Talk:Andrus Ansip

Lord Mayor

In 1998, Ansip was elected as Lord Mayor of Tartu as a candidate of the /.../

i myself don't know how to do it, but someone please change the "Lord Mayor" part to "mayor". the Estonian "linnapea" is translated "mayor" and not "Lord Mayor". [1]

edit: in addition to my previous comment, there is another "Lord Mayor" in this article which should also be changed to "mayor". it's where Edgar Savisaar is mentioned.

This comment is not really correct, or at least ambiguous. The mayors of the large, semi-independent cities in Estonia are best referred to as Lord Mayor, not just as Mayor. They are styled the one way or the other, but arguments can be found for both. Clossius 08:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In responce, on the CV for both men from the Riigikogu has the tile of that post, in the english edition, as mayor, as well as the Tartu city web site refers to the position as mayor. I think its more along the lines of how the jusridiction wants to title the position, the only country i know of where it vaires is in Ireland, where their are several cities that have Lord Mayors and several that have Maoyrs, but in all relaity it's the say position in all, thei higest elected represenative of a city. But i figure if thats whats on the CV and thats what the city in guestion refers to the position as then we ought to keep it the same on here. Just my take. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Plenty of countries make a functional difference (this has something to do with the level of independence of the city), and certainly Germany does, after which the institutions of the Estonian kohalik omavalitsus were historically designed, as they are now. I've heard and seen both Ansip and Savisaar referred to as either. But as long as it makes people happy to call them Mayor, so be it. Clossius 08:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suppose then Tartu uses the terms as interchangeable. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The question would then only be what the functionally correct one would be. But then, it's really not such a big deal. Clossius

Related Story

I don't really see how the "related story" is related to the article about Andrus Ansip and I strongly recommend to delete it. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid.

great popular acclaim and very high ratings

I would just as soon edit these few words to remove the double positives -- "popular acclaim and high ratings" will do nicely, thank you -- but Id rather have it seconded :) (Where is the source anyway?)

Removal vs Relocation of War Monument

It currently states that the controversy is about the removal of the monument. While the word "removal" correctly indicates that it was removed from downtown, it also INcorrectly indicates that it was never to be set up again. A more proper wording would be "relocation," since the monument was to be and has been relocated to the military graveyard. 213.161.187.254 18:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The article stated "One of the most controversial actions of Ansip's government was relocation of the main Tallinn World War II memorial"

and later "The removal of the monument on April 27 2007"

So it is actually correct, although it could be interpreted incorrectly.

I changed it to say "The removal of the monument from its current location", but perhaps there is a better way to convey this? -- intgr 20:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Communist party entry in infobox

[Copied from User talk:intgr#Andrus Ansip]

Hi, the CPSU link on Andrus Ansip is correct. According to his own bio (referenced in the article) he was a Party instructor between 1986 and 1988. I had made the same mistake as you in removing the link, then put it back a few minutes later, but I'm not otherwise involved with the article. Moyabrit (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I see, but he is not a member of the CPSU now, which it seems is the intent of the "political party" field in the infobox — notice how it's written in singular. -- intgr [talk] 13:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope nobody is still a member of the Soviet Communist Party :-) So the issue is whether a former party affiliation is relevant enough to have in the infobox... and I suppose it probably isn't in this case. Take the link out if you want, I won't revert you again. Moyabrit (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that. Also, sorry about labeling your edits "vandalism" (I should remind myself of AGF more often). :) -- intgr [talk] 16:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I just looked what's written in Winston Churchill's infobox (both parties where he was a member are listed) and decided to make Andrus Ansip's infobox to the same standart. I suppose, that all affiliated parties must be listed in politician's infobox in chronological order. P.S., few minutes later: maybe it's worth to mention years of membership, if such data is available. For example, Political party: XYZ (1996-2001), ABC (2001-present) Basilex (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Grammar and Vocabulary Corrected

I've taken it upon myself to clean up some of the poor grammar that strangely seems to plague the articles about leaders of former USSR republics. This article seemed to be written by a person whose native language is a Slavic tongue, as it was completely lacking in articles in several areas. I trust the changes will be up to specs. Alexandermoir (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

'is .... since'

When, oh when is Wikipedia going to learn that in correct English you say "has been .... since"?!213.127.210.95 (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Probably never, since Wikipedia is a non-sentient website and incapable of learning any language. clpo13_(talk) 16:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)