Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:02, 23 August 2007

Bronze Soldier of Tallinn received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Soviet Union This 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Bronze Soldier of Tallinn was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}, reviewed version). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Archives

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

Moving forward

Now that the "international reactions" article has been deleted in an AfD (which I initiated), how shall we proceed? I propose, as I did in my AfD nomination, that we remove all but a few reactions and keep only the most relevant. I suppose other options include keeping them all, or another split, this time along 1947-2007 / 2007- lines. What say you? Biruitorul 01:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reintroduced all the deleted material into the section it was in originally, and express my belief that it is too soon to make a selection. However, we might consider reintroducing the deleted content in the Appendix namespace. Digwuren 09:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Echoes v. Epilogue

As of now, there are two distinct sections in the article dealing with 'what happened afterwards', the Echoes one and the Epilogue one. This is intentional: Epilogue is for events regarding the main process of relocation and reburial, Echoes is for events more remotely associated with the topic. This is possibly not the ideal arrangement, however; proposals of a better approach will be appreciated. Digwuren 00:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I have been thinking about the structure, but not come up with anything ingenious. For a while, I thought that the Epilogue could be merged with Events surrounding relocation (the Epilogue being just a chronological continuation of the story of events), but then, on second thought, it seems good to have the "hot" events (those that caught international awareness) in one chapter of their own — Events surrounding the relocation — and the Epilogue (like now) separately afterwards. It also emphasizes the fact (that was not known in April/May, but is now) that the "hot" events were an isolated, short-term business, and not the beginning of a lasting chain of events. (Thank God, I might add.) Reimgild 12:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Article length

The article is 112K, four times the recommended the size of the article. If anything, it should be split on four separate pages rather than expanded. --Ghirla 11:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Your attempts to leave only misleading summaries into the article and remove the context are rather transparent. Cease immediately. Digwuren 12:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, repeatedly - and we've tried to split the least relevant part... but then, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/International reaction to Bronze Soldier relocation. Besides, it is impossible to do any changes, including removal of blog link from "See also", because BFF will raise hell if that is done.

I requested a peer review of this article earlier, let's wait the results/comments before deciding to do any major changes. Sander Säde 12:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I also think that the while it's too early to make a destructive selection among the 'Internal reactions', moving the bulk of them away could work. Since most of them are in form of quotations, how about Wikiquote? 12:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Tightening Up

making a pass on it. most likely I'm going to remove all the political controversies from the header and make it strictly factual. Since there is a section for political controversies, and everything is repeated over there, that should do it as it is necessary to tighten the article up.--Termer 05:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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

POV

"Despite the fact that in 1940 those who had failed to have their passports stamped for voting Estonia into the USSR were allowed to be shot in the back of the head by Soviet tribunals," - smells POV to me. What does it have to do with Bronze Soldier? Nevermind the source is Time Magazine (Borism 13:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC))

Thank you for your opinion Borism. Even though the fact of soviet terror in Estonia must be embarrassing to Putin's government of Russia that attempts to whitewash the Soviet history, and for those who believe that they liberated Estonia. This is still a fact and the core of the controversies surrounding the monument. Therefore please stop pushing the political agenda of the current Russian government by altering the facts on WP that are common knowledge in democratic countries anyway. Also, since all the viewpoints are cited in the controversies chapter and thereafter, the article is in compliance with NPOV policies and that should be the end of the discussion--Termer 03:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

PS. I've made a clear split between the opposing viewpoints in the controversies section, removed the "despite...". So that the fact of Soviet terror just in front of the viewpoints of the Russian government and a "segment of Russian speaking people" in Estonia wouldn't be interpreted in the text as one leading to another, the thing that might have read as an original political commentary--Termer 04:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

PPS. I have asked User:Alex Bakharev to resign as an administrator on WP since one shouldn't be acting on and editing WP according to a political bias but at best should attempt to help finding a common ground first.--Termer 06:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you calm down and start clean-up of article so it starts making sense, your comments a la "common knowledge", "in democratic countries" and "that should be the end of the discussion" make me wonder who is biased and towards what anyway. Thank you. Borism 15:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Borism, I'm fine. Although I shouldn't respond to the first part, please do not attempt to refer to any editor’s state of mind in the future.
Regarding the article, for the second time: please note that it is formatted according to WP:NPOV: As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".
Since all viewpoints are presented in the article, therefore there is no basis to an opinion regarding POV whatsoever. In case you think more specific sourced and ref-d facts are needed for the Soviet terror in Estonia during 1940, that’s fine. The facts are, about 2000 persons were shot, about 60,000 deported by the Soviets in Estonia between June 1940-1941. In case you think these more specific facts should be added, please let me know.--Termer 20:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

I agree in general. But since this is a very touchy subject for both sides, I'd wait for couple of years at least until things cool down and then, let’s take it from there. Any removal of any facts or claims could lead to new edit wars as opposing sides could interpret this as not a fear representation of the full story, I'm sure of this. Therefore I'd leave it in peace for now and make sure everybody can have their full story told according to the viewpoints that are sourced and refed properly.Thanks--Termer 15:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Is there really any point to add all Russian accusations of fascism in Estonia to the article, like Ilya1166 (talk · contribs) has been trying to do? Especially using only Russian/pro-Russian sources (there is a reason why Russia is 147th in World Press Freedom Index. Estonia is 6th). I guess we all know that the accusations are baseless - and although they may merit an article of their own, I don't think they should be included to this article. Sander Säde 07:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't mind if Radical nationalism in Russia is trying to express their viewpoints on WP as long as they'd leave their opponents points in place. Since this has not been the case here, the behavior can't be tolerated.--Termer 07:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Never culminated"

"there's no fear that Russia will invade the Baltics today, especially now that they're part of NATO"

That's not really up to you decide whether there is or is not any chance for that, or whether russia cares about NATO or not. Current status is that they haven't yet tried this, but nobody assures that they won't in future, although it is highly unlikely. Still saying "never" is original research. Suva 15:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Current status is that they haven't yet tried this, but nobody assures that they won't in future? That is like saying Estonia has not yet tried to invade Russia, but nobody can say whether they won't in the future. Do you seriously think that those post-Soviet fears of being invaded by Russia in 1995 are still valid today? Find me a source from the last 3 years where the Baltic are seriously fearful of being invaded by Russia.--Ilya1166 04:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, User:Ilya1166. Please feel free to write a report at your University detailing your opinions on the conflict and have it published. Thereafter, feel free to add the published analyses to the article. Until then, please stop editing WP according to your opinions. Instead, please only refer to published sources. Please do not attempt to remove or eliminate any referenced facts or sourced content from this or any other article on WP in the future. Please note that elimination of refd and sourced article content from WP without reaching a consensus first, such an activity in case persistent, is going to be listed for consideration at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism without any future warnings. Thanks!--Termer 20:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

She is a nobody, it was published in her University newsletter.--Ilya1166 04:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Ilya1166 for sharing once again your opinion about the research made by Kara D. Brown (Ph.D in Education Policy, M.A. in Central Eurasian Studies and B.A. in Political Science ), published in the Indiana University newsletter.--Termer 08:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

All I have to say is NEVER say never. Even saying that Estonia will never invade Russia is pretentious and not neutral. We are not psychic and the future is not yet written .--Alexia Death the Grey 09:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you User:Termer for explaining to us "Kara Brown from Indiana University's" degree. It remains that "Kara Brown" is a nobody with a degree.--Ilya1166 09:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That "nobody with a degree" is still a valid source. Your opinion however is not. --Alexia Death the Grey 09:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No need to be rude, Alexia, I am not trying to substitute my opinion for hers, nor is it my intention to censor information.--Ilya1166 09:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Rudeness not intended. I apologize if I left that impression. I was merely stating a fact to make it clear how pointless this "nobody" talk is.Alexia Death the Grey 10:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)--

How is this nonsense relevant to monument or events surrounding it? --Borism 13:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Thank you for your question Borism! Please do not call the viewpoints of your opponents “nonsense”, that is not going to improve the article. FYI: the research is relevant because it has nailed the core issues of the political controversy covered in the article as seen from the western including Estonians viewpoint. It expresses the political climate in Estonia, the Estonia-Russia relations in general, the sentiment that was surrounding the removal of the monument, therefore is an important part of the political controversy addressed in the article. Thanks--Termer 14:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In no way is independent researcher and PhD my opponent. What I'd like to have is proof that there has ever been threat of invasion to Baltic States due to problems with minorities. Any official statement from government official that has control over military would suffice (i.e. if Putin said that invasion is possible is fine, but if Zhirinovski said that - it's not fine). Otherwise I'd suggest such speculation be removed. Borism 08:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Borism, I'm sorry but I'm not willing to get into politically opinionated debates here. Since you insist with having the viewpoint removed, you'd need to remove any opposing viewpoints from the article first by let’s say wikifing it like you suggested. Any addition of opposing viewpoints to the article is going to trigger yet another response. So please, feel free to show good faith and I'm going to follow. Please note that undermining sourced opposing viewpoints by calling it nonsense, asking for a proof that is common knowledge for your opponent is not going to get us anywhere and can't be interpreted as an attempt to solve the issues here. Thanks! I'm off for today!--Termer 09:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Things are out of hand again

please let me know why exactly following sourced facts have been removed from the article: In the Nuremberg Trials, the Waffen-SS was condemned as part of a criminal organisation, except conscripts, who were exempted from that judgment due to being forcibly mobilized. The Estonian 20.Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (estnische Nr.1) is an example of such a conscript formation, which were according to the Jewish Virtual Library: soldiers with an unblemished record. And what exactly have the Oradour-sur-Glane, Marzabotto and in the Malmedy massacre to do with the Estonian division or the article in general?
Please Ilya1166 stop spamming and vandalizing the article with irrelevant facts. Please have the relevant facts restored ASAP. Please do not proceed with edit warring and note, there are not going to be any future warnings in case the behavior continues. Thanks!--Termer 07:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Waffen-SS at jewishvirtuallibrary.org

Termer, please not that instead of Misplaced Pages mirror, it is simpler to link directly to the relevant Misplaced Pages article, or in this case Waffen-SS. Sander Säde 07:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed, the sourced fact about anti-Semitism mostly among the extremist Russian organizations in Estonia has also been removed. I'm going to investigate and restore the fact. Thanks--Termer 16:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please restore at least some NPOV'ness in the article? RC CG and Ilya1166 have filled the article with weasel-words ("immediately", "Estonian media accused" (strangely, when Russian media reports something, it is a fact in their eyes), "Ansip claimed" (should be "pointed out" or "said") and so on) and unrelated facts (What has Linden's comment on Erna has to do with Bronze Soldier? Why not include Pöttering's response or the article from Economist?)), cluttering the article with pointless Russian propaganda claims (after reading this shameful piece of fiction (translated from Russian source, see "Jak", Яак), I am very hard trying to avoid the word "lies"). Also, "Estonian PM Andrus Ansip said that the grave under the statue held the remains of drunkards and marauders." is once again misinformation. Ansip said on 23th April (not 24th - but also in February, see here) that "Let us wait and see what archaeological excavations show. There are several urban legends about this, one saying that two drunken soldier run over by a tank are buried there and another mentioning several marauders shot for looting" (my own shortened translation).

I don't want to edit the article myself at the moment, as it would only spark another edit war. Best would be someone unrelated to Estonia and Russia, but with enough knowledge to recognize propagandist claims. Or should we go for arbitration?

Sander Säde 19:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Do I smell sour grapes here from one who once summarily dismissed Russian accusations as artificial? Now you're crying over "weasel words", knowing full well that good part of it (like "explanation of Estonian newspapers") comes directly from the sources. You should be thankful to me that I did not mention infamous "tibla" ad campaign by Päevaleht to illustrate to unsuspecting reader "impartiality" of this source. That would be highly relevant with regards to Päevaleht's claims, but will spark an edit war I wanted to avoid. And if you feel so offended by word "claimed" (but are fine with calling dead soldiers "drunkards and marauders"), feel free to change it to "said", I'm fine with that. Still doesn't change the fact that Ansip tried to use an issue resolved before both his statement and the statement he was responding to. BTW, what does Pöttering's statements (as quoted by the BT) have to do with Bronze Soldier? Although I admit that BT article was interesting in a sence that even this newspaper (not exactly known for it's anti-Estonian stance or friendliness toward Russian position, to word it incredibly mildly, almost to a point of calling Hitler "not the greatest admirer of Jews") had to comment ot an Economist's piece, generally hinting at "enemy of my enemy" position of the Brits.

It all irrelevant though. Would you like to add relevant content to an article, I don't see the reasons why you shouldn't do it. Alexia did on several occasions and we had been able to find a compromise with him easily. RJ CG 19:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think RJ CG edits in general have been fear enough, in some cases too opinionated perhaps but that doesn't differ from any other editors here. So please do not spoil your efforts RJ CG by heating up the conflict on the talk page instead by referring to "sour grapes", "You should be thankful" etc. that are easy to interpret as attempts of insults on personal level. Thanks--Termer 21:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for personal attack (if you consider reminder about past behaviour "personal attack"), but sometime claims of some editors should be placed in context and it wasn't me who started to throw names around first. So let's close this chapter. By saying "should be thankful" I meant that article could be written (and well sourced) in much more harsh tone toward Estonian position, with explicit mention of a big newspaper using racial slurs. Unlike Estonian contributors, who tried their best to smear European critic of Estonian stance with accusations of "family ties", I stuck to the very substance of the statements made. RJ CG 22:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Let’s get few things straight here RJ CG. It's one thing to insult editors on personal level. Getting into "accusations of glorification of Nazi past" like you've attempted down here is crossing all the lines. Smearing an European politician compared to smearing a nation on WP talk page, very small though but still a country that is a member state of the EU and NATO is too far away from any borders of facts and good faith editing. It is a political agenda and there is nothing more to it. Such claims are not going to cool things down here but are going to heat up the conflict. So, if your intentions are anything else than p_s_ng off the Estonian editors, please show it in reality instead of provoking the situation further.Thanks--Termer 04:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

RJ CG, I suspect you are smelling Russian propagandist lies gone stale ;)

Seriously, though. Please stay civil (just a question, what is the reason for linking the history of Rein Lang article?) and on topic. By now you should have realized that Russian "Nazi" accusations toward Estonia are baseless lies and half-truths - I have yet to see even a single instance of full neutral coverage of events in Estonia in Russian media. Can you provide even a single event from accusations of "glorifications of Nazis" that actually has real basis? I know you've been trying very hard to show them like that (must have been a bad blow when you found out that Rein Lang watched antifascist play, not Nazi glorification one. Or when it came out that Monument of Lihula does not have any SS/Nazi symbols and, in fact, never has had any).

Is there some kind of reason why dead soldiers cannot be "drunkards and maradeurs"? You might want to note, that I did not call them that, nor did Ansip. He was referring to urban legends, I was translating his words. Apparently you missed that little fact. However, considering the behavior of Soviet soldiers in WWII, how can anyone protest against calling them "drunkards, maradeurs and rapists" (you may want to check out the phrase "eight to eighty" in relation to Soviet soldiers in WWII and why women in Budapest killed themselves and their children, rather then facing the glorious Red Army liberators. See Soviet war crimes. I've often wondered how after the war everybody were heroes and what happened to those rapists and looters...). Please don't see that as "Nazi glorification" by me now, these are the plain facts. Criticizing Red Army does not mean that the critic is Nazi. German army had their own rapists and looters. But enough of that, as it is not directly related to Bronze Soldier.

Speaking of which, you ask what does Pöttering's comments have to do with Bronze Soldier. Tell me what Linden's comment about Erna has to do with Bronze Soldier and you have your reply right there. Pöttering's comments were a roundabout reply to Linden. Or what has meeting in Sinimäed (not Sinimaed. Note that on previous years also Estonian Red Army vets attended, I have no idea if they did it on this year as well) have to do with Bronze Soldier? Both happened after Bronze Soldier events and have no relation whatsoever to it (note: "accompanied by dozens of young followers dressed in T-shirts with Nazi symbols" - there weren't any. In fact, I don't think there was anyone under 50 or even 60, at least by what I saw from TV-news).

Why didn't I edit the article? Would you have allowed me to cull irrelevant parts of Accusations of Nazism without restoring it with one of your "nice" edit summaries such as "removing sourced content is vandalism"? That is why I called for a third-party editor - and made a suggestion for arbitration/dispute resolution. I still think that the article needs to be reviewed and cleaned with someone non-Estonian/non-Russian, preferably an administrator. I will not edit this article for now, but I think that the best that we could do is to go back to the version from 14th August () and see if there is anything that should be added from current version. That was more or less acceptable for everybody and did not contain irrelevant claims (see diff).

Sander Säde 06:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of Nazism, kinds of accusations and sources.

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

Russian accusations of Nazism in Estonia

Time to split off into a separate article? Seems like an ongoing phenomenon and worthy of an article in it's own right. Martintg 20:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently I am opposing this split on a very simple ground. Those aren't so much "accusations of Nazism in present-day Estonia" but "accusations of glorification of Nazi past" at this point. I provided sources number of times, but idea did not seem to sink in among Estonian editors. I would like to avoid edit warring over the name and therefore think split should be postponed until somebody manages (1) to translate Russian accusations correctly and in the same time (2) to avoid tendency of Estonian editors to present Russian POV through comments of Estonian political elites. Impossible task, I know. RJ CG 22:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's call the article Russian accusations of Estonian glorification of the Nazis, we can always change the title later, the main thing is the content. You could translate these Russian articles, or at least give a synopsis, couldn't you? I don't get your second point, don't Russian editors also present the Russian POV through the comments of Russian political elites too. NPOV isn't about excluding one view, but presenting both views. I'm sure you and your compatriots could easily balance up anything these Estonian editors could come up with. Martintg 23:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, how about that: since this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a place for political debates, I'd suggest cleaning up the article by removing all politically motivated opinionated claims and sticking to the facts only. Meaning: the statue was erected, was removed, replaced; the bodies were reburied, and then reburied again without any additional comments. And then, let’s have a sand box somewhere with 2 chapters, "accusations of glorification of Nazi past" and "accusations of glorification of Soviet past". I mean nobody out there any other than the editors here are never going to care about the controversies and the edit war anyway. So how about having one good factual article here and then the battleground-sand-box for playing the Russian-Roulette-Estonian-Doom game? Thanks--Termer 04:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Soviet Union articles
• Unknown-importance Soviet Union articles
• WikiProject Soviet Union articles
• Former good article nominees