Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:21, 21 November 2007

Estonia Start‑class Mid‑importance

Estonia–Russia relations is part of WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.EstoniaWikipedia:WikiProject EstoniaTemplate:WikiProject EstoniaEstonia Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : WikiProject Estonia/Missing articles Assess : Rate each tagged article by quality and importance to the WikiProject if it has not been done. (See Category:Unassessed Estonia articles) Infobox : Add infoboxes to articles without it Maintain : Portal:Estonia Photo : Upload and/or add a photo to articles without it (See Category:Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Estonia) Stubs : Add info to stub-articles and check for start-class.

Russia Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

International relations Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Destruction of Estonian Independance War Memorials

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)

RJ CG's nasty manipulations

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 , 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: Template:Quotation1 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

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

--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

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 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 . 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 (, , , 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:

• Russia's past: The rewriting of history
• In Russia's shadow: The Katyn deniers

-- 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)

• Start-Class Estonia articles
• Mid-importance Estonia articles
• WikiProject Estonia articles
• Unassessed Russia articles
• Unknown-importance Russia articles
• Unknown-importance Unassessed Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• Unassessed International relations articles
• Unknown-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles