Talk:Aftermath of the Bronze Night

Fair use rationale for Image:SovNarPit200705.jpg

Image:SovNarPit200705.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Rationale provided. Martintg (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Mistranslation" Claim

Anonymous editor claims that incorrect translation happened here. I would ask somebody who has command of Estonian to clarify nature of mistake. RJ CG (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

With "mistranslation" I referred to your previous edit summary - "Legalese to English". This "translation" of yours was far from perfect. 213.184.32.202 (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

All countries impose certain conditions on granting visas, for example you are not allowed to work, carry out prostitution or engage in public picketing. Just recently Australia deported an American because he violated his visa conditions by picketing against forestry activity in Australia. There is no laws against picketing in Estonia, but if you are a foreigner, then you must obey the law, including visa law. Will restore the original text. Martintg (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how my version was challenging Estonian right to deport peaceful people who came to Estonia on the tourist visa and engaged in non-violent pickets (by the way, I would like to see some article on the deported American, I bet he was engaged in something more violent than standing in a public park dressed in something resembling Red Army cape). I just wanted to make the paragraph a little bit more readable by splitting long sentence in two - (1) explanation that ones banned from Estonia for violation are banned from other Schengen contries and (2) explanation of the nature of violation. Although I suspect that it was very attempt to explain nature of violation that raised your noble ire. RJ CG (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Things are relative. Showup of wrong people at the monument site eventually resulted in downtown Tallinn - a small, peaceful city! - ravaged and pillaged, with over 1000 detainees (number obviously so great there was no matching jailhouse so they had to be held in port terminal). The monument is a site of religious zeal of the cult of GPW (Great Patriotic War) as well as the anti-site for the Baltic nationalists. Picketing is innocent? It is like walking in the street with a dog - innocent activity in most places of the world. But don't walk with your dog into a mosque!

--Bete (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Original research and POV

There is too much original research in this article, and it is done in a POV way. Such as claims that the Russian media "falsely claimed" that statements were attributed to the Estonian govt press service. The referenced article says nothing of the like, in that it mentions nothing about "false claims", it states that statements were attributed to EE govt. "Falsely claimed" is original research. In addition to claims that claims were often accompanied by a photo, with a link to the photo. Linking to the photo is original research also, as it is just a photo on some website, there is nothing to state as such. There are also statements such as protestors attacking Marina Kaljurand; no such thing occurred, her car may have been attacked, but she most certainly was not. Other statements such as "due to Russia's apparent unwillingness and impotency to defend the embassy building and its staff"; "A number of video clips, usually taken via cellphone camera, have appeared on Youtube under the keyword 'eSStonia', ostensibly to corroborate the police brutality claims." (this is OR as the reference is the Youtube links themselves); the list goes on and on. The entire article is written from the Estonian POV, calling protestors vandals and pillagers for example, when the Russian POV is that it is the Estonian govt who are the vandals and pillagers. Russavia ^Dialogue 09:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The reference is an example of such claims. That it is false is obvious from other sources. In particular, the fact that other sources don't report such a claim by the government press service is a dead-on tip-off that it's a fluke.

You don't need a full-blown article at Snopes to see that. 62.65.238.142 (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Marina Kaljurand was most certainly attacked at a news conference by Nashi activists but was defended by her bodyguards using pepper spray, you are confusing it with the attack on the car of Swedish embassy [1]. Regarding your assertion that it is Estonian POV calling protestors vandals and pillagers and Russian POV that the Estonian govt who are the vandals and pillagers, is nonsense. Martintg (talk) 10:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it nonsense? Or is it POV? It's POV of course, but it is a POV which should also be present; perhaps not in those terms, and perhaps not at all. But there is overt Estonian POV in this article, and that can't be denied. Again, the statement "sometimes falsely", or whatever, is your statement, it is not referenced anywhere that says these were false claims. That is why I removed it, or I can put a on it, in order to have it referenced properly. As to the attack, protestors did not attack her. From [2]:

On May 2, a group of young people, as a sign of protest against the dismantling of the Monument to the Liberator Soldier in Tallinn, did indeed made an attempt to disrupt the Estonian ambassador’s press conference at the office of the newspaper Argumenty i Fakty. But security guards prevented them from doing so. No direct physical attack on the ambassador was recorded. As to reports of tear gas, it was the ambassador’s bodyguard who used pepper spray against the picketers. Marina Kaljurand herself confirmed this fact during a conversation at the Foreign Ministry.

Attack and attempt to disrupt are completely different things, and it is a stretch to say that they are the same thing. The same from the source of MNWeekly:

and tried to attack Ambassador Marina Kaljurand before a news conference.

Attacked and tried to attack are completely different, yet the article makes out she was actually attacked before being heroically rescued by her pepper spray wielding bodyguards.

It is omissions of fact, or misquoting sources (either deliberately or inadvertantly), such as this which gives the article an overall pro-Estonian POV. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It counts as an attack because it involves attempt to invade the ambassador's waiting room before the conference. It was not just some hecklers during the conference. (Anyway, it's Russian custom to treat hecklers on press conferences rather harshly, but that's another story.) 62.65.238.142 (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't count as an "attack", they have attempted to interrupt a press conference. I will NPOV this out as I have done on the other article. As to your Russian custom, care to comment on this?

How does Medvedev respond?

--Russavia ^Dialogue 20:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No. 62.65.238.142 (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Kaljurand had to be defended by a screen of bodyguards wielding cans pepper spray, thus it was an attack. Martintg (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source that she had to be defended by a screen of bodyguards? Or is this more OR? --Russavia ^Dialogue 23:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, how about this quote from the Times: "Moscow authorities stood by and failed to intervene when a gang of protesting Russian youths attacked the Estonian ambassador to Moscow at a press conference today. Marina Kaljurand's bodyguards were forced to fire tear gas to beat back the group of 30 youths, members of the Kremlin-backed Nashi (Ours) youth group, who had forced their way into the conference, shouting that Estonia was a fascist state". Martintg (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The Times also says that they used tear gas on the Nashi members, and we know that is not the case. You will also note that the article does mention the "attack" of the ambassadors car, and that did happen. Again, note the MFA statement, which states that she was not physically attacked, it was interruption of a press conference, and her bodyguards used pepper spray. They may have verbally attacked her, but physically attacked, no they did not. The Beeb makes no mention of them attacking her. Even the anti-Kremlin Moscow Times makes no mention of any attack, as this states she wasn't even in the room. The only person to have used the word attack is Marina herself - but how can one attack someone when they aren't even in the room? Disruption of a press conference, is what it was. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We could say they intruded the ambassador's room, and later justified it by intent to disrupt the press conference. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a fun source: Kovalyev admits tendentiousness on behalf of Russian media in reporting on the events of Bronze Nights. As a particular example, he mentions the way Russian media systematically called the monument's relocation ('peresnos') a removal ('snos') instead. 62.65.238.142 (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

As for protesters, vandals and pillagers, it went like this:

• In the beginning (around noon) there were a few peaceful protest meetings. Eventually, the policemen explained the concept of archeological digs to everybody. The surrounding fence also had VERY LARGE signs saying what's going on, in Estonian, Russian, and English, together with weblinks to the government press release with detailed info. In a few hours, most of that crowd (mostly WWII veterans) dispersed.
• Later (about 4-6 pm), several illegal meetings (mostly people in their teens and twenties) gathered.
• Even later (about 8-9 pm), the illegal meetings grew into rioting.

Nobody is seriously trying to claim that the original peaceful protesters were the vandals. Anybody who's seen the tapes can easily see the age difference between the original meetings and the riots. 62.65.238.142 (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Looter v. pillager trials

Not all the trials were about looting, many were about vandalism and disorderly conduct. 62.65.238.142 (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Looting is just another word for pillaging, however pillaging is more applicable during war time. What if I change it to "Looter and vandal trials"? Martintg (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad puns, bad puns ...

Anyway, I'm OK with that. The point is that vandalism was at least as prominent a crime as looting on these nights. 62.65.238.142 (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)