Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:47, 12 December 2008

One-sided presentation of viewpoints as facts

(reverted with some verbiage changed) As with other Misplaced Pages articles on Soviet and post Soviet Estonia and other Baltic provinces this entry presents a one-sided view, the one held by the Estonian ethnic nationalists and their longtime foreign sponsors.

While there is no need to discuss this in detail (as it is unfortunately yet another example of what Misplaced Pages - at least in terms of covering current affairs, history or such contentious issues as ethnicity is worth - and it is not worth much), I'll point out just a few random highlights.

1) The article claims that occupation or forcible incorporation of Estonia into the Soviet Union was not recognized by world's major democracies. The sentence alone is scandalously one sided.

• First there was no forcible incorporation of Estonia into the Soviet Union. Even if Estonian ethnic nationalists hold on to such a belief, the other far more numerous side in this dispute believes the opposite. Russia's official position is that Estonia was not forcibly incorporated into the Soviet Union. Another commonly held opinion (in Russia) is that the issue is moot at best as all ethnic states that emerged on the periphery of the Russian empire (such as Estonia) are illegitimate as their secession was done in concert with Bolsheviks who usurped power illegally and thus inherently the formation of ethnic statelets was illegal, therefore the question of their incorporation is pointless. Existence of this rather widely held viewpoint is not even acknowledged. Instead of presenting these three views side by side, two views are completely ignored in favor of a single one. If one is to represent countries and numerically, and considering that Russia's population is about 100 times larger than today's Estonia's and considering that in Estonia at least third of population disagree the notion of forcible incorporation, which are in the article presented as "facts" , then politically speaking the Misplaced Pages presents the view of 0.7% the only correct while rejecting the opinion of 99.3% of people in this "dispute".
• Second the article implies that recognition or non-recognition of a fact by a regime that is nominally democratic is more valid than recognition or denial of the same fact by a dictatorial regime or, let's say, an absolute monarchy. International law does not contain a provision that opinion of governments in charge of regimes which label themselves democratic or of states that classify themselves as democracies are more valid or are more legitimate than others. Furthermore the democratic credentials of the states in question (those which nominally do not recognize voluntary nature of Estonia's membership in the USSR) are dubious. Thirdly the notion that a democracy is somehow better or its government's opinion is intrinsically more valuable and correct is likewise a matter of opinion. As another extreme one can have a statement that "absolute majority of world's nations representing overwhelming majority of planet's population recognized legitimacy of Estonia's voluntary accession to the USSR".
• Third - the notion that "major democracies" did not recognize this or that is false (not that it matters anyway, see the above paragraph). The legality of accession was fully recognized, let's say, by India, world's largest democracy and was recognized by absolutely all European states who signed the Helsinki accords declaring external borders (including those of entire Soviet Union of course) as legitimate. The United States alone signed a disclaimer (again the United States is not "world's major democracies" in plural. It is not even a democracy - not that it matters anyway).

As it stands now the entry is a political pamphlet presenting one side of the story or opinion held by one side as the only one. Although it pays some lip service to Russian position, for the most part it is ignored or is presented as marginal. For example the English word compatriot (just note: a proper English word, not transliteration fo a Russian term) is taken in parenthesis (") in the context of Russia's concerns, as those concerns are illegitimate, unjustified or unreal (hence the quotation marks). This is of course not how an encyclopedic entry should be structured or look like. It is ideologically so charged, so inflammatory, views expressed are so one-sided, that unless you a Baltic or Estonian ethno-Nazi or its close supporter, the entry is worthless / Roobit (talk) 09:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC) My comments address four important issues of inherent bias in the article. Roobit (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

Restoring my previous comments which are not "an irrelevant rant" - 1) no proof that ethnic Russians ("Russians") destroyed any monuments or that Moscow ordered any destruction of those or other monuments. Comments follow: Roobit (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC) Do you mean that Moscow, as municipality, ordered destruction of "Estonian Independence" war monuments as ethnic Russians "executed" the order? This is more of Estonian ethno-Nazi schizophrenia. Russian government does not recognize that so-called Estonian War of Independence (some skirmishes between groups and ethnic cleansing carried out by Estonian nationalists that followed) merits the distinction of being called a war. Not every armed skirmish is a war. While the fictitious war and its "monuments" were of a ideological value to the interwar fascist Estonian state or the current resurrection of its corpse, the war itself is a matter of debate. Secondly, you have no proof that ethnic Russians destroyed monuments to whatever fiction. Thirdly, Russia is both a self-declared heir or successor to the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire, and not to the Soviet Russia whose Bolshevik representatives signed some phony treaty with Estonian pro-Nazis. Modern Estonian ethno-Nazis fail to grasp the fact that Russia is the successor of the state (Russian Empire and the USSR) that did not sign the Iuriev or Tartu Peace treaty and it never recognized the legitimacy of the first ethnic Estonian statelet or its "resurrection". Furthermore, the municipality of Moscow never dealt with any Nazi or ethno-fascist monuments ("independence war" or whatever) in any jurisdiction. / Roobit (talk) 09:28, 11 December 2008 (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)

There was no occupation and the incorporation of Estonia into the USSR (a foolish thing as they should have dissolved it and absorbed as regions not as an ethnic entity, they just preserved this cancer) was of course legitimate and legal under any imaginable law and with consent of all involved. The fact of its legality is recognized by today's Russia and not recognized by the ethnic statelet of Estonia (that's 1 to 100 opinion). I have no comment on their citizenship as I now believe the question is totally irrelevant due to likely temporary nature thereof. Roobit (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2008 (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)

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

User:RJ CG first claims material is not relevant to the article topic and belongs elsewhere , so I move material (and remove dead links) to Monument of Lihula , now he is edit warring these changes , , 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

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?

Once more I had been amazed that fantasies of Ph.D. student somehow found it's way to Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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

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

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

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)