What might the political cause be? Up to now it would have been citizenship for everybody. Today the protesters seem to shouting "Rossija! Rossija!", so I do not know if Estonian citizenship interests these people anymore. -- Petri Krohn 06:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. This is an interesting issue, but unfortunately talk pages are not for discussing politics. -- Petri Krohn 07:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

We're not discussing politics. We're discussing your weasel tactics of introducing loaded terms into an encyclopedic article to further your pro-Russian POV. "Armed resistance" has well-known political connotations aside from it's purely descriptive meaning, and it is never used in cases of drunken rioters attacking police with rocks. You don't use loaded terms like "state secret", "armed resistance" or "demolish" unless you can back them up with multiple reliable news sources reporting the same. For the love of Stalin, stop it already. Unigolyn 02:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What about police violence, i've heard there has been a lot of that too (not as much as by rioters, but i've heard that innocent people have been beaten up. 84.250.45.172 11:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is being beaten, not even the rioters. They are just thrown to ground if they don't obey the commands of the police. 84.50.11.236 12:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, those who broke into the stores and pillaged were beaten by the police. But not those who just shouted.--82.131.56.56 15:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Is that what they told you on the news? Because i have a few online buddies who live in Estonia, both estonians and russians, and they were there and whitnessed (and vidoed) the abuse of power by police. They'll probably post the stuff on Youtube when stuff calms down. 88.192.33.246 15:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly propaganda. Estonian police were extremely careful not to abuse their power and there's not a single fact confirming any abuse. Rumours only. 84.50.11.236 09:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah? Well than watch this video clip, starting at approx 0:45, 5 police officers walk up to 2 14-year old girls and start beating them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdudZQdOrhg Of course, they are clearly guilty of vandalizing public property and attacking a police officer. Yep, that's what it looks like. 88.192.33.246 13:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If you watch closely, you notice the police is not holding a club in its hand once he has hit them once. Well he is holding the club at first, but he only hits them once, which couldnt be considered beating. They are not letting people gather in the central town at all to prevent the destruction of the previous night.--82.131.85.6 13:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that, i didn't know that it's allowed in Estonia to hit innocent underage bystanders with a nightstick, as long as you hit them only once... 88.192.33.246 13:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure theyre underaged at all? Dont seem so for me. --82.131.85.6 13:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, they look smaller than the cops. And it doesn't really matter, what matters is that police violence is not just propaganda.88.192.33.246 14:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Women usually are smaller than men. Especially, considering the men are cops(=athletic), who also have large helmets. Things have gotten recently out of hand, and some violence is inevitable. But the police can make a difference. They either punish people a bit for gathering in the first place, in which case the violence is minimal; or they let people gather and suffer mass psychosis (like they pretty much did on the first night), in which case uncontrollable violence emerges, that is, looting and damaging the nearby shops and also the murder of that Dimitri. It is not meaningless police violence. The damage that would be caused without such small measures(like hitting someone once with a club) would be massively larger.--82.131.85.6 14:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh so you're saying everything could have been prevented if they hit every woman in town before moving the statue? Now i don't know much about Estonian laws, but if hitting someone with a stick just once is allowed, and 2 people talking to each other is an "illegal gathering", that makes me not want to visit that country :P. BTW what you say if we move this conversation to another place, because this thread is getting kinda thin.88.192.33.246 14:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's right, you don't know anything about Estonian laws, nor do you know anything about police procedure or the realities of crowd control. You are not an expert and a brief Youtube video is so out of context I doubt any expert would hasten to draw conclusions from it. This is an encyclopedia, not an opinion forum - you don't get to decide what constitutes police brutality. Also, "innocent bystanders" hardly applies in the middle of riot. The police issued orders to vacate the area, not doing so is illegal in any civilized state. Unigolyn 20:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

K, check my talk page for my MSN and put me in you contact list right away so i can delete my MSN address from the wiki again (im 82.131.85.6, but im too lazy to log in, usually). --Haigejobu 14:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

State secrecy?

He also removed the reference to state secrecy. I saw an article on this in Postimees (or was it Eesti Päevaleht?) yesterday. I tried to relocate the article, but could not find it among hundreds of new articles on the demonstrations. Also my skils in Googling in Estonian are not that good. Somebody please help on finding a reference. -- Petri Krohn 02:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll find it for you if you give more details on what it was about. EDIT: A quick search on both EPL and PM for "riigisaladus" came up with nothing past August 2006, when a Russian colonel was convicted for selling state secrets (in Russia). What did the article say about these "state secrets"? I've been following the story for a while and I'm hard pressed to think what exactly they could be hiding. Unigolyn 04:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not think they used the word "riigisaladus", maybe "saladus". The article said that the government had desided that all details of the operations are strictly secret. (Maybe state secrecy has demanded the removal of the article from the web :-) -- Petri Krohn 05:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What operation? There was no secrecy about the archaeological excavations and ultimate relocation of the monument and any remains that were found. If you're talking about the security surrounding the excavation and the impromptu removal of the monument following the protests/rioting, well duh. Police ANYWHERE don't offer such information to the public. It's not "state secrecy", it's common sense and common practice. Do you think the LAPD broadcast their tactical information on public radio during the Rodney King riots? Frankly, I'm getting tired of your insistence on inundating this article and this discussion with countless red herrings and weasel-wording wherever you possibly can. Just stop the pretense and call Estonia a Neo-Nazi police state. Unigolyn 05:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with Unigolyn. Please don't make any further such controversial edits and claims unless you can back them up with a reference. DLX 06:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Petri, the link you found [1] states, that the timeline will not be revealed to the general public, because they are afraid of violence/vandalism. State secret means something entirely different. So I am going to remove that sentence again, hopefully for good now. DLX 09:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The article uses the word riigisaladus, in the sentence "teemad kuuluvad riigisaladuse alla". Maybe the issue here is that state secret in Wikipedia is something even more secret than riigisaladus. -- Petri Krohn 09:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The article says that after the national security council adjourned, their press corps' reply to press inquiries were that "topics discussed at the national security council are consider state secrets", which is completely normal practice and isn't used exclusively for the Bronze Soldier issue. Almost immediately, government members detailed their intentions but did not divulge exact dates, which he said had not been decided yet. Unigolyn 02:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I spent several days in Estonia just before the riots started. Every newspaper and every news broadcast told about the beginning of the excavations. All talk about secrecy is pure BS!

--88.112.92.36 13:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph wording and times

Petri,

1. Please back up "escalated" violence claim with numbers of more property damage, greater number of rioters, more injuries, or more arson. 2. Please back up "protest" instead of "riot". Who was protesting what and where? Obviously the root cause of the continuing violence is the removal of the monument, but general mayhem does not a protest make. 3. Please stop weaseling with semantics. Timelines are important in the opening paragraph because there has not been round-the-clock rioting, and police have restored order shortly after midnight on both days. Also, the second riot started on Friday the 27th, not Saturday the 28th. So far, only 90 minutes of the 28th had riots, as of this writing, 8 hours have been riot-free. Unigolyn 06:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed date, April 28 was a leftover from an earlier edit. -- Petri Krohn 06:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm content with the new wording. Please, please try to justify every adjective you use on an evidentiary basis so we can avoid "escalating" and the like in the future. Unigolyn 06:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Memorial theme

It says in the article that the monument was created in 1947 originally as an official memorial to Soviet soldiers who died fighting in World War II. The theme was later changed, stating "For those fallen in World War II". Was the "theme" changed after the independence in 1991 (when the eternal flame was removed)? And, if so, was it a part of a compromise to keep the monument at all. How did this affect the message signs on the memorial? Camptown 07:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was altered after 1991. However, the statue itself carries soviet symbolics, so the new label didn't change much for most of its opponents. --90.190.56.10 07:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Disputed section

The long section about regaining independence, demographics and possible causes of the conflict is written not from a neutral viewpoint and is inaccurate as well. we should have here only things directly connected with the events, e.g that Russians regard it as a monument of the liberators and most of the Estonians view the statue as the symbol of the long and bloody Soviet occupation. But citizenship issues should _not_ be dealt with here _in detail_. 90.190.56.10 07:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The background, demographics section contains many false statements. Please remove it, correct the false statements or mark it as disputed. Suva 10:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Reason to Revolt: Discrimination of Russians in Estonia

I think these protests have very little to do with the statue itself, and a lot more to do with how the russian speaking people in Estonia (and the other Baltic countries) are today being discriminated and harassed in many ways by the Estonian State, almost apartheid like... That is the real background for their anger; The governments removal of the statue was just an other example of this tendency. Bronks 08:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting argumentt; though it has nothing to do in the encyclopedia. So it should be removed. 90.190.56.10 08:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not true: What is the social cause of the riots? It should too be in an encyclopeic article. The disputes around this statue today have very little to do with what crimes Stalinism did in Estonia 50 years ago, but everything to do with what the Estonia State is doing today. Bronks 08:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

So what is Estonia doing today? Demanding ability to communicate in Estonian for citizenship, is that really so bad? No, it is more about that some Russians have been raised in Stalinist spirit, both by their parents and the Soviet Propaganda. No matter what Estonia would do, their way of thinking doesn't change. It is very connected to what happened 60 years ago.--82.131.56.56 09:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Apartheid in an EU member state? This is hard to believe. In any case, just how does violent rioting and looting help Russian minority to fight discrimination? If anything, it completely undermines their cause and creates a precedent for tough police measures. They should learn to engage in dialog and use consensus-building mechanisms, which are readily available under Estonian Constitution and EU umbrella. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rombaba (talk • contribs) 00:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Replay to the two anonymous editors. This is not suppose to be a debate on who is right and who is wrong! The point I'm making is that there could be social issues in the background behind the protest against the removal of this statue. Bronks 09:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added a wikilink to the Baltic Russians article in the intro; it mentions some of these issues. Esn 10:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, History of Russians in Estonia might be a better fit. Esn 10:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

POV tag?

There is {{pov}} tag on the page. I cannot find related dicussion on this page. In fact, I can not even guess what kind of POV is implied: Russian or Estonian? As the article is on the front page, I am removing the tag in one minute. If you disagree, restore the tag, but write your grievances here. Better yet, instead of taging the whole article, place {{fact}} and other tags to individual paragraphs. -- Petri Krohn 09:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems like editors from both "sides" are tagging the article... Camptown 09:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Then I guess it is OK to remove the tag. -- Petri Krohn 09:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

let's try to keep this as neutral as possible, that is by representing both sides opinions —Borism 17:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Schroeder's comment

Flag of Germany Germany - Gerhard Schroeder, former chancellor of Germany, called the action insulting to Russians who died fighting fascism: "the way Estonia dealt with the memory of those soldiers shows bad taste and disrespect."[33]

this is marked as German response. But Schroeder is on the paycheck of Gazprom, so i dont think this should be marked as the official response of Germany? --82.131.56.56 10:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, a Putin ally who joined Gazprom shortly after leaving office, a major political scandal in Germany.... As we may not know in what capacity he speaks (Gazprom, Putin, on his own behalf etc), I changed the national template to a flag image instead (after all he is German). Camptown 11:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I might as well mention that I wasn't sure exactly where to add it when I put it in, but was encouraged that the section "political reaction" wasn't titled "official political reaction". I'm glad that it has been moved to another section, though perhaps the main one should be retitled somehow? Schroeder's statement is also a "political reaction" after all, even if it may not be the official response of Germany. Esn 12:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Schröder is not the head of state of Germany or any official so I don't see why it should be noted. --Pudeo (Talk) 12:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't including the information about Schroeder being part of Gazprom, thusly presenting a qualifier about his statement, slightly POV? His statement is his POV, but mentioning that he happens to be tied in with Gazprom seems to suggest that the writer's own POV is that he's bound to say such a thing because he's obviously in the pay of the Russians. That's not presenting evidence with impartiality, and I think mention of his ties to Gazprom should be removed from this page - let viewers find it out for themselves, they shouldn't be told what to think when reading this. Whether Shroeder's own comments on the matter still remain relevant to the page is another question.--86.140.177.37 13:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is actually very much NPOV - just stating that he works for a major Russian company, which is publicly known as a tool used by Russian government in politics before. There are no further comments on that, just the plain facts - and each can draw their own conclusions. DLX 14:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's notable that the former Chancellor says: "Russians who died fighting fascism" (sic). Maybe he made the statement in Russian... ;) Camptown 15:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - I think the wording seems to be trying to make a point. I mean, I didn't know that he worked for/with Gazprom until I saw that comment. My perception of the statement is changed before I even read it. This is slightly irrelevant, as someone else has now removed the mention of Gazprom. Also, apologies if this has already been clarified, but why is it incorrect to say the Soviet Union faught against "fascism"? It wasn't just Nazi Germany that took part in Barbarossa.--86.140.177.37 16:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I would expect a former Chancellor of Germany (the country that started the war and had the option to end it anytime before the bitter end) to be more honest, and not using Russian sematics as fascists when talking about a monument in memory of the fight against the nazists. Even though I begin to wonder if the Soviets actually "liberated" Estonia from the Italians... Camptown 17:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think by the time the Soviet army came back to Estonia, the Italians had already switched sides. However, one of the last batallions to leave Tallinn was the SS wallonie division, commanded by Leon Degrelle. Not really Nazis, but Fascists.--Pan Gerwazy 18:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Also remember that the Romanians also took part on the Eastern Front and were also ruled by a Fascist state, as were several other Axis powers. Whether any Romanian or Croat or whatever divisions were dotted around Tallinn in 1944 is something else entirely, but for the Soviet Union the whole war was the fight against "the fascists", I wouldn't expect them to be getting very politically correct after all that happened on the Eastern Front. But from a technical standpoint, that point I think is more accurate than saying they just faught against Nazism. But I find myself drifting off the point though I think.--86.140.177.37 18:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is "former chancellor" more important than "current Gazprom *something*"? In my opinion, the present occupation is more important than the past. I'll change it back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haigejobu (talk • contribs) 16:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

No, I agree that mentioning his current job is relevant. I'm adding it back in for now, hopefully in a way that nobody will find POV. Esn 05:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh, I see someone already added it in before I managed to. Anyway, I think it's relevant because it gives better context to his comments. I hope nobody finds the current phrasing POV. Esn 06:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Mr. Schroeder's comment has also to be judged in view of his current credentials. Camptown 09:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Vello Rajangu

Now it's claimed that the statue is modeled after the Estonian soldier Vello Rajangu. True or not? Camptown 14:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

According to this, identity of the model is unknown. Kristjan Palusalu is very likely not the model, most probably the model was a carpenter named Albert Adamson. The name Vello Rajangu isn't mentioned at all, so it is probably not true. I'll remove that from the article, unless someone can come up with a citation supporting that. DLX 14:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional source (also in Estonian, unfortunately) [2] DLX 14:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, are there enough material for an article about Albert Adamson? The name sounds Swedish, doesn't it? Camptown 14:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

To an Estonian ear the names Albert and Adamson sound very Estonian, and there have been plenty of Albert's and Adamson's in Estonia. Just an observation, not an allegation about the ethnic identity of the person in question. Cheers, --217.159.207.106 15:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Monument intact

Estonian prime minister made a statement in which he announced that the monument is "intact" and "undamaged" (http://www.delfi.ee/news/paevauudised/eesti/article.php?id=15706791). Therefore any references to the dismantling or destruction of the monument should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orav (talk • contribs) 17:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

And that implies that the Estonian authorities have returned the Bronze Soldier from its undisclosed location? --Camptown 17:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The prime minister states that the monument is currently under police custody and will be transferred to the cemetery of the Estonian Defence Forces as soon as the preparations are complete.

I thought they sawed it off by it's ankles? There were photos of that. 84.250.45.172 21:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The photos were fake. Here is proof: http://surnuaed.ee/sold_fake.gif The image is originally taken from this same wikipedia article and photoshopped. Suva 10:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The Bronze statue

What is going to happen with the bronze statue? Is it going to be melted down, given away to Russia's deputy Prime Minister, or be included as a decorative element at the local military cemetary? Camptown 18:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, the statue, along with any remains unearthed at Tõnismäe, will be transferred as a whole to the Cemetery ASAP. This was said in the official statement by Andrus Ansip, the prime minister. Orav 18:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... Why, then, did you suggest removing any references to the removal or destruction of the monument? Camptown 18:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I said "dismantling or destruction" which would mean the statue would be no more. Of course the statue is removed from Tõnismäe. I never said that it wasn't going to be relocated. Just the fact that the article said the statue was going to be destroyed was inaccurate. Sorry if you misunderstood. Orav 18:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Amazing page

I think the recent development of this discussion page is truly amazing, much more interesting than the article it is supposed to cover. --Bondkaka 20:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Mass grave

What is actually known regarding the mass grave? Does it contain a number of unidentifeid human corpses (more or less dumped into the grave), or are these corpses arranged in some kind of a system, facilitating identification? Since this grave doesn't seem to have been supposed to be a Grave of the unknown soldier - Why were the corpses buried in an intersection in the middle of a big city? --Camptown 21:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Identity of those buried, even the amount of those buried isn't clear. Numbers have been stated to be 13 or 16 in different sources, as several burials & reburials took place during soviet times. The intersection was widened decades ago by soviet authorities, at the same time when the controversial bus stop was built (widening it the other way would have required the demolition of one of Tallinn's main churches). It's believed that part of the burial site was paved over then. Also, there's no clear information about whether any remains were removed or relocated when the gas pipes for eternal flame by the statue were ran through the burial site.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.35.238.94 (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, very interesting! You mentioned a church - does that imply that the site was used as a burial ground when the remains of the soldiers were laid to rest in the mass grave? --Camptown 23:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not, as far as I know this particular church did not have a cemetery attached to it, as it was constructed on an empty plot when the city had already enclosed it. The space used for burials can be described (for the want of a better definition) as a "small park". For best available information on the graves you can read the goverment study linked on the main page, presently under the "Neutral" heading. 213.35.238.94 23:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

12 coffins have been found (2 rows of 6). 9 sets of remains will have been recovered by tonight (30/04), according to Defense Ministry press conference earlier today. 213.35.232.138 13:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Coffins have been identified as the right ones, as their handles are a clearly identifiable unusual make, same as on burial photographs. 213.35.232.138 13:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Russians vs Estonians is not correct!

I don't like two aspects: 1) This talk page says this is piece of russian history 2) Marauders in Tallinn is Russians. In my opinion, former correct version is CCCP history, not Russian. Later is more slavic people, russians are most common slavic peolpe in Estonia, but Belarus and Ukraine descendent is also common. 62.65.227.172 (talk · contribs)

Russian history is relevant as post-communist Russia (notably her political institutions) has been quite obsessed with the issue. Camptown 21:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as i know Belorussians and Ukrainians dont walk in the streets of Tallinn shouting: "Russia, Russia". So please dont mess them in this dirt. EvilAlex 22:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the quite hysteric political reaction in Russia, which certainly has neiher been diplomatic, nor discrete. That, my friend, is part of the Russian contemporary history. I understand Russians who are not so proud of their politicians, when they use the kind of offensive and destructive power language we have seen in the last couple of days. Yet, it's part of the Russian history... --Camptown 23:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this monument is history of Soviet Union. It's strange that leaders of 100 times bigger nation (Russia) than Estonia are so "critical" to small nation which suffered much during the times of USSR. I believe also Russia suffered from Soviet Union? Or were they only rulers of Soviet Union and now miss the glory days? We should remember the Bronze Soldier was not set up by independent Russia. It was set up by dead communist state called Soviet Union. Not Ukranian people, or their decents, are celebrating communist monument there. Most probably they think crazy people both side.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.156.169.76 (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Demolished structures category

The word 'demolished' is not correct, thus I recommend to remove this category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.50.157.9 (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

As the comment said: come back when it is rebuilt. Then, maybe, it can go into Category:Relocated buildings and structures. For now it stays in Category:Demolished buildings and structures. -- Petri Krohn 23:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Try to find a new category. I do not protest against anything but I want to see correct grammar - this is not the case. The word "demolish" would be correct if the monument was destroyed (e.g. blown up or whatever). 84.50.157.9 23:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)84.50.157.9

I'll try to find a better category. Please leave this category intact for now. 84.50.157.9 23:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)84.50.157.9

The PM was obviously only referring to the stutue when he told the press that the "monument" was "undamaged", but what happend to the stone structure - was it actually demolished today, or not. Who is right? We need evidence! Camptown 23:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is not a single stone left of the structure in the original location. This was made clear by the published photos of the inside of the tent. -- Petri Krohn 23:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Unconfirmed sources say that the stone structure is almost intact and was removed by sections, not brick by brick. Trying to get confirmation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.50.157.9 (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Even if the structure was in sections, it would still count as "Demolished structures". -- Petri Krohn 23:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No, 'demolished' means 'destroyed completely'. Like I said before, the word 'demolished' seems incorrect. Why should we put it in this category if it has not been destroyed completely (or until we do not have information if it has or has not been destroyed)? I would not put it in a "Not Destroyed Structures" category either (even if it existed) since I cannot confirm my sources right now. You should use the same mentality. I recommend removal of the category until confirmation.84.50.157.9 00:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)84.50.157.9

It seems that you have misunderstood the meaning of the word "demolished". Any structure torn down is demolished. It does not need to be blown up with dynamite. -- Petri Krohn 00:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Considering the state secrecy surrounding the structure, maybe we need to create a Category:Disappeared buildings and structures. -- Petri Krohn 23:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You could create the category if you want to, but I do not see the point of it.84.50.157.9 00:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)84.50.157.9

P.P.S. We could of course consider Category:Unexplained disappearances. -- Petri Krohn 00:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer it instead of the demolished structures category. Change it then?84.50.157.9 00:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Again with the "state secrecy" nonsense. Please stop misusing the English language to further your political ends. Dismantling something in order to re-erect it elsewhere is not demolition. See dictionary definitions of Demolish and Dismantle. Also, you were asked to, and you appeared to agree with, stopping with your completely unverified and baseless "state secret" accusations. Unigolyn 02:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained disappearances seems more like alien stories & divine interventions & other mystical stuff. IMO, unsuitable for the statue which was taken away with a common truck. --82.131.57.196 06:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Waffen SS monument and its removal relevant?

It seems that there's parallel between this conflict and the building/removal of the monument to the Estonians who fought as members of Waffen SS in 2004. I found this [3] and also remember BBC News covered it.

And that story is duly linked at the end, under "See also". See Monument of Lihula. Any longer sections in this article are hardly NPOV, and this isn't a compendium over political statue removal in Post-Soviet countries. Unigolyn 02:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the source is plain wrong. Despite what the media claims, no SS insignia was displayed. This was confirmed by an expert (professor of semiotics from Tartu University) brought in by police [4]. Link in estonian, but broadly saying that the only identifiable insignia were distinctly estonian, and the helmet worn a generic german model (understandable, as that what was worn by estonians fighting against soviets at the time). 213.35.238.94 03:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Khimki War Memorial

I fail to find a Wikiarticle on exhuming of six Red Army pilots and destruction of the memorial in Khimki (http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2007/04/20/014.html). They had to bring in special forces (OMON) there - and there are no plans of restoring the monument, afaik. Would be highly relevant to Bronze Soldier controversy as well, for obvious reasons. DLX 06:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Few more sources: 1, 2, 3 (bottom of the page).DLX 06:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you already mentioned it (16:21, 27 April 2007). It's relevant, but not directly related to this - it's more like those other links in the "see also" section (the alleged SS-uniform memorial, etc). This particular case is only partially about the removal of a statue. In large part, according to the comments I've read by Russians, it is about "15 years of repression". Much like the protests in France last year, it was sparked by something relatively simple, but if that other background had not been there there is absolutely no way it would have escalated to these huge proportions. Rather, the reaction would probably have been much as it was in Khimki - anger, but not wholesale destruction.

But yes, if you wish, by all means create an article about it and link it somewhere (maybe in the "see also" section). Esn 06:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I was going to mention that it's not really up to wikipedia editors to make comparisons. However, now that I see that the comparison is being made in the media and within Russia (from those new links you posted), perhaps it would be a good idea to start a small section about it. Mind, it still probably shouldn't be a huge part of this article. Esn 07:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I meant - something in see also section. If I can find some time this afternoon, I'll try to start the article about it - and perhaps a small section in here as well, like Esn suggested. DLX 08:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've started the article now - Khimki War Memorial - just a stub atm. Someone, whose Russian is better then mine could expand it better, perhaps, as most of the sources are in Russian. Some unused sources are also in HTML comment in the article. DLX 13:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Order of mentioning countries

Currently, there seems to be no order to how countries are organized in the "political reaction" section. I suggest the following order:

1) Estonia (as the country most affected)

2) Russia (as the country claiming to represent the ethnic group involved, and having the most significant response - significant in the sense of influence to the further development of this issue)

3) UN (as the largest international organization)

4) EU (as the second-largest international organization)

5-?) all the other countries in alphabetical order

What do you guys think? Esn 07:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the Estonia and Russia should top the list, with EU and the the neigboring countries having priority. The UN reaction, however, seems to be an automatically generated respons without any implication (that's why UN dosen't top the list any more) Camptown 08:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you both have valid points. I don't see the UN ever making a statement concerning some conflict where they would support only one side of the quarrel. They're a pacifist organization, so their response is pretty much predetermined (Make love, not war). Then again there's no point in making the closest countries more importaint. I suppose the list should be in alphabetical order, but beginning with Estonia and Russia (and leaving perhaps some white space in between the first two and the remainder). -- Telempe 09:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Mastaba-like?

Currently, the article describes the memorial as "mastaba-like". Is this just a convenient physical description, or is some marginal connection to Egyptian Revival architecture indeed implied?--Pharos 07:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a physical description. -- Telempe 08:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Rumours about the mass grave

There are rumours on the internet that some of the soldiers in the mass grave actually didn't perished in combat, but died of natural causes, alchoholism and in one case in a traffic accident. Is there any truth behind these rumours? Camptown 08:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing certain about it, hence the archaeological excavations. Rumors go from "no one is buried there at all" to "few soldiers shot for pillaging, looting and raping". Looking at the current list, I doubt it is entirely true (in some cases they had to carry the body for days and 50 kilometers, while there are mass graves in battle sites, some dates are weird (Aleksandr Grigorov died in March, rest allegedly in September). DLX 08:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thumbnail pictures

What's the point of having thumbnail size under My Preferences when the thumbnails have fixed widths? -- Telempe 08:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Since noone cared to join in discussion, I deleted the fixed thumbnail sizes. See Image use policy and Manual of Style. -- Telempe 12:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The question is interesting, but far to general to be answered here. I ask that the fixed sizes be restored, to make space for the image captions. -- Petri Krohn 22:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Statue or the whole monument?

I still haven't figured out was just the bronze soldier statue removed or the whole monument made of bricks and metal plates? Is the "monument" still standing there without the soldier, or was every brick moved? Will only the soldier be moved to military cemetary, or the whole monument as it was in Tönismäe? --Pudeo (Talk) 10:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything's gone and everything will be put up to cemetery as it was before at Tõnismägi. 84.50.11.236 10:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Everything happens inside a big tent; but reports (along with authentic pictures???) suggest that the bricked monument is now removed and forensic experts are digging their way in the mass grave to exhume the corpses of what is believed to be fallen soldiers. Camptown 10:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

One of Estonian TV channels just showed full view of the inside of tent. It's empty alright. 213.35.238.94 16:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

May 8

The Estonian government now reports that the monument's relocation to the military cemetery will be completed by May 8. Does that imply that the May 9 celebrations will take place at the Cemetery of the Estonian Defence Forces this year? Camptown 10:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Very unlikely. I find it much more likely that the Victory Day celebrations will consist of burning down the Estonian Parlament building on Toompea. ...but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball... -- Petri Krohn 11:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Toompea is completely sealed off, only some military action could break through there and be able to set fire to/blow up something. Anyway, the "celebrations" are on the 9th, so there should be no problem. Also the monument/statue/whatever you want to call it will be relocated to the new spot by tomorrow (according to the latest press release). - 82.131.30.114 11:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It seems that the ethnic Russians have given an ultimatum: either the monument is restored by May 9, or the day will mark "the beginning of our war against the criminal Estonian government." (See kavkazcenter) -- Petri Krohn 11:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Estonian news sources have not confirmed it. If you are in need of news from Estonia and speak Russian, then read Russian edition of Postimees. Using Russian sources when talking about Estonia is not a good idea. Also, please stop posting this Anti-Estonian propaganda. Tarmo Tanilsoo 11:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Petri Krohn has a good point! You never know what's going to happen next. And when did <kavkazcenter.com> become a pro-Russian propaganda tool? Bondkaka 13:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That blog seems just the opinion of 1 russian to me. --82.131.85.6 13:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Kavkazcenter is one of the best informed sources on Russian affairs. This was evident also in the case of Aleksander Litvinenko. They are however extremely anti-Russian; as the name implies, they are a "propaganda" tool of organizations involved in insurrection against the Russian government. By assosiation, they are also very pro-Estonian. They might not be right in this case, but what they publish is certainly not "Russian propaganda". -- Petri Krohn 18:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

BTW - "Kavkazcenter" reminds me of Estonia's ties with Dzhokhar Dudaev. --Camptown 12:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he was one of soviet military commanders in Estonia during Soviet Union's breakup, and is generally considered one of the level-headed officers who kept the situation here from turning to violence. It has been claimed he ignored direct orders from Moscow ordering security clampdown. 213.35.238.94 13:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't Estonia one of very few countries that had diplomatic relations with Chechnya? --Camptown 14:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Estonia supports separatist movements of Kavkaz (primarily as an insult to Russia) unsigned comment 15:07, 29 April 2007 by Borism (talk · contribs)

Perhaps because according to the international law, they have right for their own country? Which is all they have been asking. DLX 15:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Which international law says countries can be created just like that? Can I create country of my own if I want to? I'd like to... Or how would you feel if say estonian Setu people would create their own country on Estonian soil? Anyway, sorry for offtopicness Borism

Charter of the United Nations grants a right for national self-determination for every nation. Setu people are not a distinct nation, they are also Estonians. 84.50.11.236 09:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides, i think everyone would let them (Setu) make their own country if most of them really insisted. But i doubt they would, considering they would have to join all the WTO and EU and NATO and all the rest, which could take lots of years... All that time without any international protection could bring severe consequences from the east. --Haigejobu 15:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

External links

There are sections "Supporters" and "Opponents" in Bronze_Soldier of Tallinn#External links. Supporters of what, opponents of what? Either section names should be changed or all sections merged, as now it is rather strange and un-encyclopedic. DLX 14:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "Supporters of the relocation" and "Opponents of the relocation". How's that sound? -- Telempe 14:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That is good, except that now links don't match the headlines. I'll change that. DLX 14:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Is or was?

The Bronze Soldier of Tallinn still exists. Then why do you use past tense in the beginning of the article? Andres 18:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If it ever gets rebuilt, you can add the information in the article on Tallinn military cemetery. This article is about the Soviet memorial and its symbolic value Soviet and Estonian people. -- Petri Krohn 19:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no "Soviet" people. And you're moving goalposts again. You do NOT get to decide on whether the memorial loses all its meaning by being relocated. Physically, it still exists and will continue to exist. If your theory is correct, it will be proved to be so in the fullness of time, for instance, by the lack of mourners there on May 9th. Unigolyn 20:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Petri Krohn is right: Past tense makes more sence, as the article is a about a war memorial on a mass grave downtown Tallinn. --Camptown 20:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Though it pains me to say it, Petri Krohn is right there (what Soviet people, tho?) 213.35.232.138 21:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If the pieces ever get reasembled, we will have a never-ending debate about the identity (sameness) of the two monuments. What is clear, is that the statue will will have lost its symbolic meaning. To the Estonians it will mark the final step in the re-establisbent of Estonia's pre-1940 independence. To the Russians and other resident non-citizens it will most likely symbolize the "criminal acts and oppression by the fascist Estonian government" ". -- Petri Krohn 23:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

We will see about that. It's too early to make any kind of assumptions yet. 213.35.252.210 14:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Soviets??? Homo Sovieticus? And do you have some kind of cristall ball so that you definitely know what Bronze soldier in new location will symbolize to different people? Even better, maybe you can add source for that crystal ball?--Staberinde 14:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying, is that I can see no (symbolic) continuity between the old memorial and the new monument with the stolen statue. I doubt if others will. -- Petri Krohn 20:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the fact that you can't see symbolic continuity does not mean that nobody can see it. Of course I understand that for stalinists and ultra-nationalist Russians new location of Bronze soldier does not fit as its not so good location for getting large amount of public attention. Those people who simply want to honour fallen soldiers can still continue doing it. From some point it can be even considered better location because peaceful atmospere at cemetery can have advantages compared to former location which was next to large streets with heavy traffic, and bus station very close to it. By the way, Estonia is now independent state not province of Russia, so its up to Estonia what to do with monuments here. I would say Russians should be even happy, USSR itsselfly simply demolished memorials it did not like, without any discussion.--Staberinde 21:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Economic immigration

"At the time over a third of Estonia's population were descendants of Russian and other Soviet economic migrants, who had been drawn to Estonia by its rapid post-war industrialization."

This is unsourced, and incorrect information. No one was "drawn" to Estonia, it was not legal to simply grab your suitcase and head off to a different SSR. Intra-Soviet migration was controlled centrally from Moscow. Also, claims of "rapid post-war industrialization" are ridiculous. Estonia was industrialized well before the halfway point of the 20th century, and most of the immediate "industrialization" consisted of forced collectivization of agriculture. Estonia's main industries in the 20th century were textile manufacturing, lumber and power generation, all of which were just as prevalent before the occupation. I am going to rewrite this sentence, to remove the implicit exultation of Soviet economic prowess and the wholly voluntary immigration policies (which, again, didn't exist). Unigolyn 20:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, Narva_Power Plants were also built without help of Soviet occupations, huh? Remove those facilities into Russian soil and live in Stone Age.86.102.223.129 01:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Gee, in fifty years we naturally wouldn't have managed to build the power plants ourselves. Thank you for the fifty years of occupation, killing tens of thousands Estonians and forcing others to live in poverty - after all, you brought us those mighty power plants! DLX 12:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the "rapid industrialisation" we were still sitting behind Juku computers and driving Zhaparozets in even early ninties, while we could have long time used IBM's and driven a volvo. Claims of soviet industrialization are relatively short sighted. As the estonian economy showed very fast rise in the first independence. We could have been compared to other first world nations for long time if the soviet occupation wouldn't have happened. Suva 12:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you were sitting behind Juku and driving Zhaparozets's. Do not forget, you also had gas in every house, delivered by Soviet/Russian pipelines as well as mentioned Soviet-built power plants. Without Soviet Empire, you'd still graze cows and lit bonfires.Sea diver 01:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Bonfires? Naah, not really. We'd probably have a small nuclear plant as Sweden and Finland have. Also, the only thing nowadays in common with soviet built plants is the location. Machinery etc. had to be updated to western standards, because, well, soviet technology was decades behind. There wasn't a thing that didn't need updating. 217.159.186.37 08:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Estonian Defence Forces?

The article doesn't observe the fact that, along with regular police officers and volonteers, also military personel (photos) are patrolling the streets of Tallinn. What kind of military personel have been involved in protecting the city from looters and vandals etc? --Camptown 20:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No, these are volunteers from Estonian Defence League who are temporarily under the command of police. For a few years now they have been partnershiping (mainly at large concerts etc.) 84.50.11.236 21:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If they are Estonian Defence League, then they should be counted as military, like the National Guard in the U.S. -- Petri Krohn 22:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read my comments below. The EDL members aren't present as members of military (or even as members of EDL), but as volunteer assistant policemen from civilian population. 213.35.232.138 22:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Then they would have to have double membership also in the voluntary police force. If they receive commands from their EDL superiors, then they are military. -- Petri Krohn 00:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

They are called up by police forces and assigned to police units. EDL chain of command doesn't enter the equation. 213.35.232.138 01:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Those are assistant policemen who don't get issued police uniforms, hence their being out with whatever they can get. Also, many of the assistant policemen are members of EDL, volunteer organisation (under the oversight of Defense Forces) for training for guerilla warfare, etc. They don't have a common uniform but often get donations from different armed forces around the world / regular army's leftovers. The faux-military outfits are commonly known as 'duckhunting suits', as that's what they're often worn for. 213.35.232.138 21:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and it's Jõhvi, not Tallinn. With the bulk of police forces in Tallinn, the volunteers (registered assistance policemen) were called in to support police in the outlying areas. 213.35.232.138 21:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Genuine message?

"Command of group "KOLIVAN " Army of Russian Resistance" I guess this is what kavkaz is referring to, from: livejournal weblog: <removed on the basis of Wikipedia policies: see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not> - 193.40.5.245 12:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

But is it just another hoax? --Camptown 21:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

...or a provocation by Estonians?

The primary demand is citizenship to all ex-Soviet citizens. I do not think this would have been included by anyone, but real Estonian Russian non-citizens. This makes it sound authentic. It does not prove a real threat, but even a hoax or provocation has the potential to lead to concrete action. -- Petri Krohn 00:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"KOLIVAN" is allegedly a medieval Russian name for Tallinn. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.20.96.116 (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Translation

Here is a translation by Babelfish: (Feel free to improve on the translation -- Petri Krohn 00:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

<removed from Wikipedia: see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not> 193.40.5.245 12:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday I found 3 Google hits for "Армии Русского Сопротивления". Today I find 118: [5] Seems that the message is notable and can be refered to in Wikipedia. Are there any Estonian languge sources for this? Whow is this group refered to in Estonian? -- Petri Krohn 22:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

International Committee for the Baltic States without Nazism

As a follow up to assorted statements and press releases: this one I got from Tallinn and am publishing in St. Petersburg. The Committee is improvised but I will help to register if I'd be ever asked to. The report or rather open appeal is absolutely accurate as far as ethnic dictatorship (ethnocracy) and Bronze Soldier affair is concerned although I wish the authors were perhaps less empotional and childish. As it revolves around barbaric act of official vandalism in Estonia - the Bronze Soldier debacle and is pertinent to this article, I believe it should be posted here. (Roobit 00:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)).

---

Friends,

You should be aware that when you do business in Estonia or buy anything made in Estonia or visit it as tourist you support an apartheid state and fund a new generation of European Nazis...

(Moved long declaration to User talk:Roobit#International Committee for the Baltic States without Nazism. -- Petri Krohn 01:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

• The last statement is simply to long to be on wiki. If the copyright is OK and the authentecity is not a problem then it might go to wikisource Alex Bakharev 01:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Good heavens! Estonia IS NOT FASCISTIC, there is NO apartheid state and NO European Nazis! It may seem fascistic for mr. Putin, but it is not. That we don't want communism doesn't mean that we are fascistic. You have read Russian news agencies too much. Tarmo Tanilsoo 05:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Reported to WP:AN/I, here. Wikipedia is not for pushing political agendas or promoting hatred and violence, I recommend reporting such incidents in the future as soon as they happen. We've managed to keep this article NPOV, all sides agree to that - and for something that hotly debated, that is an impressive feat indeed. DLX 05:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this the same ´"anti-fascist" movement Russian State television is urging people to support? Camptown 09:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)