Talk:Bronze Night

A pun to Crystal night

Bronze Night is clearly a pun to Crystal night originating from Estonian press due to similarities of both events (both involve certain materials and uncontrolled riots). Why not mention it then? -- Borism 12:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, the very first time I heard that comparison was from your edit. Would you kindly give some sources supporting that? I am sure that when is properly sourced, no one will have any objections. -- Sander Säde 13:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the suggestion is a WP:OR speculation, and may be a marker of a specific cultural bias easily neutralisable by pointing out the common Estonian language naming pattern for events that happened at nighttime, such as et:Pärtliöö veresaun. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 13:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to say it but Sander Säde has been faster. In case this opinion is a citation from a published source I wouldn't see any problems with adding it to the article -"according to this and that". So far it seems to be a personal opinion , not even WP:OR I'm afraid--Termer 13:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Does this qualify? I'd be glad if there was proper etymology research with peer review of this word, although it seems there isn't. To Sander: this in no way is comparison but rather a pun, don't you agree? -- Borism 14:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but blogs are not reliable sources. As blog comments point out, most people don't get the similarity. Although it is a good analogy, in a way. -- Sander Säde 14:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Your state of denial is amazing! Is referencing every word with its' etymology required on Wikipedia? Frankly, it's fine by me if this is not included, as every person with at least basic knowledge of modern history can understand the pun anyway. -- Borism 08:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, referencing is required, see WP:SOURCE. And since several editors here have not heard of that comparison, I would say that it needs to be referenced or removed as original research. These are core policies of Wikipedia, feel free to start discussion in appropriate noticeboard to remove those - good luck with that. -- Sander Säde 08:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you believe you exist or do you also need confirmation from various sources that your parents had sex? 195.50.211.107 (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Existance is no proof one's parents had sex, it could have been with the neighbour. Only a DNA test can really confirm it Martintg (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[Citation needed]! Maybe it wasn't a neighbour, but the milkman? 195.50.200.97 (talk) 04:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

IIRC this term originated from Eesti Päevaleht, and it is indeed a pun on Crystal Night. I can't find the appropriate citation though. Suva Чего? 19:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

Folks, there is a silly war going on in the article regarding the description of the Kavkazcenter website. This is completely unproductive. I've requested protection of the page and am requesting that the editors resolve their issue here on the talkpage where this sort of thing is supposed to be discussed - Peripitus (Talk) 04:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have better suggestion. Semi-protection. Discussion with anon IPs is counter-productive, as it only takes IP renewal (one-click operation with most ISPs) or switching to a different proxy for anon user to return and renew his/her disruptive activities, claiming to be different person, not bound by agreement, if agreement is not to his/her liking. RJ CG (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the Edit history - this is not an IP only issue. It appears that on one side of the fence (Chechen separatists propaganda) is Beatle Fab Four, yourself, ip:193.232.... and on the other side of the fence is ip:88.196....., Martintg. Calling other's part in an edit war vandalism is hardly productive. Given the past history of this article, the associated Arbcom case and the lack of any talk discussion full protection appears the only option. Perhaps you would try discussing your point of view on this talk page rather than dismissing it out of hand as counter-productive. None of the editors in this silly war have tried to reach consensus HERE which is the place for it. I'm happy to mediate through the dispute but every starts with people talking to each other - Peripitus (Talk) 23:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A message for Peripitus. Excuse me, but I suspect that you're not a neutral moderator, and I also have many doubts that you are not somehow related to to that martin. Why? I brief inspection of your personal pages shows that both of you are from Australia. He is resided in Tasmania, and you have a Tasmanian barnstar. Moreover, from the history of your edits it is clear, that you never expressed interest in issues related to Russia or Estonia. Then suddenly you became worried about what's going on this very page. Exactly after an anonimous Estonian IP changed description to a "correct version". This also looks very strange. So, please withdraw.

And a message for admin. Before protecting the article, you'd better warn this offensive anonym, who calls others "racists" for using pretty neutral word "separatism", and whose ALL article edits are reverts. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The above comments are a clear indication of WHY the article should remain protected. Two editors involved in the dispute come here to comment on the dispute, but engage in no actual discussion of the article's content. In answer to User:Beatle Fab Four's assertion about neutrality. I got involved in this article way back (look - I'm the creator) at the end of the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn article battle and related Arbcom case - never ran across Martin (it's a big big country and wiki). I keep this on my watchlist as it's subject is a magnet for silly edit wars. Try playing the ball not the man - perhaps try putting your point of view on the correct wording and why here .... where it belongs ? - Peripitus (Talk) 23:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to make it crystal clear that while one side of this dispute at least demonstrated it's willingness to discuss, other side completely ignored the call. And why should they discuss anything? "Impartial" admin chimed in to apply "revert to the last edit" policy exactly the moment when article did contain sourced description of the Kavkazcenter and reverted it to suite their tastes. RJ CG (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps then you will state HERE your version and a referenced reason as to why it's correct ? Then the other parties have something to discuss ? - Peripitus (Talk) 21:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should I assume that you would pay more attention to my (exhaustively referenced) version here than you did on the main page, happily reverting it?RJ CG (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for your rationale as to why you believe "Chechen separatist propaganda website" is more neutral than "Chechen pro-independence website". Martintg (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Separatist" and "pro-independence" are two sides of the same coin (France opposes Corsican separatists but French president threatend Olympic boycott over Chinese treatment of pro-Tibet independence forces and France went to war once to protect Kosovan pro-independence struggle), but "propaganda" is important. RJ CG (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Watching SF sinophobic rampage of yesterday, I thought of better example to illustrate the difference between "separatist" and "pro-independence". Harassment of Estonian embassy in Moscow after Estonian regime (which denied citizenship to 1/3 of population) engaged in grave-digging under the cover of the night had been universally condemned by all "impartial and independent" Western media as Putin's provocation. Harassment of Estonian embassy in Kiev had been completely ignored by selectively blind "impartial" media, as protests in country governed by extremely pro-Western regime are hard to blame on Putin. Harassment of Chinese representatives all over the Western world is very sympathetically covered by the very same media as a rightful protest. Nature of both events is very similar, but one was vilified and another is praised. RJ CG (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this excellent humorous commentary, RJ CH - I haven't laughed like that quite a while. Excellent parody of Russian anti-Estonian propaganda, highly enjoyable to read. Shows very clearly how totally different things can be compared, when you distort the facts enough.

But as for Kavkazcenter issue - if we leave "propaganda" there, then we must be fair to other similar sites as well. For example, regnum.ru has been called "Kremlin proxy" [1], "channelled back the Kremlin line" [2] and so forth [3], [4], [5]. Therefore, we must reluctantly attach "propaganda" sign to Regnum.ru articles and all other sources which cite regnum.ru as the source.

88.196.139.227 (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome. It is always nice to witness one's progress from histerycal fits, caused by contradiction between Estonian reality (where Security Police is always ready to act on tips from purebreed Estonians to harass dissident groups) and little thingy called true freedom of speach, to attempts to discuss, however sorry those attempts are. And whoever hids behind this IP (for all I know and care, it can be dynamic), definitely progresses. However, your progress did not yet reach the stage of understanding that empty ridicule does not mean much, unless explanation of my sins is offered. All in good time, pal, all in good time. As far as kavkazcenter goes, there are two things you failed to grasp. One is that lie is not nice (and your Jamestown article did not call regnum "proxy", it reserved this word for Kadyrov & Co.) and another that there's a distinction between POV characteristic given by side in war of words (and Estonian human right organization, picking on Russia and ignoring stateless Russophones at home is nothing but opinionated combatant) and commentary given by independent source without axes to grind (and I had been very careful picking neutral sources or ones critical toward Russia).RJ CG (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

RJ CG and the Anon editor: These attacks must stop - this sort of flaming of someone else's opinion is unacceptable on an article talk page. Can you please address the matter of dispute with reliable sources. Peripitus (Talk) 21:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you start to establish somewhat of a pattern here. 1st, your administrative rollback comes exactly to keep article to the one group's liking. OK, that's inevitable (you could leave it in either one or another state, there's no 3rd here), but, once lupmed together with your over efforts, starts the trend. Then, as one side clearly demonstarte unwillingness to engage into discussion as soon as article suits their taste, you call to BOTH sides to engage in discussion. Well, one side did already, so you started to distort reality slightly by paining both sides with same brush of "unwillingness to discuss". It gets even more interesting later. As non-discussing side ignores your request, you effectively replace it, asking discussing side to provide sources (although sources were exhaustively provided in the article, so it took remarkably selective blindness not to notice it). What happened next, you ask? Very easily. Anonymous IP pops up, which devoted his/her each and every posting so far to attack and/or insult me (see this), and this worthy individual continues his/her harassment campaign on this page. In between s/he tries to lie casually and attempts to blur difference between POV and NPOV. Your reaction? Call on both sides to calm down. Oh yeah, it does not matter if one stole the moneybag or if one's moneybag had been stolen, there's something connecting one to theft, isn't it? How impartial and noble! RJ CG (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please address the subject matter, stop accusing people, or edit another article. You really don't seem to have gotten the point from the Arbcom case in which you were involved over just this article subject - Peripitus (Talk) 21:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave my reasons number of times both on talk page and in article summaries and heard nothing back. And truth hurts, isn't it? RJ CG (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course Kavkaz Center is separatist propaganda, just as the sources say. It has broadcast separatist propaganda since its inception. The cite publishes extremist materials and incites inter-ethnic hatred, and has been convicted of this by courts in both Russia and Latvia. Soldiers of the Russian army, police and other non-Chechens involved in the fight against militants in the materials agency calls "occupiers". For residents of Chechnya who cooperate with the Russian authorities or support their actions, the agency uses a special definition - "national traitors". The site constantly publishes statements by Chechen militant leaders to call upon the armed action against Russia. Publications express approval of the killing of federal troops and terrorist acts. Kavkaz Center has also said that the federal government is employed in the service of Satanists. In addition, the site says that the top political leadership of the United States is a satanic sect, which practiced human sacrifice. In 2005, a Vilnius court recognized the company director, site hosting provider, guilty of placing and public display of materials that promote inter-ethnic and religious discord. The court found that the materials are linked to international terrorism propaganda and incitement to ethnic and religious hatred. At various times the server site has been based in different countries, repeatedly changing its location because it has been banned by governments. In 2003 the site was shut down by the Estonian Security Police. In 2004, the Lithuanian authorities down their server. Shortly thereafter, the site resumed its work on Swedish territory. --Miyokan (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Miyokan, you miss the point here. Kavkazcenter had been called "propaganda" website by NPOV source, so this bit is out of question. The onus of dispute is that group of editors does not like this definition and does not want to discuss it. In the meantime, an administrator creates an impression of discussion by calling to both sides (one of which entered discusssin and another did not bother to taklk). One of many distorted mirrors of Estern European WP. RJ CG (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Section Break

Folks, I think the focus has drifted here. This is an article about the April Unrest/Bronze Night, not a website. Why is the website mentioned at all ? Are they a reliable source ? If you follow the reference link you will see that the section on "Russia creating armed resistance groups" is an editorial piece, based on a livejournal blog entry that has been removed. Is this really a reliable source that should even be mentioned in the article ? Peripitus (Talk) 21:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh-oh, come on. You thought that PROPAGANDA WEBSITE spread the truth? That's the point. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Beatle Fab Four - what I am attempting to get here is discussion to reach a consensus so we can get back to editing the article. Could you please address the matter of what the article should say and what references back this up ? - Peripitus (Talk) 21:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, simple search. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3669624.stm Brazauskas words. And unprotect the article. It's simple. You awkward attempts to pretend to be neutral are not persuasive, so take it like a man. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Where in that linked article does it mention the Soldier or incidents surrounding it ? This is not an article about the Kavkazcenter website ? From what I can see online they are not a reliable source and I can't see the relevance of even mentioning them in this article. As for unprotecting it - I'm not an admin and lack the button to do this. Anyone wanting it unprotected can do so at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection - Peripitus (Talk) 04:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume good faith. But. You're not an admin, not a neutral person (my view), not a moderator, not an article editor (except you "created" the article by copy-pasting). And, definitely, you're not the owner of this article. I see nothing to discuss. Excuse me. Bye Beatle Fab Four (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Historical background" - ugh

I just took a glance at this section and it brings up the bile in my throat. If you want to go on in harsh detail about the Soviet invasion, fine, but then you gloss over the Nazi occupation in a single subordinate clause, "After the German occupation of 1941–1944..." and then you're back on the nasty evil Russians. Yeah, I'm sure that the Estonians (I'm excluding ethnic Russian Estonians, as apparently are the editors of this article) believe this to be the only relevant historical background, but the Russians would presumably like to point out that they "liberated" Estonia from the Nazis.

I mean the more I look at this article the worse it gets; you're quoting a 1940 TIME magazine article as if it's authoritative for anything but what American prewar propaganda had to say on the subject, you're accusing Russian-speaking Estonians of "hampering" integration by "inflammatory Russian allegations of human rights violations and accusations" - how does this dismissive, hostile commentary accord remotely with WP:NPOV? Do you seriously expect to convince anybody that ethnic relations in Estonia are all perfectly fine and dandy, except for those evil inflammatory accusations that the Russkies keep making for no reason at all? It's quite pathetic. <eleland/talkedits> 06:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Your spray against ethnic Estonians (there are only a handful active in Wikipedia and only a few of them participated in editing this article) because of issues you perceive in this article is somewhat misguided and unjustified. This article was the result of a quite intense collaborative effort between the editors of many ethnicities and reflect the best consensus achieved during that process. If you have any constructive criticism to offer, you would be better served by leaving language like "bile" and "pathetic" at the door. Thanks. Martintg (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, consensus on article being protected in suspicious circumstances? That’s something new. Eleland, FYI. You’re correct about the quality of the article. It was edited heavily by a bunch of uncivil nationalists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren Some of them are blocked. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, Martin, but the only comment I directed at ethnic Estonians was, "I'm sure that the [ethnic] Estonians [...] believe [the 1940-41 and 1944-90 Soviet occupation] to be the only relevant historical background[.]" As to the #s of ethnic Estonians editing this article, it is of course irrelevant, because A) the Estonians have the other Baltic editors, not to mention the Poles, Hungarians, Czechs etc etc to back them up on this, and B) WP is in any case open to all constructive editors regardless of personal background. The point, which you've scrupulously avoided discussing, is that this article presents exactly the "historical background" that an uncritical Estonian nationalist would wish to present. One of the best rules of thumb for NPOV is that if you can tell from reading the article where the author's loyalties lie, it isn't NPOV. This article fails that test spectacularly. <eleland/talkedits> 01:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this comment was edited by User:Martintg, [6] presumably by accident. Fixed now -Eleland

No, the "historical background" presented is western historiography. Attempting to pin that presentation on "Estonian nationalists" is misguided and totally uninformed. The historical viewpoints represented here are the viewpoints of western scholars (I challenge you to find a dissenting western scholar), governmental entities such as the US congress and judicial bodies like the European Court of Human Rights. These entities are not controlled or manipulated by "Estonian Nationalists". Martintg (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

All rules of thumb fail from time of time. There are conflicts where the NPOV happens to significantly coincide with a conflict's participant's POV. You wouldn't compromise the artifcle of Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) towards tactical expropriation of lands needed for the Aryan living space from sub-human Slavs in favor of Nazi POV. The NPOV is it was an illegal aggressive invasion. You wouldn't compromise the article of Katyn_massacre towards pre-emptive execution of enemy reserve officers in favor of Soviet POV. The NPOV is it was a genocidal massacre. Poland was a side in both conflicts, the side of victim. Polish POV coincides NPOV in both cases. 194.126.101.134 (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

He-he. Random choice. Recent book by a FINNISH journalist. "So-called "occupation" of Estonia is a myth. Treatment of non-ethnic Estonians smells like apartheid." That's an example of NPOV. http://www.hs.fi/kulttuuri/artikkeli/Suomalaistoimittajan+pamfletti+arvostelee+Viron+miehitysmyyttej%C3%A4/1135236099820 13:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC) Beatle Fab Four (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Pamphlets of fringe ideas not WP:RS. If this is random, your list of supporting literature is short indeed. 194.126.101.134 (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Nazi strawmen (see Godwin's Law) do not address the central point here; this article in fact differs significantly from what relatively neutral Western sources have to say about historical background. For example, here's the backgrounder from a BBC [article:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6255051.stm]

The bronze statue of a Soviet soldier, erected in 1947, is regarded by many as a symbol of Soviet occupation.

However, the large ethnic-Russian population in Estonia see it as a symbol of liberation from the Nazis.

The decision has angered Russia too. The Russian parliament is expected to adopt a statement denouncing the law.

The soldier has become a symbol of the divisions in Estonian society, says the BBC's Baltic correspondent Laura Sheeter.

Soviet troops arrived in Estonia in 1940 and it was absorbed into the Soviet Union. Nazi forces pushed the Soviets out in 1941 but the Red Army returned in 1944 and remained for half a century.

You see how it spends roughly equal time presenting Russian and Estonian views? Compare that to the current "background" session which talks about Soviet atrocities in laborious detail and entirely glosses over the Russian view. The counterpart to the "Soviet Russian regime of terror" is the "Estonian Nazi judenfrei collaborators." You can't present harsh condematory details against just one side, even if those details are 100% true, because the other side also has 100% true harsh condemnations to make. <eleland/talkedits> 19:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The quote from the BBC article presents the views of the symbolism of the monument, which it rightly gives equal treatment to both sides. However it is bit of a leap to then contend that similar "equal treatment" be given to the historical background as well, that would violate WP:UNDUE. Perhaps what is needed is a section about the people's view of the symbolism of the monument, in which equal treatment can be given to both views. Note the BBC article states that "many" regard it as a symbol of occupation, many don't and think it merely an inappropriate place to locate a war grave, and believe it should be relocated to a war cemetery Martintg (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"Soviet Russian regime of terror" and the "Estonian Nazi judenfrei collaborators." by eleland is meant to provoke a flame war here right? Can't see any other reasons for such soapboxing on WP talk page. Please eleland stick to the facts, there has never been such a thing as "Soviet Russian regime of terror". There was Soviet terror, and calling Soviet terror Russian is not fair exactly. Like it's not fair to compare the Soviet terror to about 6 convicted "Estonian Nazi judenfrei collaborators". In case you have any more evidence about any such collaborators, please turn to the authorities, so that they could get convicted and after that we can add the facts to WP. Calling the Soviet terror Russian and labeling Estonians as "judenfrei collaborators" can't be seen in any other way than provoking ethnic epithets. --98.212.196.116 (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)