Wikipedia

Talk:Estonia–Russia relations/Archive 1

< Talk:Estonia–Russia relations
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

RJ CG's nasty manipulations

Latest comment: 16 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion

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)

Try to add references to the citizenship legislation. Colchicum 14:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The best source of all is [1], the text of the citizenship law officially published by Estonian government and having legally binding power by a law of its own. Digwuren 10:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
You cold try to provide some evidence that I posted falsehoods for a change. Poll had been conducted during Bronze Soldier controversy, which is evident by it's date. So your claims are partly plain lies and partly personal attacks. RJ CG 14:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmmm. It is sneakier than I thought; the poll has been replaced by one that did happen after the riots. The obvious solution is to dedicate a separate section to poll data, but it's too late for that tonight. Digwuren 00:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't have time to hunt for sources just now, but I remember that underage non-citizens were granted citizenship automatically. As RJ CG's claim is unsourced, I am going to remove it - and hope that for a change he will go look for a source instead of edit warring. Sander Säde 15:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Civil person uses a {{cn}} tag or something like this if s/he stumbles upon statement which should be confirmed by independent sources. But your editing style shows your profound lack of knowledge about concept of civility. Read citizenship law of your own country.RJ CG 15:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I will rub that comment on your nose the next time I see you removing stuff You Just Don't Like(tm) from Rein Lang or Adolf (drama). It won't do anything good, but at least, it'll be fun. In a schadenfreude sort of way. Digwuren 01:01, 14 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.

— http://www.legislationline.org/legislation.php?tid=11&lid=2220&less=false

Sander Säde 16:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you wanted to say, but the key text here is "legally resided in Estonia". Since "Soviet occupants" were deemed illegal, their children were automatically illegal. `'Mїkka 17:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The occupation was illegal, but the Republic of Estonia graciously provided long-term residence permits to Soviet citizens living in Estonia at the time of restoration. Thus, pretty much everybody that immigrated into Estonia in 1940–1991 and their offspring can have legal residences. Furthermore, the time of living on Estonian territory is counted even if it took place before 1991. (Since it was more than seven years ago, this is by now a historical distinction.) Digwuren 00:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
In what sense a person can be illegal? The Soviet occupants vote in local elections and are legal residents. Whether the occupation was legal or not doesn't bear on the issue. The key text here is "shall acquire Estonian citizenship by naturalisation". I am not sure that the procedure of naturalization can be called automatic. Colchicum 18:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
This particular phrase means that when they become citizens through this process, they will be deemed as naturalised citizens, not natural-born citizens. Theoretically, laws can distinguish between these statuses, but I don't recall what, if any, differences there are. As of automaticity; no, the only way to gain Estonian citizenship automatically is to have a parent of Estonian citizenship. (Special rules apply to orphans.) This rule's significance is that children of long-term stateless residents can naturalise in a greatly simplified manner; essentially, a parent's application is all that is needed. In general, people of Estonia tend to believe that who does not bother to even ask for citizenship doesn't deserve it; thus, it is unlikely that any further automation — a removal of this symbolic requirement — will occur within at least a generation. Digwuren 00:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I've found a distinction. A naturalised citizen's citizenship can be revoked if he joins a foreign power's military without the government's permission, or attempts violent revolution. A natural-born citizen's citizenship can not be revoked under any circumstances, but he's still free to give it up if he naturalises in another country. I believe this is the only distinction. Digwuren 10:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Very few countries in the Eastern Hemisphere would grant citizenship to children of illegal residents. Colchicum 18:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
This hemisphere-split is important. Countries of Western hemisphere tend to be dominated by European immigrants from the Age of Exploration and the continuing migration, and have jus soli centric citizenship laws. USA's are the best-known. Digwuren 00:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I afraid that you misunderstood the article. I also don't understand why Sander Säde brought it here. Core dispute was about status of children born in Estonia from 1940 to this present second to (1) people not viewed as citizens according to old law or (2) their offspring or (3) ones who did not aquire Estonian citizenship through naturalization post-1991. These persons (some of them turned 65 already) are not considered Estonian citizens even if they spent their whole life in Estonia. Article mentioned above deals with underage offsprings of ones who obtain Estonian citizenship through naturalization. It is completely and utterly unrelated to dispute. RJ CG 20:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Citizenship, under Estonian law, is not a matter of 'consideration'. It is a matter of status; one that can be inherited (and, in fact, the only inheritable status recognised under Estonian law). If a foreigner wants to become a citizen, he'll have to go through a naturalisation process. (There are several. The most lax is the exemption for underage children born of stateless residents; there's also a quota of 10 people per year for the Cabinet of Ministers to use, granting citizenship for particular services to the republic.) For most adults, this means first acquiring a long-term residence permit, living on this permit in Estonia for seven years, then applying for naturalisation. Unless you happen to have particularly hideous crimes in your past, naturalisation is not generally denied when the applicant can fulfill the rules. People who were residents of Estonia during Soviet occupation's last days became considered to have long-term residence permits, and their seven years were already counting. Now, 16 years later, there are only two ways for a Soviet-time immigrant to not have citizenship: a small minority are barred from naturalising because of their participation in KGB's dirty deeds; most others just have not found it worth the hassle to naturalise. And as above, if you don't want citizenship, the Republic will not push one on you.
It also merits notion that until end of 2000, everybody who had been a citizen of Soviet Union could become a citizen — a natural-born one — of Russian Federation by merely asking for the citizenship. This request could be made through an embassy, too. Again, Soviet-time immigrants who didn't bother to take even that, especially simple route — it can't get *any* simpler —, are stateless by nobody's doing but their own. Digwuren 00:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And here are these infamous "nasty" language requirements:


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)

It appears I was mistaken about the year count, and the actual number of years of permanent residency needed for naturalisation is 8, not 7. Digwuren 12:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Watch out for Mikkalai seeking to bias the article. Digwuren 22:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Estonia-Russia relations, all the irrelevant stuff from Bronze Soldier of Tallinn

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

--Termer 23:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you consider SWC and NCSJ "Russian" organizations too? If not, why are they here? RJ CG 13:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


Accusations of fascism

Latest comment: 16 years ago19 comments6 people in discussion

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)

You might look at the Fascism in Estonia Suva Чего? 19:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This (Fascism in Estonia) is different topic. Article you refer to deals with modern movement(s), more or less sharing ideas of Nazis and/or White Supremacists (arguments can be made that most of Russian right radicals are closer to Supremacism and not national socialism, but this is (a) outside of scope of our conversation and (b) similiar to blind tasting of the different kinds of feces). I am talking about attempts to re-assess history of WWII and role of Estonians in it, as well as negative views regarding this process expressed by international organizations. That is why I am not comfortable with broadening the scope of Fascism in Estonia. RJ CG (talk) 20:16, 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)

Redirect was not done by RJ CG, but Mikkalai [2] and after suggestion by Suva. Unfortunately, he didn't explain his motives.Oth (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I've fixed the link. Martintg (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Guys, just a general reminder not to allow yourselves to be provoked. Martintg (talk) 23:47, 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)

Mikkalai suggested deleting the redirect [3]. I agree with this suggestion. Martintg (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I have not seen any further "whitewashing of Nazi Collaboration in modern Estonia" then what is supported by international sources, ie say Nuremberg Trials and Allied High Commission, not to mention numerous sources saying accusers of "Nazi whitewashing and glorification" should get over their paranoia ([4], [5], [6], [7] etc). I do hope RJ CG will not start another pointless neologism-article based on Regnum and Interfax to show his WP:POINT. -- Sander Säde 08:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In case someone missed these:

-- Sander Säde 08:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

The appropriate place for this material is Responsibility_for_the_Holocaust#The_response_of_individual_states, so I have moved it to that article. Martintg (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Good start. By the way, I restored parts of the text you removed (as opposed to "moved") from the article. In the future, do be careful, as removal of sourced materials can be interpreted as vandalism. It still leaves us task to find appropriate place for infamous "twice-erected monument" story, as well as other bits not related to discussed article. RJ CG (talk) 18:06, 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)

Well, I vaguely remember statement from SWC expressing concern over re-assessment of WWII in Estonia sometime in summer 2007, but this is outside of scope of conversation. Current article contain pieces of information which are appropriate for WP, as all editors agreed, but are not related to article's topic. Therefore it should be moved somewhere. Please try to stop throwing political accusations around and stick to technical issue. RJ CG (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that this material is not related to the article's topic, so I have moved the bits to the relevant articles. Martintg (talk) 22:21, 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)

Strange editing

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

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)

Termer, I should say that summary of your latest edit is indeed strange. Calling adding rebuttals from Estonian minister and statement from magazine not bound the basic principles of Western journalism in it's Russia-related coverage "more NPOV" is misleading, if funny. Although, by placing story of monument to Nazi collaborators and official denial that collaboration is glorified side by side you actually cheapened loud Estonian statements. RJ CG (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinions RJ CG. The only thing that’s 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)

I see that you are still unable to grasp the difference between tribe (ethnicity) and state, seeing every critical statement toward Estonia the state as insulting to all ethnic Estonians regardless of their political position. I'll try to make this difference crystal clear to you by asking a rhetorical (as I hope that answer is obvious to both of us) question. "Was criticism of the Nazi regime insulting ethnic epithets for all Germans?" I also hope that it was your lack of command of English and not your ill will that made you read "Estonian statements" in ethnic sense, absolutely out of context of our conversation, which dealt with policies of the Estonian government and statements of government officials. RJ CG (talk) 13:48, 23 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)

Map, closer in please

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

No point if you can't see Estonia. Kevlar67 (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Are musings of Ph.D. Student from university newspaper WP-worthy?

Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

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)

If you are referring to the ivasion scenario then these were widely discussed in Estonian media in the 90s, ms Brown is not the originator. Also, I see a corresponding reference in the article: Russian Plan for Invasion of the Baltic States," The Baltic Independent 27 Oct.- 2 Nov., 1995, 2. Feel free to add any sourced information what you like. After all, we have used Soviet sources that say Estonia joined USSR even before the elections were completed. Oth (talk) 07:33, 18 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)

Regarding Ms. Brown - I'm not sure that writings of each and every Ph.D. student are worthy material to Wikipedia, even if they are in sync with views of certain groups of Wikipedians. I suggested to remove those fantasies before, but my suggestion met flurry of political accusations. I don't want to start another reverce war, so I kept stuff in article, but tried to distinguish it from content coming from mainstream media or peer-reviewed academic sources. Would future edits try to blur this distinction I would be forced to ask administrators to semi-protect the article. RJ CG (talk) 18:59, 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)

Yes, but what this statement has to do with article in University newsletter? Piece we're discussing is article in student newsletter written by student. Some WP:RS, isn't it?RJ CG (talk) 15:29, 19 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)

I do not hope that you are able to appreciate the comedy of anonymous IP accusing other wikipedian of sockpuppeting. RJ CG (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Anonymous IP editor has every right edit as an anonymous IP - but registered users editing simultaneously also under their IP are sockpuppeting. There's no comedy, only one very loud and pointy editor caught his pants down. Shameful. 213.184.32.202 (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent events

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

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 Чего? 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 Чего? 14:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Backman

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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)

Thanks Alex Bakharev for understanding, after all it's the last thing that we'd need here, adding opinions into these controversial articles from published sources that would claim "Russian state might finish its existence in less than ten years" to keep it balanced according to WP:NPOV. I don't think any good would come from this by adding such politically extremist opinions to WP. I guess keeping such things at Echoes of the Bronze Night would be fine. But it must be considered that any such politically extreme addition to WP can trigger a competition to keep the articles in balance. And do we really need such a fuzz? not in my opinion, that's why I removed it. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 08:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
PS. unless of course it can be confirmed that it is an official policy of Kremlin, to end Estonia as a country in about 10 years, only then would be Johan Bäckman's opinions relevant to this article: Estonia–Russia relations --Termer (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The latest KaPo annual review gives Bäckman much more weight. Seems that Bäckman and "his gang" are behind the Russian anti-Estonian campaign. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Shotlandiya

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Estonia–Russia_relations#Human_rights_concerns

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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)

Please note that this article is on the bilateral relationship between Russia and Estonia. It is not an article for the inclusion of materials from every organisation which has something to say about something in one of the countries concerned. If the Estonian government has expressed concerns, then it should be included. Although, the section as it stands right now does stray from the topic of the bilateral relationship quite a bit and should be cut right down and expanded upon where necessary. --Russavia Dialogue 21:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
This article in reality has been just a dumping ground for all kinds of Estonia-Russia controversies since the Bronze Night battleground reached Wikipedia. I wouldn't mind if this article gets cleaned up, just that the mess should be dumped further into Estonia–Russia controversies or something?--Termer (talk) 03:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

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 Estonia–Russia_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 Estonia–Russia 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)

I disagree with the merger. Anti-Estonian sentiment is not confined to the animosity some Russians have against Estonians. SAFKA and Bäckmann, for instance do not suit here. In fact, Petri Krohn made good points at talk:Anti-Estonian sentiment in that anti-Estonian sentiment was for centuries cultivated by Germans and other Germanic people that controlled Estonia during the Middle Ages.
I agree that it is difficult to find scholarly sources that would treat and define such a sentiment in any great lenght, however, as it is true for other 'sentiments' like that, there are numerous sources on how this sentiment is expressed in real life and activities. The reason Estophobia was deleted was precisely that such a term is not established, yet if we define the topic as “generally describes dislike or hate of the Estonian people or the Republic of Estonia.” then the subject is existent and can easily be sourced. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 11:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Miacek, the way that I look at it, the article as it is suffers essentially from the same problem at the Estophobia suffered from which lead to its deletion. Looking at the discussion it wasn't deleted for being at Estophobia, but rather because it was to a large extent synthesis of ideas. At the moment, the article is merely a collection of quotes from people saying there is anti-Estonian sentiment, withouth delving into the actual topic of anti-Estonian sentiment; i.e. what exactly is anti-Estonian sentiment, what drives this anti-Estonian sentiment, etc. At the moment it is a POV-fork of this very article, in that everything is related to contemporary issues. User:Russavia/Estophobia is what the article looked like when it was deleted, and this is what it looked like when it was recreated. Essentially the same article, with essentially the same problems. The problem is, that the article still suffers from the same problem; there is no scholarly discussion on "anti-Estonian sentiment" as a concept; it is merely a mish mash of statements strung together in a POV way to present the concept; the trouble is, that it all relates to minor issues surrounding Estonia–Russia relations. The article as it stands now is still a candidate for AfD, but instead of taking it there, I think we as editors should try and solve any problems with the article by exploring other avenues, such as the merge that I have suggested. If a merge is not the way to proceed, are there any other ideas on what other possibilities there may be in fixing that article, because the status quo is not ideal in terms of WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK, etc. Thoughts welcome Miacek. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 08:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
In fact, I say merge and delete Anti-Estonian sentiment as recreation of deleted content. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
There is of course the possibility of forking something into Russian–Estonian information war. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that either option is a good one Petri. In relation to deletion, it is unfortunately too long past for that to occur now. But the article still suffers from the same problems. Forking it to another article is also not a good idea, as this article is nowhere near the size needed for splitting, and if forked, a more suitable article would be something like contemporary Estonia-Russia relations or something similar, where everything can be dealt with in an NPOV way. Thoughts on that guys? --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 15:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Or should we call it 2007–2010 Estonia–Russia relations crisis? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Has WP:NOR been repealed? We should report what sources say. Colchicum (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Where in this discussion do you see original research? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Estonia in the Soviet Union

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

Please familiarize yourself with the topic. According to the universally acknowledged viewpoint, Estonia was occupied by the Soviet Union. This is not recognized only by Russian government - even Russian historians acknowledge the occupation. So in Soviet Union is a fringe viewpoint, please read WP:FRINGE. However, as a compromise I've renamed the section "Estonia under the rule of Soviet Union". Please consider NPOV when editing articles such as this. --Sander Säde 11:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Destruction of Estonian Independance War Memorials

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

This article is not about Russians and Estonians. Its about two states and Russia today IS a legal successor of the Soviet Union. Thus orders coming from Moscow have a place in this article. Or are you trying to imply that The order came from Estonians to destroy their own memorials? That would be absurd!--Alexia Death 13:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Soviet troops, 1994

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.168.179.142 (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

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)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Estonia–Russia 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Estonia–Russia 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Estonia–Russia 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Estonia–Russia 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Estonia–Russia 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Estonia–Russia 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Estonia–Russia_relations/Archive_1&oldid=1029156057"