Talk:World Without Nazism

File:Boris Shpigel.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Boris Shpigel.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 19 October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Was an GONGO now a NGO?

This organization was classified as a GONGO (Government-Organized Non-Governmental Organization) and now is classified as a NGO (Non-Government Organization) The sudden switch seems a bit suspicious to me. Attempting to scrub history for funding? Jim1138 (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously there should be a reliable source or sources saying that this organization is funded by a state or states. --Kapoccdcoe (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sander Säde violation

User called Sander Säde has violated the rules by deleting all changes and returing the article into KAPO propaganda style, t.e. solely hostile propagandistic disinformation. The article already includes criticism and the article should be neutral. --Kapoccdcoe (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism of Sander Säde is difficult to understand: he prevents all editing of this article after the "1st version" which is false and hostile. --Kapoccdcoe (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)

Actually, the article as it was before you two edited it was balanced, neutral and sourced. It was using a wide variety of solid international sources, pretty much for every sentence.

What you two did was introduction of lies, hatred and propaganda, a lot of which is completely made up. For example, your version claims "Officially registered in [[Strasbourg]], [[France]], the organization organizes conferences, discussion clubs and publishes monitoring reports.<ref>Constituent Declaration “World without Nazism” Movement. http://worldwithoutnazism.wordpress.com/about/declaration/</ref>", except that blog link has nothing about Strasbourg, France. Or loaded language, such as "The [[Estonian Security Police]], together with the Nato Cyber Defence Centre in Tallinn (CCD COE), both well-known of its aggressive Russophobic views...", which is both lie and nonsense. Of course, the claim also completely unsourced, too. And last, but not least, the edits of you and Ew61 (which are very similar in style, use of language and POV) are simply in a really bad English. "WWN ha criticized retroactive war crime..", "pro-extreme right publication", etc, etc, etc

Please stop. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for your personal POV-pushing. Such hatred has no place in Wikipedia.

--Sander Säde 16:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

To write about my "personal POV-pushing" is a hostile personal attack. That is not acceptable. I also repeat what I wrote to the wall of Sander Sädes personal page:

What I was trying to say was that for Estonia it is a shame that nationalistic propaganda is delivered in Wikipedia using the sources of Estonian security police Kapo. Sander Säde also does not want to accept any editing of the article World Without Nazism. He has deleted all commentaries on this topic already three times from here. He wants to prevent any editing of the 1st version, which is by all means hostile in every sentence. Could you please say why do you think Estonia is worth of delivering nationalistic propaganda in the name of Kapo? And this is not personal comment, this is general commentary. --Kapoccdcoe (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder it this commentary can rest here more than 5 minutes? However it is also violation of rules to delete commentaries. What do you want to hide? --Kapoccdcoe (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Estonian nationalistic biased history-writing is interesting. But that is not the place for Wikipedia. And this is not personal threat. It is a statement in general. Could Sander Säde answer finally to my question: Wy nobody cannot make any changes to the 1st version of the article? Why the first version is so much build on sources of the Estonian security police KAPO? Does somebody want to discredit KAPO? --Kapoccdcoe (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, I've commented on the self-promotional nature of the content you've added, take break. As long as you are going on about "Estonian nationalistic biased history-writing", you are engaging in personal attacks. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

On your userpage, you claim to refute "post-Soviet Stalinist propaganda". Do you consider that to be a personal attack against those users whose contribution you disagree with, too? Fuseau (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

So you think that an institution in a democratic country and a legacy of one of the all-time greatest mass-murderers are comparable? Jolly good, carry on. --Sander Säde 20:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

So you think that if User:Vecrumba claims something to be Stalinist it automatically is? Or that an institution in a country called democratic (which is a separate theme - by whom? according to which criteria?) is automatically trustworthy? Jolly good, carry on. Fuseau (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"in a country called democratic". I think your personal POV is coming through a bit too strongly there, Fuseau. Estonia is considered a democratic country by every meaningful entity in the whole world. Claiming otherwise, is, well, [censored] [censored]. I recommend you stop editing Baltic states-related articles, or clean up your editing heavily.

And where has Vecrumba brought Stalinism to this discussion? At least quick search showed no such thing. It seems to be your imagination.

--Sander Säde 21:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

°I think your personal POV is coming through a bit too strongly there, Fuseau - what's coming through is understanding that there are different POVs. every meaningful entity in the whole world You can remain with that POV - the thing is that it should not be presented as truth. I recommend you stop editing Baltic states-related articles I recommend you to observe WP rules. where has Vecrumba brought Stalinism to this discussion? At least quick search showed no such thing. It seems to be your imagination I've clearly written he speaks of opponents as Stalinists in his talk page (8 o'clock, yesterday). It seems be you diddn't search thoroughly enough.Fuseau (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I oppose Stalinist propaganda. That would be specific Soviet-originated during Stalin's reign propagandic versions of history unsupported by reputably and widely verified and plainly acknowledged fact. Editors are free to oppose my editorial stance, that does not make them Stalinists, so don't put words in my mouth again. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Sander Säde's edits, and suggest we restore the article to its former, more balanced state. The article is not supposed to be a propaganda piece for the Kremlin. Describing it as "an international NGO" (the Kremlin POV which is not shared by anyone else)is definitely not neutral. Also, the introduction should be longer and more detailed, and describe the predominant view in more detail (i.e., it is considered to be affiliated with the Russian government, as the various press coverage in western media has made it clear). Tataral (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is not supposed to be a propaganda piece for anybody, that's the editorial approach needed from every editor. An NGO is not only including a reference to "international" in its title: it has leaders and members from various countries, it's registered in Strasbourg despite the chairman being from Russia. To claim its being international is the Kremlin POV is wrong, to say the least, and quite revealing. the predominant view Not shown to be predominant.Fuseau (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The article was a balanced description of this organisation. It is not supposed to be written from the POV of what is considered an extremist organisation in all other countries than Russia (a country that is considered to be authoritarian, not a democracy). Articles on Zimbabwean affairs are not written from the Mugabe POV either. Tataral (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The article was a balanced description It depends on, when... Your edits included information not confirmed by the sources given (founding "in response to" Kononov ruling - at best, that's original synthesis) and presenting POV of opponents as a fact ("GONGO" in infobox). Please get acquainted with WP:NPOV. WP articles are not supposed to be written from anyone's POV, be it POV Russian government, Estonian goverment or Zimbabvean government on Russian, Estonian or international affairs. what is considered an extremist organisation in all other countries than Russia at best, that's ridiculous (H. Clinton, S. Lavrov, I. Peled, D. Tabachnyk and T. Jagland all expressing support to the same extremist group?)Fuseau (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It is considered to be part of the Putin regime, considered to be an authorarian regime in democratic countries. It is considered an extremist organisation in the other countries it operates in. Judging by its website, it is a fringe group, its "member organisations" in other countries mostly consist of small fringe, extremist organisations, often consisting only of a handful of people (such as the neo-stalinist "Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee", aka "twenty activists"). Tataral (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It is considered to be part of the Putin regime by whom? A POV on the organisation may be mentioned in the article, if attributed, but not presented as truth. Besides, other POVs should be presented. considered to be an authorarian regime irrelevant. This article is not about the situation in Russia. It is considered an extremist organisation in the other countries it operates in 1. Consideration by somebody isn't a fact. 2. Which countries? Estonia is one country only. 3. There are also objections raised against labeling WWN as extremist, see the letter of New York State Assembly members in the article. Judging by its website Your judgment is not enough, especially as it has been shown not to be quite objective above and below. 5. small fringe, extremist organisations (..) neo-stalinist "Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee Again bare evaluations. Fuseau (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC: NPOV in the latest edits and the general atmosphere around this article

1. Is the text "political organisation" or "NGO" in the infobox suitable for "type"?
2. Is the following text: "Critics, including the Estonian government, state that the organisation is a Kremlin affiliated extremist propaganda organisation aimed at advancing Russian foreign policy aims against specific countries that were part of or occupied by the former Soviet Union, and at promoting "a Soviet-era approach to World War II." The organisation is under observation by the police in some of the countries it operates in due to suspected extremist tendencies.", with a reference only to a report by a secret service, referenceless in the section on the topic of this article (p. 13) suitable in the lead section, as such and especially in absence of supportive views in the lead section?
3. Is the retelling of WWN statements the following way: "The organisation accuses the countries that were formerly part of the Communist Bloc (except Russia and Belarus) of "rapid nazification." It criticizes the "Western European democracies" for their alleged role in starting World War II" a correct retelling and suitable in the lead section?
4. Is text The organisation was founded in response to the prosecution of convicted Soviet war criminal Vassili Kononov supported by the following sources Russia Today text, the same referenceless report by an Estoniana secret service? P.S. And is it appropriate in the lead section, especially without reference that the final judgment in Kononov case wasn't unanimous? this was signed by Fuseau. Signature replaced with that text in order to improve the reflection of the text on RFC
5. Is removing "not in source" template from the text see WWN aims as following on from those of the Presidential Commission of the Russian Federation to Counter Attempts to Falsify History to the Detriment of Russia's Interests correct, the source referred to being the same report by a secret service, obviously page 13?
6. Is removing a reference to an objection by 5 New York State Assembly members to the Prime Minister of Estonia (on whether the organisation described by the article is extremist) from the "Criticism" section correct?
7. Is the removal of wikification from the reference to a statement by Russian foreign minister (see the end of the diff) in "Support" section correct?
8. Is the unreferenced reintroducing category "Communist propaganda" for this article (about an organisation led by a representative of conservative United Russia) correct?
9. Is the reintroducing of categories "Occupation of the Baltic states" and "Holodomor" for this article about an organisation (founded in 2010) correct?The only information possibly understood as the ground for them is the hidden information in "Criticism" section tagged with "failed verification" template and referring to the same referenceless report by an Estonian secret service. The user reuintroducing the categories doesn't him/herself remove the template on that information being unverified and doesn't add any other sources which could possibly give some confirmation.
10. Are the activities of User:Tataral and Co in this article and talk page in the last days making this article biased in accordance with a POV indistinguishably close to that of Estonian government and if yes, what needs to be done to maintain neutrality? this was signed by Fuseau. Signature replaced with that text in order to improve the reflection of the text on RFC P.S. A comparison of the article before and after the latest Tataral edits.this was signed by Fuseau. Signature replaced with that text in order to improve the reflection of the text on RFC
11. Is removing the reference that the organisation is international from the lead section and stating that it's a Russian organisation despite the organisation being registered in France, far from the bureau location (Russia) and having members from 18 UN member states, according to its site, correct? this was signed by Fuseau. Signature replaced with this text in order to improve the reflection of the text on RFC
12. Added after Nug and Tataral's new edits: Is it neutral to insert (currently in the "Criticism" section) The organisation is under observation by the police in some of the countries it operates in due to the membership of suspected extremists within it with a reference to Estonia only, not several countries?
13. Is it neutral, to tag the article with "Neo-Stalinism" category and to write in the lead section about leadership of the organisation the following: including Johan Bäckman, leader of the neo-stalinist[9] Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee, with a reference only to one newspaper criticizing Backman (who is only one of 15 members of presidium of WWN) as neo-Stalinist?Fuseau (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The only problem is your POV pushing, turning a balanced article into a very unbalanced and unencyclopedic article (with poor language), as has been pointed out to you by other users before. We should definitely pay attention to the possibility that this organisation might try to influence our article on it. Tataral (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• (ec) Going to (probably) reply in-depth later, but repeating "referenceless report by an Estonian secret service" like a mantra is rather pointless, as it has gone through an editorial process - and do you really expect Security Police (not "secret service". MI5 not MI6, if you want a comparison) to give out their sources?! It is comparable to the newspaper articles, which don't give out their sources as well. Said security agency reports have been internationally lauded for their accuracy - and occasionally criticized as well, same as any other source. As long as the material in the article is properly attributed/referenced, the annual reports are a source like any other. --Sander Säde 20:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I expect an article on Soviet dissidents to use refrerenceless press releases of KGB, loaded with negative evaluations of dissidents, with much caution, and an article about critics of Estonian government to use referenceless public statements by Estonian secret services, loaded with negative evaluations of government critics, with much caution, too. Fuseau (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    • You put "Soviet dissidents" on the same level as anti-Baltic extremists (Backman is a member in there too, somewhere), and the security services of a state which is rated far freer than Russia, let alone the USSR, as the KGB. If you're going to submit comparisons as examples, submit ones that don't betray bias on your part. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
      • How Soviet is that language... "Anti-Baltic extremists" - a copy from "Anti-Soviet agitation". Unsubstantiated allegations (especially by governmental institutions about opponents of government) are not reliable sources in any country, except for characterizing the position of the source itself.Fuseau (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Fuseau, your comparison is simply despicable and I ask you to remove it. Comparing an institution in a democratic, free country to KGB - entity famous for torture, mass murders of civilians and so forth is, frankly, a shocking admission of extremism on a level that is not acceptable on Wikipedia. --Sander Säde 13:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Even if considering Estonia to be democratic (you're aware of much criticism questioning it), it doesn't make its secret services reliable sources, especially in referenceless statements about opponents of Estonian government. By the way, mass murders of civilians was typical for NKVD, not KGB; you're not obliged to know it, bet if you don't, it's not a good idea to combine your mistakes about what you don't know with a tendency to attack the others. Fuseau (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not aware of any meaningful criticism questioning democracy in Estonia whatsoever. Freedom in the World ranks Estonia as "Free" and I have yet to see any index measuring political, press or personal freedom index that doesn't rank Estonia highly - almost always better than any other Easter European/post-Soviet country and quite often higher that long-established Western countries. Questioning democracy and human rights in Estonia seems to be your personal bias, with no basis to speak of.

As for the NKVD versus KGB... you've got to be joking. NKVD changed its name into KGB in 1953/4 (there was a brief period of MGB and other names), but the personnel, methods and everything else remained the same. Not to mention, even under the name "KGB", there is very little to brag about. Assassinations, imprisonment of "unwanted element", including sending innocent people to the GULAG camps ("corrective labor camps" were slowly dissolved under KGB, but the colonies remained until the 80s) and so forth.

Before lecturing about my mistakes, you might want to learn the very basics of what you are talking about. Your "doktor nauka" moments are rather frequent and they don't exactly show you in a good light.

And "secret service" (I do not understand why you insist using the wrong term) as a source... for example Wikipedia uses widely the CIA World Factbook, same as multitudes of scientists. I hope you do realize that the annual review of the Estonian Security Police has gone through a far more extensive editorial process than most scientific articles, not to mention newspaper articles. There is no question of its reliability as a source - especially if properly attributed.

--Sander Säde 18:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If you don't consider some criticism (partly to be found in the Human rights in Estonia) meaningful, it doesn't mean that Wikipedia shouldn't.

I'm just illustrating that your editorial approach is, to say the least, too brave. For example, the mass murders were relevant to NKVD, but not to KGB (which was created after Stalin), despite your claims (I agree with you that "even under the name "KGB", there is very little to brag about").

Your utter disrespect to a scientist who disagree with you, like the Doktor nauk (the highest degree possible in Russia - why to put it in quotation marks? Because I didn't translate it? Wikipedia itself uses "Doktor nauk" as the title of the respective article, in order not to make people confuse it with "Doctor of Science") Narochnitskaia, "doesn't exactly show you in a good light".

the annual review of the Estonian Security Police has gone through a far more extensive editorial process than most scientific articles Possibly. But we don't know if the aim of that editorial process was truth. In scientific sources, this is ensured by references to sources, by possibility of fact-checking, by peer reviews available for those interested... Much of it is lacking in the statements of KaPo, especially in evaluations. And the referenceless statements by a government, both factual and evaluations, about its opponents, aren't a reliable source for anything but the governmental stance.Fuseau (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not my opinion of the scientist, it is my opinion of you, claiming that a text on a random web page by a well-known extremist politician is a "scholarly article" - a claim, which was so thoroughly debunked below that it is not even funny. "Doktor nauka" is just an amusing phrase to use when you come up with something similar.

However, Natalya Narochnitskaya was a daughter of an academic (or she would have never gone to the Moscow State Institute of International Relations), and she specialized in the international relations, but somehow I doubt you know what it meant during Soviet times, so let me spell it out for you - it either was:

a) writing articles about evil imperialist USA wanting to take over the world, while killing negroes and oppressing workers, but the brave little Soviet Union is on the guard (ie. promote the party line)

b) analyst in KGB

c) career diplomat

Do I even need go to her revisionist views, her involvement in the Russian state PR-effort named "Institute of Democracy and Cooperation", her support of the war in Chechnya or involvement in the shameful history commission. So my opinion of her is most certainly not high. Respect needs to be earned - same as citizenship of a country, it is not a right, it is a privilege.

It seems you are also mixing up human rights and democracy - furthermore, not even a single independent international organization hasn't found any noteworthy human rights issues with Estonia in the last few years. Even before that, there were just minor concerns, especially compared to our Eastern neighbor.

"we don't know if the aim of that editorial process was truth. In scientific sources, this is ensured by references to sources". Ugh. How do you check from sources that the scientist didn't falsify the test results? Or didn't modify them so very slightly just to fit better to the hypothesis? Both have happened many times - but if you get caught, you will never be a respected scientist again. The same applies to KAPO - if they are demonstrated to be constantly wrong, or making up the facts, they've outlived their usefulness as a counter-intelligence organization. As far as I know, they are still considered to be a good in what they do (I find it very strange I have to defend KAPO, as I don't care much for them myself. But when they claim something, I would need a reason to doubt their word).

--Sander Säde 10:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your opinion on me, or on Narochnitskaia. The fact she's a politician, and that you consider her extremist, revisionist etc. doesn't cancel the fact she's a scholar. She doesn't deny hide being a diplomat for some time, so your guessing is useless.

I regret you're not aware of the right to nationality. See UDHR and Convention on the Rights of the Child - it's not a priviledge. not even a single independent international organization hasn't found any noteworthy human rights issues with Estonia You can of course claim that any source given is either not independent enough, or its founding are not noteworthy enough... But that wouldn't be convincing in the face of lots of concerns expressed by UN Human Rights Commmittee, UN CESCR, Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe etc.

How do you check from sources that the scientist didn't falsify the test results? Normally the sources should allow to relicate the experiments. The same applies to KAPO - if they are demonstrated to be constantly wrong, or making up the facts, they've outlived their usefulness as a counter-intelligence organization - first, if the debunking doesn't appear in Estonian media, KaPo reports will remain useful for the government as a means of domestic propaganda. Second, much of what's written by KaPO and attempted to put in this article, is closer to evaluation, not facts, like labeling critics of Estonian government "extremist" and "chauvinist". when they claim something, I would need a reason to doubt their word Thank you for this clear demonstration of your approach to statements by a government about its opoponents (hope you don't deny that the topic of this article, WWN, is opposing Estonian government).Fuseau (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Aha, finally. "WWN, is opposing Estonian government". I am very glad you agree WWN is a political tool of the Russian government - or are you claiming that Estonian government is somehow pro-Nazi? I know Russian newspapers have been spinning some nonsense about Mart Laar and Estonian Waffen-SS legion, but thankfully, no one in their right mind would believe that garbage.

As for the rest of your statements, I really see no point in replying to them. You've set your mind to one path only and it is rather pointless to argue with such people.

--Sander Säde 21:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Aha, finally. "WWN, is opposing Estonian government". I am very glad you agree WWN is a political tool of the Russian government - ??? Do you suggest to follow the worst Soviet examples of equating opponents with political tools of foreign powers? I disagree. Even if you consider certain criticism wrong and coinciding with interests of some foreign powers, it's not a reason to claim it's not sincere. And the criticism towards Estonia concerning whitewashing Nazi war criminals is coming also from Simon Wiesenthal Center, often critical to Russia (example) and concerning Estonia's attitude to Anti-Hitlerite coalition war monuments, critiicism from Rene van der Linden, one of the initiators of Council of Europe resolution 1481 disliked by Russian authorities. Does that make them Putin's puppets? Well, at least, it will be clear to those pursuing NPOV, who's set one's "mind to one path only"Fuseau (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Sorry, but all of those claims have been debunked years ago as lies. Please do some research. --Sander Säde 07:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you don't give any example of that research, becasue I can imagine how convincing it is. But anyway, your reply is, willingly or not, an attempt to go far from the issues raised - you may disagree with those claimes by SWC and van der Linden, but the fact remains that you didn't show how criticism of Estonia turns them into "political tool of the Russian government", as you accuse WWN with analogous basis. P.S. Closer to the topic of that article - the Estonian authorities are so "objective" towards Dmitri Linter, member of WWN Presidium, that they detained him after the Bronze Night, despite not being able to find any evidence to convict him even in the Estonian court (by the way, I'm always ready to admit that issues aren't black and white only: so, the fairness of Estonian judicial system shown when acquitting the people smeared by KaPo, including Linter, deserves respect). Fuseau (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Dmitri Linter et al's case was an interesting and controversial one. But as the court found, paying the people to protest (and as it recently came out, thanks to the Nashi e-mail leak, with Russian governments money. Not it that was a surprise to anyone.) is not illegal - and he was not directly responsible for the riots. He could have foreseen the riots, though, considering the high percentage of convicted criminals among his paid demonstrators. I am not sure how KAPO smeared him - I think he managed to do it himself just fine, though. Would you give some kind of source, please?

And I am glad you trust at least Estonian judicial system, as it also disproves your Wiesenthal Center accusation. As the system is fair, people have to be actually guilty in something before they can be convicted - unlike in some other post-Soviet countries.

There was no evidence of Harry Männil being involved in crimes he was accused. If there would have been, he would have been guilty. Wiesenthal Center claimed to have material about him, but very amusingly, when they sent it to Estonia, it came out it was the same material gathered by KAPO, which only showed him being a translator, who was present during interrogation of two people, who were later murdered by the Nazis (citing from the memory here, I may be incorrect in the exact details). Also, considering that almost immediately he became wanted by the German Security Service, as a potential anti-Fascist... I don't like Männil much - among other things, he was a smuggler, thief and an asshole - but unlike, say, Karl Linnas, there simply was no evidence. You may want to look at this article - especially the comment about KGB not finding any evidence despite "And the K.G.B. was a much larger organization than we are and had powers and methods, shall we say, that are not available to a Western democratic country."

As for René van der Linden, I don't see any pro-Nazi accusations in the material you linked, just average politician's talk. And considering van der Linden's alleged financial interests in Russia, not to mention, being publicly shamed after claiming that non-citizens in Estonia cannot vote in local elections (which is a lie), his words don't count for much. By the way, can you name any other countries, which allow non-citizens to vote in local elections?

Simply put, there is no pro-Nazi support in Estonia. Sure, we have a dozen or so skinheads, mostly in Tartu - after Johan Bäckman's close personal friend Ristonen tried to get the movement running there. After Ristonen's problems due to trying to celebrate Hitler's birthday (which became a huge scandal), the movement seems to be dying off. I've heard of Russian-speaking skinheads in Narva, but I am unsure if it is true. Considering that our eastern neighbor was a home for the absolute majority of the world's skinheads about ten years ago, we've managed to get off lightly when it comes to such problems (as I understand, a lot of them joined Nashi later).

--Sander Säde 21:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how KAPO smeared him (Linter) It does so since at least 2005 report (page 18)

And I am glad you trust at least Estonian judicial system It's an overstatement. I say it deserves respect for acquittal of Linter, Reva, Sirok and Klenski. It doesn't mean that it could be trusted also in cases when its position is a convenient one for the government.

As for René van der Linden, I don't see any pro-Nazi accusations in the material you linked What I said above was that he expressed criticism concerning Estonia's attitude to Anti-Hitlerite coalition war monuments, which you don't deny. Thank you for showing your approach once again by repeatedly misrepresenting me.Fuseau (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. About non-citizens being allowed to vote: it's a normal situation in EU, with most member states recognizing it to smaller of greater extent. See Right of foreigners to vote.Fuseau (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Linter is mentioned on page 16 and not 18 - and I don't see any "smearing" there. All of it seems to be cold hard facts, with no commentary.

Rene van der Linden said "I understand that the monument is controversial as it symbolises, although in different ways, painful moments of Estonia and Russia’s past. Precisely because of this, the soldiers that this memorial commemorates should have been left to rest in peace rather than being used as a political tool.". So... "anti-Hitlerite coalition" is mentioned where...? (btw, as a hint, English doesn't really have an expression "anti-Hitlerite")

"Estonia's attitude" is not with "anti-Hitlerite" monuments, nor even so much with monuments glorifying the Soviet Union - which you can easily see from a huge amount of Soviet WWII monuments that are still standing and kept in a good order. Big part of the Bronze Soldier removal was that the particular monument had become a symbol of the Soviet occupation, along with unruly vodka-drinking and tshastuskas in May. Not to mention, I still don't understand why people wanted to have their buried soldiers underneath the bus station, which was built there during the Soviet times.

its position is a convenient one for the government. Uh, yeah. You do realize that in Estonia, the courts are independent from the government not only in words, but also in reality? Care to show any actual source for the opposite?

--Sander Säde 08:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you once again for showing your approach by saying that calling Linter's actions "provocation" and connecting him to "extremists" isn't smearing.

"anti-Hitlerite coalition" is mentioned where...? I did not say that van der Linden used that specific expression, so the question is futile. However, it would be hard for you to substantiate that the Bronze Soldier removed by government wasn't a monument to those who fighted Nazis.

Big part of the Bronze Soldier removal was that the particular monument had become a symbol of the Soviet occupation for those under influence of pro-governmental propaganda, it might be, but that doesn't make the anti-fascist monument any less deserving respect.

Care to show any actual source for the opposite? Poleshchuk, Vadim (ed.). Chance to Survive: Minority Rights in Estonia and Latvia (PDF). Aleksei Semjonov. Estonia, Moscow, Paris: Institute of Democracy and Cooperation, Foundation for Historical Outlook and Legal Information Centre for Human Rights. p. 79. ISBN 978-9949-18-818-5. Retrieved 18 April 2010.Fuseau (talk) 11:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Three Russian government-funded propaganda organizations as sources? Not to mention, I really cannot find anything there saying that Estonian judicial system is biased. Please stop promoting such blatant anti-Estonian propaganda.

UNCHR gives Estonian Judicial Framework and Independence rating of 1.50 in 2010, which is a very high rating [1]. By comparison, Russia's rating is 5.75, 1 being the best and 7 worst.

Linter's actions were intentional provocations - he has as much admitted in interviews, as far as I can remember. Calling spade a spade is not smearing. His views are considered extremist and revisionist everywhere in the world but Russia, or by those who are paid to support such views.

under influence of pro-governmental propaganda. I guess all of the Estonia was affected the propaganda, as all the polls showed the deep dislike of the monument (FYI, I did not support its removal. I would have much rather gone with idea (by Mart Laar?) to make it into a WWII memorial, with bronze statues of all major combatants in a semi-circle, heads bowed in the memory of fallen. But of course, after the paid demonstrators started rioting, there really was no other option). Or, you know, it actually was disliked by everybody, who had to suffer through the Soviet occupation.

that the Bronze Soldier removed by government wasn't a monument to those who fighted Nazis. Would you care to repeat that in a coherent English, please, as I do not understand what you mean.

I am also giving you an official WP:NPA warning. Stop the personal attacks and name-calling, please.

--Sander Säde 11:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Three Russian government-funded propaganda organizations You may be of whatever opinion on them. However, LICHR article shows it to be a respected human rights organisation.

Russia's rating is 5.75 Irrelevant in all senses except that it confirms your attempt to involve unrelated issues in discussing this article.

Linter's actions were intentional provocations(..) as far as I can remember Your evaluations are irrelevant. His views are considered extremist and revisionist everywhere in the world Sources?

all of the Estonia was affected the propaganda, as all the polls showed the deep dislike of the monument Thank you for confiming your attitude by claiming the opponents of the mmonument "all of the Estonia" and not giving any poll data. This is not surprising, since there is polling data showing plurality to object against removal of the monument.

the paid demonstrators Again your POV is not relevant, and no sources are given.

Would you care to repeat that in a coherent English It's clear enough.

an official WP:NPA warning. Stop the personal attacks and name-calling Ridiculous. Not only per lacking any reference to (non-existent) PA and NC from my side, but also per the fact that you engage in PA and NC against me yourself: "your comparison is simply despicable (..) a shocking admission of extremism" (13:37, 15 February) etc. (not to count numerous accusations towards other living people, for example, Linter).Fuseau (talk)

I didn't see a reason to link common knowledge - after all, we don't require a source for human hand having five fingers, but let's links some sources then.

• A poll: http://www.postimees.ee/online/gallup_arhiiv.php?page=84. As you can see, 85% of the people support the relocation of the statue. There was another poll, which had 90%+ support for the relocation, but alas, it no longer seems to be available online.
• Paid demonstrators: http://wwx.postimees.ee/310807/esileht/siseuudised/257263.php, http://wwx.postimees.ee/191007/esileht/siseuudised/290327.php.

clear enough. Maybe in your mind. "Fighted" isn't even a word, I presume you meant "fought". I cannot respond to that sentence, as it is simply incomprehensible.

LICHR article shows it to be a respected human rights organisation after you've been carefully whitewashing and removing all the criticism, it now does. However, you can paint a pig white and call it a sheep, but it doesn't give you wool. I do notice that you don't say anything about the two other organizations.

Irrelevant in all senses except that it confirms your attempt to involve unrelated issues in discussing this article. Except that it is relevant - if organizations created and/or funded by the Russian government expect to be taken seriously in their criticism, first thing would be to fix up their own issues, not accuse others. "And you are lynching Negroes" can only go so far.

This is my last response to you in this thread. I have better things to do with my time than deflecting absurd ad hominem attacks on Estonia.

--Sander Säde 15:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Online poll on a newspapers's website? Not a convincing argument against a study of well-known researchers I've mentioned.

Thank you for pointing to my language mistake. However, as you admitted, you understood which word was meant.

LICHR article still includes KaPo criticism, which you alsely claim to be removed by me - together with the response to that criticism from Amnesty International, which is difficult to accuse of being loyal to Russia's official POV. organizations created and/or funded by the Russian government LICHR was founded with Danish partitipation, and also given support by US, UK, Denmark, Norway, EU, Council of Europe and the Netherlands - according to your logics, it should therefore be considered untrustworthy as biased in favour of all those countries and organisations.

first thing would be to fix up their own issues, not accuse others. "And you are lynching Negroes" can only go so far Exactly this invalid line of argumentation, described in And you are lynching Negroes, is present in your starting to speak about Russia's issues as if existence of human rights violations there somehow make situation in Estonia better.

absurd ad hominem attacks on Estonia It's strange to speak of ad hominem attacks on states instead of humans (homo)... Especially strange from you (see above) and when said in respect of criticism of Estonian government.Fuseau (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

1. 1. "NGO" is more descriptive, standard, and neutral than "political organization", and doesn't preclude WWN being a political organization, so I prefer it.
   2. The Estonian Security Police criticism is very lopsided to have in the lead. The lead must briefly summarize all aspects of the article.
   3. That's not a correct retelling of the linked webpage. My reading of it was that WWN seeks recognition for the uniqueness of the Nazi crimes, and sees the trend of subsuming Nazi crimes into those of "totalitarian" regimes as a sign of reduced vigilance against proto-Nazism. "formerly part of the Communist Bloc (except Russia and Belarus)" is unfounded; I only saw criticism of the Baltic States and Romania.
   4. The Russia Today source doesn't support the contention that WWN was founded in response to Kononov's prosecution, but the ESS source does. What does WWN say about its own founding?
   5. ESS starts its description of WWN by talking about Russian "information attacks" on Estonia, including the Commission to Prevent Falsification... and implies that WWN draws from the same "themes", but doesn't say so directly. More and more reliable sources comparing WWN to the Commission should be included.
   6. I don't know why somebody removed the letter from the New York State Assembly, but without a reason, its removal is not correct.
   7. Without a valid reason, conversion of the link to plaintext is unconstructive
   8. There isn't referenced content in the article calling WWN "communist propaganda", so the category should be removed. The "Neo-Stalinism" category is also suspect.
   9. I couldn't find reference to WWN having to do with Holodomor and Baltic occupation in the ESS source. Furthermore, I don't see the need to add categories for every historical event whose revisionism WWN contests, such as the Holocaust.
   10. Not enough expertise to comment.
   11. WWN appears to be an international organization from what you say about being registered in France and having members from 18 countries, but if sources consistently describe it as "Russia-based" then it can be described in those words. The current reference for "Russian organization" is not satisfying.

   Shrigley (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your points:

1. Since when do NGOs release statements via foreign embassies[2]? I think "NGO" is a misnomer.

2. This is meant as a summary of the Criticism section, that is why the first word in the sentence "Critics" is linked to the World_Without_Nazism#Criticism section. Therefore the reference added to this sentence is redundant and gives the misleading impression that it is only the opinion of the ESS.

6. This letter is a WP:PRIMARY source and in any case it is mentioned in the activities section.

10. WWN's own website gives its address as Moscow[3], so it is a "Russian based organisation"

More to come later. --Nug (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I hardly find some letter by some local politicians particularly notable. "NGO" is both POV and inaccurate, GONGO is accurate. GONGO or political organisation are both acceptable. Boris Spiegel is not a member of any conservative party, he is a member of a Putinist party, and one of his projects has been erecting statues of Red Army soldiers and hailing the Soviet Union in other ways. I find little reason to engage in debate with someone who thinks democratic governments can be compared to a totalitarian regime. Tataral (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I find little reason to engage in debate with someone who tries to avoid the debate after making edits described above and trying to give much weight to referenceless statements of a secret service, independently of in which country it operates. However, I do care about neutrality of WP and am ready, to some extent, to engage in debate even with such users. You can call United Russia conservative or not, but the fact remains that they aren't communist, and category "Communist propaganda" is inappropriate in an articles about organisation led by United Russia member.Fuseau (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Government sources from democratic countries have indicated that the organisation is primarily involved in historical propaganda, advocating "a Soviet-era approach" to WWII, i.e. it promotes traditional Soviet (communist) historiography. Hence the category communist propaganda is appropriate. Tataral (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Government sources from democratic countries even if a country were fully democratic, that wouldn't make its government a good source for evaluating government's opponents in Wikipedia. traditional Soviet (communist) historiography 1. "Historiography" is not the same as "propaganda", while those can be connected. 2. Soviet historiography wasn't only communist. For example, it tended to speak of some territorial expansions of Russia as peaceful, and if someone upholds that view now, one is following Soviet historiography tradition, but one doesn't engage in communist propaganda. Fuseau (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

POV pushing

Additions like the ones in the Criticism (!!!) section - I mean

Countries that openly promote Waffen-SS-veterans meetings and refuse to prosecute Nazi war criminals have fiercely attacked against the WWN. The Estonian Security Police, together with the Nato Cyber Defence Centre in Tallinn (CCD COE), both well-known of its aggressive Russophobic views

etc have no place in an encyclopedia. Sander was right in reverting the recent changes as blatant POV pushing /OR. Estlandia (dialogue) 17:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, claims like WWN is actively protesting activization of neo-nazi and radical nationalist forces in Russia would require third party sources.Estlandia (dialogue) 17:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand...

According to the Estonian Security Police, "the aim is to create an unusual situation according to which questioning Moscow’s version of history is equated with denial of the Holocaust," particularly in relation to the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states and The Holodomor.... According to the Estonian Security Police, members of the organization are radical nationalists who promote Russian chauvinism.

"The South Ossetian Republic", created on the territory of Georgia using Russian military power in 2008, is considered to be an independent state by MBN and South Ossetian Anti-Fascist Committee (Юго-Осетинский антифашистский комитет) is a full member of MBN. Some member organizations are considered extremists in their countries, for example the organisation's management board has two Estonian resident representatives Maksim Reva and Andrei Zarenkov, who according to the Estonian Security Police are radical nationalists who promote Russian chauvinism.

Presidium of MBN consists of 15 persons from different countries, including several liaisons with Russian compatriot policy, propagandists and radical left-wing politicians.

The activities of MBN are clearly selective: they are not directed against Kremlin-friendly authoritarian regimes, at the same time there is a profound interest in disposal of anti-semitism of openly pro-Israeli Georgian government.

Shrigley (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hostile 1st version

The article is returned to very hostile and biased 1st version. Eevry sentence in this version is negative and biased. very interesting working method from Estonian nationalists. Well that is obviously a shame for Estonia. The edited version of the article has both neutral, critical view and also organisation's own views. Very biase counterattack from Baltic nationalists indeed! This is not for Wikipedia. I am sure Estonian security police is very shamed of your provocative behavior. --Kapoccdcoe (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's just stick to the facts, it is your attitude here which is "not for Wikipedia." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from your arrival on Wikipedia and your edit history, you're a single purpose account solely created to attack the article, that is, judging by your railing against nationalists instead of discussing any specific errors in the article. Your extensively quoting what the organization states about itself also appears to be an attempt to add (self-)promotional material, not suitable for an encyclopedia. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

So everyone who does not share the POV of a Russian Putinist organisation is an Estonian nationalist, even those of us who have never been to Estonia? Interesting logic. Tataral (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

KAPO propaganda

This article is KAPO propaganda and can be seen in the 1st paragraph: "The organization is described in the Annual Review of the Estonian Security Police as a propaganda organization aimed at promoting "a Soviet-era approach to World War II."

Well, what is the reason to quote Estonian security police in the 1st paragraph? Is the Estonian Securoty police the principal organization on the planet who want to oppose "World without nazism"? I am sure Ilmar Tamm, Andres Kahar, Martin Arpo, and all their Estonian journalists and Estonian editors of this article should be very, very shamed of making Estonia look ridicule. Does Estonia want to oppose "World without nazism"? --Kapoccdcoe (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, considering the grossly anti-Estonian, anti-Baltic propaganda it promotes as historically accurate, e.g., complaining that the Estonians recognizing the Estonian Legion for fighting against the Soviet re-occupation of Estonia is Nazism (which ignores the Baltic Waffen SS were not convicted at Nuremberg, e.g., the Latvian Legion were stationed by the Allies--that would include Soviet--as guards). Let's be clear about who are the propagandists (that would be our friends at World Without Nazism) who promulgate a version of history which is not substantiated by historical facts. BTW, quoting KAPO is merely attribution. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

considering the grossly anti-Estonian, anti-Baltic propaganda it promotes as historically accurate Such claims are not useful here. WP can point to specific criticism of WWN or KAPO being propagandistic, but WP may not support or criticise WWN or contrary opinions as propaganda. complaining that the Estonians recognizing the Estonian Legion for fighting against the Soviet re-occupation of Estonia is Nazism You can of course claim that Axis powers were not led by Nazis or that Baltic SS didn't fight on Axis side... the Baltic Waffen SS were not convicted at Nuremberg - the Nuremberg ruling is widely available. All volunteers were condemned there. Let's be clear about who are the propagandists You can state whatever opinion you wish in a wide variety of media. Wikipedia, on the contrary, may not present your (or Kapoccdcoe's, or somebody's else) opinion on who is propagandist as a fact. At most, it can point to referenced opinions. quoting KAPO is merely attribution The problem with some authors of this article is that they try to present KAPO opinions as facts.Fuseau (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Really, the Baltic Waffen were conscripted. Neither the Latvian nor Estonian Legions were "condemned." I am free to express my editorial position here, based on an objective reading of content on the organization's site. If I insert any content based on that, or other reading, it will, of course be rigorously cited and sources accurately represented. Don't insult me as making ridiculous contentions. ("You can of course claim that Axis powers were not led by Nazis".) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

the Baltic Waffen were conscripted Partly Neither the Latvian nor Estonian Legions were "condemned." The Waffen SS was condemned, without exclusions for Latvian or Estonian Legion Don't insult me as making ridiculous contentions I'm glad you don't make those claims which you admit yourself to be ridiculous. In this case, you admit that those "fighting against the Soviet re-occupation" were on the Nazi side.Fuseau (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Guys, this thread is getting off topic, but the Nuremburg judgement explicitly exempted conscripts. Fuseau, you do not need to quote what people say in your replies, we can read it clearly enough in the previous message. --Nug (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A bit, but Fuseau is obviously unaware of irrefutable documentation, for example, that the Latvian Legion only cared about attempting to defeat both Russians and Germans, as the Latvians had done 20 years before to gain independence. Everything else is guilt by association with the uniform, which was not by choice. Against the Soviet Union does not mean for Nazi Germany. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

the Latvian Legion only cared about attempting to defeat both Russians and Germans That's what they did by serving in German units and killing those, who resisted Germans? Thank you for explaining what you consider to be "rigorous application of fact."Fuseau (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and the need for immediate action

Taking into account that the rule above is applicable to all articles, not only those on personalities, and the amount of unsourced criticism towards many living people containde in this article (as shown currently by templates), as well as the fact that after being protected this article was immediately greatly changed by User:Estlandia, I consider necessary to hide/remove unsourced data and to re-organise the article in a more neutral way, shortening the introduction and organising the information under sections with neutral titles.Fuseau (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, all is acceptable about living persons as long as it is sourced according to rules. --Sander Säde 21:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"As long as", and, as shown by templates, often it is not.Fuseau (talk)

Uh... could you repeat that in English, please?--Sander Säde 21:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

@Fuseau, please indicate what content you consider unsourced. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Basically I've already done it with relevant templates and , and removing some of the most unreliable claims. It's possible that something remained missed, of course.Fuseau (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Registration of WWN

The Strasbourg registration document of WWN is here:

Attestation d'Inscription. Tribunal d'Instance de Strasbourg, volume: 89, Folio n 248

This is already quoted in the Russian version. --91.152.89.112 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like OR, and hardly relevant. The organisation is based in Moscow[4]. And even if it were designed as an offshore GONGO, it wouldn't make it an "international NGO" or any less of a Russian GONGO. They could register it in the Cayman Islands all they wanted too, it wouldn't change a thing. Tataral (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Tablet Magazine isn't a very convincing source (a scientific journal could be for that aim). The members of organisation are listed in its website and represent various countries, so it is international.Fuseau (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It is more convincing that OR from an IP editor. It may have members from other countries but it is still based in Moscow, located on Tsvetnoy bulv 24, build. 2, suite 202, in fact. --Nug (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Every NGO needs to have a seat somewhere, so having a bureau in a country doesn't make the organisation local.Fuseau (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Dubious/unavailable sources

A lot of the sources used in the current version are rather dubious or no longer exist.

As a first thing, an umbrella organization with 131 member organizations is only represented by a wordpress.com blog. Really?! If some other sources would not mention the "NGO", I would call the whole thing a hoax.

Pretty much all worldwithoutnazism.wordpress.com references (and there are a lot of them) should be replaced with better sources, if such sources can be found.

Also, I would really like to see a list of those 131 organizations. It seems that member list is not available online and attempts to find any recent mentions of members gave me just a Finnish news piece. It very much seems the WWN only had a congress in Kiev and since then it has only been used to fund Russian government goals in "near-abroad".

As for the sources, the following should be removed from the article:

• http://worldwithoutnazism.wordpress.com/english/declaration_eng/ - dead link
• http://www.ln.mid.ru/bdomp/brp_4.nsf/2fee282eb6df40e643256999005e6e8c/ad9e5f2a6a3a02abc325785c005d6231!OpenDocument - dead link
• http://www.islamnews.ru/news-67081.html/ - dead link. Dubious.
• http://narodfront.ru/organization/20110606/379742791.html/ - server error. Also, highly dubious source

Dubious sources:

• http://netania.israelinfo.ru/news/1830?print - dubious (blog?)
• http://antifashist.com/last-news/197-v-kieve-otkrylas-konferenciya.html - a blog/forum. Heavy racist undertones.

--Sander Säde 09:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, Russian version of the article has been nominated for deletion as a PR-effort. I don't recommend doing the same, but I would heavily edit to remove obvious selfpub PR undertones from the current article as well. --Sander Säde 10:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

only represented by a wordpress.com blog If the domain name is the only objection... there is also stopnazism.net

If some other sources would not mention the "NGO" They do. What's the aim of ifs?

Pretty much all worldwithoutnazism.wordpress.com references (and there are a lot of them) should be replaced with better sources Generally yes, secondary sources are useful. However, in some cases use of primary sources is perfectly reasonable and sometimes they are the best (hardly we'll find a full and up-to-date list of members of WWN ruling bodies anywhere else)

I would really like to see a list of those 131 organizations I haven't counted how many they are, but the list is available for anyone wishing to see it.

It very much seems the WWN only had a congress in Kiev It's regrettable you haven't paid attention to the 2012 congress in Moscow under the auspices of Secretary-General of the Council of Europe and to monitoring on neo-nazism in many countries, including Russia, at WWN website.

http://netania.israelinfo.ru/news/1830?print - dubious (blog?) no reason provided to consider it to be a blog

http://antifashist.com/last-news/197-v-kieve-otkrylas-konferenciya.html - a blog/forum. Heavy racist undertones To call it a blog can lead to misunderstanding - it's built like a blog, but it isn't. Regarding "forum" - if an organisation is called "forum", it doesn't mean their website to be a forum (as a type of unreliable sites). They have a forum on their website, but it's not what is linked to. Fuseau (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC) P.S. And I haven't found racist overtones. at least in this article.

P.P.S. Thank you for pointing to dead link http://worldwithoutnazism.wordpress.com/english/declaration_eng/ , it was replaced. Fuseau (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC) But the link to mid.ru isn't dead Fuseau (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that your main argument for "Keep" in the AfD on RU wiki is the notability afforded by the Estonian Security police report, I think it reasonable to give more weight to that opinion. --Nug (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Strangely you didn't pay attentiuon to the other arguments in favour of notability - involvement of Secretary-General of the Council of Europe etc. 2. The fact of being mentioned in KaPo report really is one of (many) sources showing WWN notability, and can be mentioned in the article. However, opinions expressed by it shouldn't be given much weight, since it doesn't disclose its sources of information, as would be normal for academic sources.Fuseau (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've read and re-read WP:NOTABILITY, but I don't see where "involvement of Secretary-Generals" is a criteria. I've also read WP:DUE and I couldn't find the part that weight is accorded through the disclosure of sources of information. --Nug (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

1. You can enter the debate in ru.wiki, I'm not going to waste time here for discussing a deletion discussion there. 2. It's not WP:DUE, but WP:RS "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.". By not giving references to universally available sources, KaPo report excludes fact-checking. Its accuracy in human rights issues was criticized by Amnesty International - see LICHR. Finally, when speaking of opponents of Estonian authorities, an Estonian authority is difficult to call a reliable third-party source. Fuseau (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that police agencies in democracies operate in judicial environments where perjury is a criminal offense, the standard of fact-checking is quite high. Given that their view is corroborated by a independent publication reporting on Jewish life and a Ukrainian expert, I think we can lend a great deal of weight. --Nug (talk) 18:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that police agencies in democracies operate in judicial environments where perjury is a criminal offense, the standard of fact-checking is quite high Proofless and abstract. You can of course remain with that strange POV, but is is not relevant to the use of KaPo report in the article. Given that their view is corroborated by a independent publication reporting on Jewish life and a Ukrainian expert 1. Most of those views are not 2. Independence of a publication is not enough to make it reputable. 3. Citizenship/ethnicity doesn't make an expert reliable. Fuseau (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Fuseau... stopnazism.net is the same worldwithoutnazism.wordpress.com blog, just with the hostname service provided by wordpress.com.

As for the others, you haven't provided any information why they should be considered even remotely valid sources. Another "doktor nauka" moment there?

Thank you for the list of organizations. At least for Estonia, though, quite a lot of the organizations are one and the same entities - ie Anti-Fascist Committee is there twice, several of the organizations are one-man groups, which have become member twice etc. Obviously, the goal was to get a big number of organizations as members, to provide an illusion of importance to the GONGO.

--Sander Säde 18:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As for the others, you haven't provided any information why they should be considered even remotely valid sources 1. I do not need to. It wasn't even me who included links to islamnews.ru and narodfront.ru, and I doubt whether the article needs them and the text of dubious relevance to WWN they were given to confirm. 2. POV of an MFA doesn't need to be proven valid - the site just confirming facts about Lavrov's statements, and the ministry webpage is the best for it.Fuseau (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC) P.S. Thank you for your denigratory remark about the highest scientific degree possible in many systems, clearly showing who's the one here who doesn't care about reliability of experts. Fuseau (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You still don't understand, do you? Let me explain it very clear terms then.

Scientific source means that a paper passes the rigorous peer review process (and as a someone who has written scientific papers, the process is indeed rigorous), and then is printed in an academic journal, which has been found notable by Science Citation Index or Social Sciences Citation Index.

If a scientist writes something to a newspaper, it is not a scientific source. If a scientist-cum-politician writes something to a random web page, it is not a scientific source, and furthermore, it is not acceptable as a source for Wikipedia (see WP:BLOG).

President of the Estonian Congress (Riigikogu) is Ene Ergma, a Dr.Sci. in physics and mathematics. She has published more than 120 scientific papers. However, materials on her personal website are not scientific sources and cannot be used in Wikipedia. Her writings in newspapers are not scientific sources, but can be used in Wikipedia, as they have passed an editorial process. However, scientific sources are preferred over such newspaper articles.

I hope you understood now. If not, please feel free to ask any questions you might have.

--Sander Säde 07:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course a text, which underwent peer review, is a better source than the same text lacking it. However, WP can use even blogs of experts (WP:SPS). And to establish expertise, scientific degrees are essential. I hope you understand now. If not, please feel free to ask any questions you might have.Fuseau (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

In such controversial topics, selfpub materials are not acceptable sources. Also, you claimed Natalya Narochnitskaya's random post as a scientific source, which it was most certainly not. I hope you understand now. If not, please feel free to ask any questions you might have. --Sander Säde 11:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether a selfpub source is acceptable depends both on its author (see above) and what it's supposed to confirm. An article by a scholar is by definition a "scholarly" (as I wrote about Narochnitskaia's article in Talk:Human rights in Estonia on 16:00, 19 January 2012) source, even if one doesn't consider it to be "scientific" (as you write now, misrepresenting me). And your confusing an article with "random post" doesn't improve reliablility of your statements.Fuseau (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Just sigh. Please see this for a definition of a scholarly article - and no, it is not what you thought. This is my last comment in this thread, as I don't see no further idea in pointing out the blatantly obvious over and over. --Sander Säde 13:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A brief glance over the article tells that it is heavily POV-ridden. The organisation members are being labeled with such terms as "neo-stalinist" or "oligarch firmly in the pro-Putin camp" using POV-laden press sources, which looks strange alongside the demand for scholarly articles above. I've put up the NPOV tag. The article should be cleaned of political labels and BLP-problematic stuff, the response to the accusations and counter-accusations should be confined to specific section(s) about the reaction of certain countries to the activity of the organization. GreyHood ^Talk 02:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

An NPOV tag is completely unjustified. The article is well balanced, as multiple users have pointed out. Spiegel is universally considered to be a Russian oligarch who is politically close to Putin by quality RS such as Haaretz. I find it puzzling that you refer to The Jewish Chronicle as "Estonian POV-labeling"[5]. Apparently a common tactic in Russia, as we have witnessed on this talk page before; as a matter of fact, not everyone critical of the authoritarian Putin regime are Estonian. And no, I don't know that all businesspeople are pro-Putin, that's your unsourced assertation. Where are your sources?Tataral (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Re "multiple users have pointed out" - I see only 3 such users here other than you, and while I respect them and their opinions, I'd prefer too see more opinions from less involved users.

Re:"Estonian POV-labeling" - Funny that you haven't addressed the second part of the my revert, which contained Estonian source and which was too obviously biased and simply threw in political labels instead of introducing facts.

Re: Spiegel - the source which alleges close ties for Putin doesn't mention the "World Without Nazism" organisation, so using it might look as WP:SYNTHESIS. Also I didn't mean that "all businesspeople are pro-Putin", I mean that political influence of most former Russian oligarchs have been curtailed by the Russian government and there are no openly anti-Putin big businesspeople among those still in Russia and free.

Re: "authoritarian Putin regime" - this expression is highly non-neutral and POV-laden (compare: "highly centralized Putin's government"). Of course, it is your right to think whatever you think, but we all should hope that personal opinions don't transform into POV-ridden articles which overuse political labels instead of presenting facts. So if we want to build an accurate and neutral article, lets use accurate and neutral terminology starting from the article's talk page. GreyHood ^Talk 22:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding NPOV

I'm nowhere near an expert in the area, but this is one of the most blatantly non-neutral articles I've managed to stumble across while browsing Wikipedia lately - all the way from the lead to the 'See Also' section (which links to other questionable articles). Even overtly racist and militant groups are treated more impartially. I understand that it's not exactly a high-profile article, but it damages the high standard Wikipedia usually puts forth seeing something like this. 76.26.253.113 (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Categories removed

I have removed this article from several categories such as Category:Neo-Stalinist organisations and Category:Russian nationalism. Contentious descriptions like those need reliable sources to support them, and they weren't there. This seems to be a controversial group, which means sticking to WP:NPOV is all the more important. Robofish (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Given the level of edit-warring going on over this article, I have asked that it be semi-protected. I've no idea who (if anyone) is in the right here, but carrying on like that is only likely to result in blocks. Sort this out by talk page discussion, or find another forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)