This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
RJ CG is trying to push claims of citizenship denial into the article, and to associate the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn controversy with a poll cited. Both are clear falsehoods, and he knows that. I have reverted. Digwuren 14:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Was it really that hard to find a source? Now, I recommend you add the actual facts about the citizenship of minors, too:
(4) A minor under 15 years of age who was born in Estonia after 26 February 1992 shall acquire Estonian citizenship by naturalisation if:
1) his or her parents apply for Estonian citizenship for him or her and if the parents have legally resided in Estonia for at least five years at the time of submission of the application and are not deemed by any other state to be citizens of that state on the basis of any Act in force;
2) single or adoptive parent applies for Estonian citizenship for the minor and if the single or adoptive parent has legally resided in Estonia for at least five years at the time of submission of the application and is not deemed by any other state to be a citizen of that state on the basis of any Act in force.
Sander SÀde 16:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
And here are these infamous "nasty" language requirements:
â | §8. Requirements and appraisal of knowledge of Estonian language
(1) Knowledge of Estonian language, for purposes of this law, is knowledge of Estonian language necessary for everyday life. (2) Requirements of knowledge of Estonian language are as follows: 1) understanding heard speech (official declaration or notice; emergency and warning messages, news, descriptions of events and explanations of phenomena); 2) speech (conversation and storytelling; presenting questions, explanations, hypotheses and orders; expressiong an opinion; expressing wishes); 3) understanding of read texts (official declaration or notice; public message, news, sample form, journalistic article, message, directory, usage instructions, traffic information, questionnary, protocol, regulation); 4) writing (application, delegation, explanatory note, CV; filling in a form, biographical form, or a test). (3) Knowledge of Estonian language is assessed through an examination. The way such examinations are taken is to be regulated by the Government of the Republic. (4) A person passing the examination will be issued a document attesting it. (5) A person that has acquired comprehensive, high school or higher education in Estonian language does not need to take the examination. (6) A person specified in §35(3) of this law takes the examination in limits and ways to be decided by an expert commission specified in §35(7) of this law. |
â |
Yes, (2)3 mentiones 'message' twice. It uses two distinct Estonian words, but these do not translate to distinct English concepts. There's a change of emphasis: one of them is about delivered messages, such as letters; the other is about posted messages, such as "Danger! High voltage!". §35(3) is about simplified examination requirements for people who, for health reasons, can not fulfill all the rules. The most common case is that of deaf people; they are not expected to understand what they hear if they can't hear it. Furthermore, by §34(1), people born before 1930 are additionally exempt from the requirement of literacy. To understand this latter rule's significance, it's important to understand that among ethnic Estonians, literacy was almost complete (>99%) by late 19th century already; 1930 is a cut-off point designated after Soviet literacy programmes. Essentially, this clause says that you will not be penalised for never learning to write under a Communist or Czarist regime at times nobody expected it from you. Digwuren 11:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Watch out for Mikkalai seeking to bias the article. Digwuren 22:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
-- Termer 23:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
As my mild reminder (made 13:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)) that accusations of glorification of Nazi collaboration, made by international organizations, do not exactly belong in ERR, I explicitly announce my intention to create separate article "Whitewashing of Nazi Collaboration in modern Estonia" within a week's time frame and copy all stuff from SWC and NCSJ there. I invite Estonian wikipedians to come up with name for this article they consider appropriate. I consider weasel words "accusations of..." inappropriate for such a name. RJ CG ( talk) 16:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
attempts to re-assess history of WWII and role of Estonians in it? what are you talking about RJ CG? As far as I'm concerned, the Baltic waffen ss units were rehabilitated, these were not seen as hostile to the US and the western allies etc. So who is attempting to re-assess history of WWII and role of Estonians in it?-- Termer ( talk) 22:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC) PS. Thanks for pointing out the false redirect Fascism in Estonia, since the vaps movement had nothing to do with any "Fascism in Estonia". Not every conservative right wing political movement is fascist you know, even though the soviets called even the Berlin wall the "anti-Fascist protective rampart"...-- Termer ( talk) 22:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
RE:
Oth I didn't say anything about who might have created the redirect, I only thanked
RJ CG for pointing it out. since the the word in the context has been used only as
Fascist (epithet), the redirect should be either deleted unless anybody wants to use it for
Occupation of Estonia by Nazi Germany.--
Termer (
talk) 23:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
PS. who's getting provoked
Martintg? I didn't get it what you're talking about. However, all misleading redirects or statements on WP need to be cleaned up.--
Termer (
talk) 23:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
In case someone missed these:
Guys, thank you for your input. You all completely missed the point. Would you actually care to read a section I was referring to, it contains wealth of pretty sourced information from Western news outlets and Western organizations which consider Estonian actions "revisionism of the past". By the way, all the Economist articles can go there, as soon as they're about Estonia, not Russia. This have nothing to do with Russia and therefore should not be in article Estonia-Russia relations. Either new article have to be created or material should be copied in separate new article. I gave you a week to calm you proud egos bruised by centuries of foreign rule and come up with NPOV suggestion for placement of this material. It is currently not where it should be. This is editorial question, not a political one, do try to understand it. I would be happy with any name for the new article short of "Baseless accusation of glorious Estonia spread by Jewish weasels bought by damn Russian bear" RJ CG ( talk) 14:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Nobody missed your point RJ CG, no international organization has ever considered Estonian actions "revisionism of the past". The idea has originated from Putin's Russia , therefore it only is relevant in this article and should not be included anywhere else. Thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 17:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
To: RJ CG everybody is free to express their concerns. However, nobody has ever made an attempt for a re-assessment of WWII in Estonia. It's always been the same: Estonia was caught between the hammer and the anvil. -- Termer ( talk) 22:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
User:RJ CG first claims material is not relevant to the article topic and belongs elsewhere [8], so I move material (and remove dead links) [9] to Monument of Lihula [10], now he is edit warring these changes [11], [12], claiming it is vandalism in the edit summary. Martintg ( talk) 01:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
It didn't make any sense to me either.--
Termer (
talk) 02:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your opinions
RJ CG. The only thing thatâs funny I think are the "Accusations of fascism". And anything printed in the English press that shows how ridiculous these accusations are serves the purpose of NPOV on WP. Therefore my edit summary was right on target. Thanks!--
Termer (
talk) 19:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
PS. FYI: suggesting that there are any monuments "to Nazi collaborators" in Estonia and that there exists an "official denial that collaboration is glorified" , + "cheapened loud Estonian statements" are insulting ethnic epithets.--
Termer (
talk) 21:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about RJ CG? what tribe? Nobody has ever glorified any Nazi collaborators in Estonia either by "Estonian statements" or by "policies of the Estonian government and statements of government officials". Therefore in case you don't like these insulting "accusations of fascism" to be called ethnic epithets, how about Fascist (epithet)? Because thats what these are. And critical statements toward Estonia? Please note that WP is not a place for such agendas like political criticism, that's called soapboxing. Also, please do not add misleading statements to the article like this. Thanks!-- Termer 10:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
No point if you can't see Estonia. Kevlar67 ( talk) 19:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Once more I had been amazed that fantasies of Ph.D. student somehow found it's way to Wikipedia. As virtually any Russophone newspaper can claim more credibility than a student, I'm tempted to use such weak criteria of a reliable source to add all the claims about Estonian Nazi past, starting with article from Komsomolskaya Pravda that units of Estonian auxiliary police killed up to 300,000 Russians in Pskov and Novgorod regions in 1941-1943. To any reasonable uninvolved editor big daily is at least as reliable as student newsletter. RJ CG ( talk) 13:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
RJ CG, you're not
sockpuppeting here, are you? Well, that's against policy, you should know that (it's not allowed even if you are reaching 3RR - like now, for example). Don't do that anymore.
As your edits - do you think that article misinterpreted somehow ms Brown's work? If so, please correct it. If you don't like the overall balance in article, then a) try to reach consensus to drop something (friendly remainder - you have tried it repeatedly, but failed every time) or b) do bring along some more references and expand article yourself. DO NOT play wordgames, trying to twist what source says or what reader should think about it's author.
213.35.244.96 (
talk) 18:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Dissertations by Ph.D. candidates are considered a reliable scholarly source, since they have been examined by the relevant University's acedemic committee. Martintg ( talk) 21:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
RJ CG, and what about your sockpuppeting? Not even an apology and excuse that you forgot to log in?
BTW, I am forced to take your threatening with semi-protection this article as yet another proof that you personally are here only for pushing your point (and trying to eliminate your content dispute opponents using every possible way, including gaming the system and making knowingly false claims and requests to administrators), NOT helping to build reliable encyclopedia. Have you even read the policy you waving around here with,
WP:PROTECTION? Have you seen this part - "Semi-protection /---/, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes"? Because this IS content dispute we have here, and let me remind you - you are not vandalism fighter or poor harassed editor here, you are one side in dispute which unfortunately doesn't have enough arguments to support your point. And what about "..administrators may apply temporary semi-protection on pages which: * Are subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption /---/, when blocking individual users is not a feasible option". So you should be careful, because it may very well look that blocking only one individual user (who has repeatedly tried to remove or misinterpret sources he doesn't like, and failed almost every time, as consensus was and is clearly against him) would actually be more effective.
Finally, content. Yes, I think published works from PhD students are WP-worthy enough, if presented correctly. It's mentioned in article that that she was PhD student at time (and repeating that in the beginning of every sentence, like you tried, does look odd and non-neutral), her work deals with scenario which was widely disputed at this time and it summarizes it well enough - so why not? Find something equally reliable, which shows that her work was BS and everybody would be happy to include that here as well, but keep your own opinions about ms Brown's work to yourself (or here in this talk page, but out of the article) - your opinions are not considered as reliable source. I'd like to know more about your theory about "..virtually any Russophone newspaper can claim more credibility than a student.." though, considering that
Reporters Without Borders places Russia on the 144th place (out from 169) in press freedom index (2007 data). Anyway, if we accept main media outlets (even yellow ones) as reliable source (I could accept your Komsomolskaya Pravda article here, if it's introduced correctly - I mean, it's perfect example of pure Russian propaganda, which proudly presents itself under title "Young Communist's Truth"), why shouldn't we accept university press publications?
213.35.238.14 (
talk) 09:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I think recent events may require some additions in this article. After all, it's the first official meeting of estonian and russian presidents since the collapse of USSR. Ilves and Medvedev discussed the problems between the countries
I am not sure if the incident where Ilves left the auditorium because of Kosachev speech requires addition in this article? Estonian delegation left Finno-Ugric conference due to slanderous speech by Kosachev
Also the Speech itself caused some unease in Russia. Estonian Leader's Freedom Call Creates Storm
Also original transcript of the speech in english [13]
Suva Đ§Đ”ĐłĐŸ? 14:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Nashi wanted to mob estonian president aswell. Russian police detain activists harassing Estonian president. Kinda eventful event. For baltic press for atleast. :) Suva Đ§Đ”ĐłĐŸ? 14:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I have moved the opinion of Johan Backman to Echoes of the Bronze Night. It looks like a violation of WP:UNDUE to put his opinion into such a prominent place as end of the section. Alex Bakharev ( talk) 07:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
the way it works here User:Shotlandiya, in case you want to have any sourced material removed from any article on Wikipedia, you can bring your suggestion to the talk page. -- Termer ( talk) 03:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Russavia has reverted twice my efforts to balance this section [14], [15]. Estonia also has concerns with human rights violations in Russia, but this is excluded and we only have Russian concerns expressed here, hence this section is POVed. -- Martintg ( talk) 20:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
It is my proposal to merge Anti-Estonian sentiment to this article. I make this proposal based upon conclusions I have reached in the last 24 hours after attempting to clean up that article, and after having read through Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Estophobia. In essence that article is a re-creation of an article which has already been deleted, so instead of taking to AfD now, we may as well try to salvage it in some sort of state, albeit in this article. Problems which exist with the article are that it includes massive amounts of original research, insertion of material which fails verification, novel synthesis of ideas from sources which is transplanted into the article, etc. After going thru and removing materials which fall into the above, this is the version of the article that I am proposing to be merged here.
The section Media accounts doesn't contain anything substantive on anti-Estonian sentiment, but rather covers some recent controversies - it is those controversies which are notable, not the anti-Estonian sentiment, which appear to be driven by those controversies themselves. The Nazi section is somewhat synthesis in that it isn't driven by anti-Estonian sentiment, but rather by conflicting views of history in which neither side will give any leighway to the other. That section would fit in nicely at EstoniaâRussia_relations#Accusations_of_fascism. The eSStonia section can go almost completely, it could rate a mention in this article. The Bronze Soldier issue can also fit in nicely here.
I have searched and searched and there are no sources out there which cover anti-Estonian sentiment in great detail; they all address other issues such as the Bronze Soldier, or discrimination of Russophones in Estonia, or the perceived Nazi adolation in Estonia. Anti-Estonian sentiment as a concept is trivially mentioned. Therefore it fails Wikipedia:N#General_notability_guideline, in particular the significant coverage clause. The article has, and is using, original research to present a WP:COATRACK. Therefore, as the entire article relates to EstoniaâRussia relations, I feel it should be merged here, where it can be covered within encyclopaedic structure, and in an NPOV fashion. -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 06:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
This section has been renamed by myself as "Soviet occupation 1944-1991" is a POV-loaded title. "Estonia in the Soviet Union" does not push any particular POV, whereas occupation is pushing a contentious POV that is not recognised by all sources. Please consider POV when editing articles such as this. -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 10:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Is the "Destruction of Estonian Independance War Memorials" somehow relevant to this article? Does the section imply, that the the people destroying the monuments were Russians, and not Estonians? Any proof for that? ...or are all Estonian citizens of the Soviet Union considered "Russians"? -- Petri Krohn 10:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Erm. If the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, how were there Soviet troops in 1994? This vodka is nice and dry, that I'm drinking. Never mind. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.168.179.142 ( talk) 22:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 02:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
EstoniaâRussia relations. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.â cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
EstoniaâRussia relations. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.â cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on EstoniaâRussia relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on EstoniaâRussia relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%221939+secret+protocol%22&btnG=SearchWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on EstoniaâRussia relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on EstoniaâRussia relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
RJ CG is trying to push claims of citizenship denial into the article, and to associate the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn controversy with a poll cited. Both are clear falsehoods, and he knows that. I have reverted. Digwuren 14:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Was it really that hard to find a source? Now, I recommend you add the actual facts about the citizenship of minors, too:
(4) A minor under 15 years of age who was born in Estonia after 26 February 1992 shall acquire Estonian citizenship by naturalisation if:
1) his or her parents apply for Estonian citizenship for him or her and if the parents have legally resided in Estonia for at least five years at the time of submission of the application and are not deemed by any other state to be citizens of that state on the basis of any Act in force;
2) single or adoptive parent applies for Estonian citizenship for the minor and if the single or adoptive parent has legally resided in Estonia for at least five years at the time of submission of the application and is not deemed by any other state to be a citizen of that state on the basis of any Act in force.
Sander SÀde 16:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
And here are these infamous "nasty" language requirements:
â | §8. Requirements and appraisal of knowledge of Estonian language
(1) Knowledge of Estonian language, for purposes of this law, is knowledge of Estonian language necessary for everyday life. (2) Requirements of knowledge of Estonian language are as follows: 1) understanding heard speech (official declaration or notice; emergency and warning messages, news, descriptions of events and explanations of phenomena); 2) speech (conversation and storytelling; presenting questions, explanations, hypotheses and orders; expressiong an opinion; expressing wishes); 3) understanding of read texts (official declaration or notice; public message, news, sample form, journalistic article, message, directory, usage instructions, traffic information, questionnary, protocol, regulation); 4) writing (application, delegation, explanatory note, CV; filling in a form, biographical form, or a test). (3) Knowledge of Estonian language is assessed through an examination. The way such examinations are taken is to be regulated by the Government of the Republic. (4) A person passing the examination will be issued a document attesting it. (5) A person that has acquired comprehensive, high school or higher education in Estonian language does not need to take the examination. (6) A person specified in §35(3) of this law takes the examination in limits and ways to be decided by an expert commission specified in §35(7) of this law. |
â |
Yes, (2)3 mentiones 'message' twice. It uses two distinct Estonian words, but these do not translate to distinct English concepts. There's a change of emphasis: one of them is about delivered messages, such as letters; the other is about posted messages, such as "Danger! High voltage!". §35(3) is about simplified examination requirements for people who, for health reasons, can not fulfill all the rules. The most common case is that of deaf people; they are not expected to understand what they hear if they can't hear it. Furthermore, by §34(1), people born before 1930 are additionally exempt from the requirement of literacy. To understand this latter rule's significance, it's important to understand that among ethnic Estonians, literacy was almost complete (>99%) by late 19th century already; 1930 is a cut-off point designated after Soviet literacy programmes. Essentially, this clause says that you will not be penalised for never learning to write under a Communist or Czarist regime at times nobody expected it from you. Digwuren 11:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Watch out for Mikkalai seeking to bias the article. Digwuren 22:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
-- Termer 23:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
As my mild reminder (made 13:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)) that accusations of glorification of Nazi collaboration, made by international organizations, do not exactly belong in ERR, I explicitly announce my intention to create separate article "Whitewashing of Nazi Collaboration in modern Estonia" within a week's time frame and copy all stuff from SWC and NCSJ there. I invite Estonian wikipedians to come up with name for this article they consider appropriate. I consider weasel words "accusations of..." inappropriate for such a name. RJ CG ( talk) 16:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
attempts to re-assess history of WWII and role of Estonians in it? what are you talking about RJ CG? As far as I'm concerned, the Baltic waffen ss units were rehabilitated, these were not seen as hostile to the US and the western allies etc. So who is attempting to re-assess history of WWII and role of Estonians in it?-- Termer ( talk) 22:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC) PS. Thanks for pointing out the false redirect Fascism in Estonia, since the vaps movement had nothing to do with any "Fascism in Estonia". Not every conservative right wing political movement is fascist you know, even though the soviets called even the Berlin wall the "anti-Fascist protective rampart"...-- Termer ( talk) 22:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
RE:
Oth I didn't say anything about who might have created the redirect, I only thanked
RJ CG for pointing it out. since the the word in the context has been used only as
Fascist (epithet), the redirect should be either deleted unless anybody wants to use it for
Occupation of Estonia by Nazi Germany.--
Termer (
talk) 23:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
PS. who's getting provoked
Martintg? I didn't get it what you're talking about. However, all misleading redirects or statements on WP need to be cleaned up.--
Termer (
talk) 23:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
In case someone missed these:
Guys, thank you for your input. You all completely missed the point. Would you actually care to read a section I was referring to, it contains wealth of pretty sourced information from Western news outlets and Western organizations which consider Estonian actions "revisionism of the past". By the way, all the Economist articles can go there, as soon as they're about Estonia, not Russia. This have nothing to do with Russia and therefore should not be in article Estonia-Russia relations. Either new article have to be created or material should be copied in separate new article. I gave you a week to calm you proud egos bruised by centuries of foreign rule and come up with NPOV suggestion for placement of this material. It is currently not where it should be. This is editorial question, not a political one, do try to understand it. I would be happy with any name for the new article short of "Baseless accusation of glorious Estonia spread by Jewish weasels bought by damn Russian bear" RJ CG ( talk) 14:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Nobody missed your point RJ CG, no international organization has ever considered Estonian actions "revisionism of the past". The idea has originated from Putin's Russia , therefore it only is relevant in this article and should not be included anywhere else. Thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 17:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
To: RJ CG everybody is free to express their concerns. However, nobody has ever made an attempt for a re-assessment of WWII in Estonia. It's always been the same: Estonia was caught between the hammer and the anvil. -- Termer ( talk) 22:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
User:RJ CG first claims material is not relevant to the article topic and belongs elsewhere [8], so I move material (and remove dead links) [9] to Monument of Lihula [10], now he is edit warring these changes [11], [12], claiming it is vandalism in the edit summary. Martintg ( talk) 01:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
It didn't make any sense to me either.--
Termer (
talk) 02:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your opinions
RJ CG. The only thing thatâs funny I think are the "Accusations of fascism". And anything printed in the English press that shows how ridiculous these accusations are serves the purpose of NPOV on WP. Therefore my edit summary was right on target. Thanks!--
Termer (
talk) 19:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
PS. FYI: suggesting that there are any monuments "to Nazi collaborators" in Estonia and that there exists an "official denial that collaboration is glorified" , + "cheapened loud Estonian statements" are insulting ethnic epithets.--
Termer (
talk) 21:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about RJ CG? what tribe? Nobody has ever glorified any Nazi collaborators in Estonia either by "Estonian statements" or by "policies of the Estonian government and statements of government officials". Therefore in case you don't like these insulting "accusations of fascism" to be called ethnic epithets, how about Fascist (epithet)? Because thats what these are. And critical statements toward Estonia? Please note that WP is not a place for such agendas like political criticism, that's called soapboxing. Also, please do not add misleading statements to the article like this. Thanks!-- Termer 10:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
No point if you can't see Estonia. Kevlar67 ( talk) 19:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Once more I had been amazed that fantasies of Ph.D. student somehow found it's way to Wikipedia. As virtually any Russophone newspaper can claim more credibility than a student, I'm tempted to use such weak criteria of a reliable source to add all the claims about Estonian Nazi past, starting with article from Komsomolskaya Pravda that units of Estonian auxiliary police killed up to 300,000 Russians in Pskov and Novgorod regions in 1941-1943. To any reasonable uninvolved editor big daily is at least as reliable as student newsletter. RJ CG ( talk) 13:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
RJ CG, you're not
sockpuppeting here, are you? Well, that's against policy, you should know that (it's not allowed even if you are reaching 3RR - like now, for example). Don't do that anymore.
As your edits - do you think that article misinterpreted somehow ms Brown's work? If so, please correct it. If you don't like the overall balance in article, then a) try to reach consensus to drop something (friendly remainder - you have tried it repeatedly, but failed every time) or b) do bring along some more references and expand article yourself. DO NOT play wordgames, trying to twist what source says or what reader should think about it's author.
213.35.244.96 (
talk) 18:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Dissertations by Ph.D. candidates are considered a reliable scholarly source, since they have been examined by the relevant University's acedemic committee. Martintg ( talk) 21:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
RJ CG, and what about your sockpuppeting? Not even an apology and excuse that you forgot to log in?
BTW, I am forced to take your threatening with semi-protection this article as yet another proof that you personally are here only for pushing your point (and trying to eliminate your content dispute opponents using every possible way, including gaming the system and making knowingly false claims and requests to administrators), NOT helping to build reliable encyclopedia. Have you even read the policy you waving around here with,
WP:PROTECTION? Have you seen this part - "Semi-protection /---/, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes"? Because this IS content dispute we have here, and let me remind you - you are not vandalism fighter or poor harassed editor here, you are one side in dispute which unfortunately doesn't have enough arguments to support your point. And what about "..administrators may apply temporary semi-protection on pages which: * Are subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption /---/, when blocking individual users is not a feasible option". So you should be careful, because it may very well look that blocking only one individual user (who has repeatedly tried to remove or misinterpret sources he doesn't like, and failed almost every time, as consensus was and is clearly against him) would actually be more effective.
Finally, content. Yes, I think published works from PhD students are WP-worthy enough, if presented correctly. It's mentioned in article that that she was PhD student at time (and repeating that in the beginning of every sentence, like you tried, does look odd and non-neutral), her work deals with scenario which was widely disputed at this time and it summarizes it well enough - so why not? Find something equally reliable, which shows that her work was BS and everybody would be happy to include that here as well, but keep your own opinions about ms Brown's work to yourself (or here in this talk page, but out of the article) - your opinions are not considered as reliable source. I'd like to know more about your theory about "..virtually any Russophone newspaper can claim more credibility than a student.." though, considering that
Reporters Without Borders places Russia on the 144th place (out from 169) in press freedom index (2007 data). Anyway, if we accept main media outlets (even yellow ones) as reliable source (I could accept your Komsomolskaya Pravda article here, if it's introduced correctly - I mean, it's perfect example of pure Russian propaganda, which proudly presents itself under title "Young Communist's Truth"), why shouldn't we accept university press publications?
213.35.238.14 (
talk) 09:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I think recent events may require some additions in this article. After all, it's the first official meeting of estonian and russian presidents since the collapse of USSR. Ilves and Medvedev discussed the problems between the countries
I am not sure if the incident where Ilves left the auditorium because of Kosachev speech requires addition in this article? Estonian delegation left Finno-Ugric conference due to slanderous speech by Kosachev
Also the Speech itself caused some unease in Russia. Estonian Leader's Freedom Call Creates Storm
Also original transcript of the speech in english [13]
Suva Đ§Đ”ĐłĐŸ? 14:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Nashi wanted to mob estonian president aswell. Russian police detain activists harassing Estonian president. Kinda eventful event. For baltic press for atleast. :) Suva Đ§Đ”ĐłĐŸ? 14:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I have moved the opinion of Johan Backman to Echoes of the Bronze Night. It looks like a violation of WP:UNDUE to put his opinion into such a prominent place as end of the section. Alex Bakharev ( talk) 07:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
the way it works here User:Shotlandiya, in case you want to have any sourced material removed from any article on Wikipedia, you can bring your suggestion to the talk page. -- Termer ( talk) 03:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Russavia has reverted twice my efforts to balance this section [14], [15]. Estonia also has concerns with human rights violations in Russia, but this is excluded and we only have Russian concerns expressed here, hence this section is POVed. -- Martintg ( talk) 20:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
It is my proposal to merge Anti-Estonian sentiment to this article. I make this proposal based upon conclusions I have reached in the last 24 hours after attempting to clean up that article, and after having read through Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Estophobia. In essence that article is a re-creation of an article which has already been deleted, so instead of taking to AfD now, we may as well try to salvage it in some sort of state, albeit in this article. Problems which exist with the article are that it includes massive amounts of original research, insertion of material which fails verification, novel synthesis of ideas from sources which is transplanted into the article, etc. After going thru and removing materials which fall into the above, this is the version of the article that I am proposing to be merged here.
The section Media accounts doesn't contain anything substantive on anti-Estonian sentiment, but rather covers some recent controversies - it is those controversies which are notable, not the anti-Estonian sentiment, which appear to be driven by those controversies themselves. The Nazi section is somewhat synthesis in that it isn't driven by anti-Estonian sentiment, but rather by conflicting views of history in which neither side will give any leighway to the other. That section would fit in nicely at EstoniaâRussia_relations#Accusations_of_fascism. The eSStonia section can go almost completely, it could rate a mention in this article. The Bronze Soldier issue can also fit in nicely here.
I have searched and searched and there are no sources out there which cover anti-Estonian sentiment in great detail; they all address other issues such as the Bronze Soldier, or discrimination of Russophones in Estonia, or the perceived Nazi adolation in Estonia. Anti-Estonian sentiment as a concept is trivially mentioned. Therefore it fails Wikipedia:N#General_notability_guideline, in particular the significant coverage clause. The article has, and is using, original research to present a WP:COATRACK. Therefore, as the entire article relates to EstoniaâRussia relations, I feel it should be merged here, where it can be covered within encyclopaedic structure, and in an NPOV fashion. -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 06:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
This section has been renamed by myself as "Soviet occupation 1944-1991" is a POV-loaded title. "Estonia in the Soviet Union" does not push any particular POV, whereas occupation is pushing a contentious POV that is not recognised by all sources. Please consider POV when editing articles such as this. -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 10:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Is the "Destruction of Estonian Independance War Memorials" somehow relevant to this article? Does the section imply, that the the people destroying the monuments were Russians, and not Estonians? Any proof for that? ...or are all Estonian citizens of the Soviet Union considered "Russians"? -- Petri Krohn 10:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Erm. If the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, how were there Soviet troops in 1994? This vodka is nice and dry, that I'm drinking. Never mind. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.168.179.142 ( talk) 22:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 02:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
EstoniaâRussia relations. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.â cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
EstoniaâRussia relations. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.â cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on EstoniaâRussia relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on EstoniaâRussia relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=%221939+secret+protocol%22&btnG=SearchWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on EstoniaâRussia relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on EstoniaâRussia relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.â InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)