Talk:Russian influence operations in Estonia

Semiprotection?
An anonymous editor keeps adding blatantly unencyclopædic text, never discussing. Should we request semiprotection? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 07:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I was going to ask Alex Bakharev to block the IP, he has done this before, but he is away on vacation at the moment. Martintg (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Reflective edit war
I find it a bit disconcerting that Russavia has now began to edit war with himself on this article. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide inline citations for the lead. What exactly is the source? Offliner (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it really that hard to provide inline citations? Offliner (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Biased
The whole article is written in a very biased way.


 * 1) First of all, the name of the article is wrong; the existence of such operations is not a generally accepted fact. It should be "Alleged..." Chapter headings are also used to give credibility for certain allegations: one of the chapters is "Cultivation of hatred," although any such "cultivation" is not a generally accepted fact. It too should be called "Allegations of..." at best.
 * 2) The lead is completely biased. It states everything as facts, and the claims aren't attributed to anyone either. It's probably WP:OR as well; I do not know which source it is from, and Digwuren keeps removing my fact-tags and refuses to answer to my question above.
 * 3) Elsewhere in the article as well, KAPO's claims are stated as facts without attribution to KAPO.

I've tried to add some balancing material, but the whole article is still biased and in breach of WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, etc. I added a mention of the Amnesty report, which confirms some of the discrimination claims. It was immediately countered by an Economist opinion piece about Amnesty's work. Usually, Amnesty is a very respected organization. Here, giving the single Economist review as much space as the Amnesty report itself is WP:UNDUE. It's a economical paper, so it's expertise in human rights matters is questionable. Just compare this treatment of Amnesty's report to how such reports are treated in articles about Russia's human rights - in the latter ones, Amnesty's opinion is stated as a fact, and is definitely not immediately countered by a negative review by a single newspaper. Offliner (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

All the alleges
Russavia, please take a look at list of words to avoid. "Alleges", especially when used to cast doubt on a veracity of a claim, is on there. "According to" is sufficient.radek (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Involvement in European politics" section
I deleted this section because its text says nothing it is related to Estonia. I admit that the section may be badly phrased or edited that it lost sense, but it its present state it looks clearly irrelevant. Please don't revert without addressing concerns stated in edit summary. Mukadderat (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The elections for European parliament are held in every EU member. The source talks about EU parliament elections in Estonia. Election to the EU parliament will bring a lot of prestige to the elected politicians - and a whole lot more influence to both internal (local) and foreign policies, hence the position is badly coveted. The section you wish to remove speaks of an attempt to influence Estonian politics through getting their "own man" elected - and frankly, I cannot see how the section is not related to Estonia. I will not revert you, but I hope that you'll self-revert after reading this brief explanation. -- Sander Säde 22:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know what source says, I know what this wikipedia section says. Please feel free to write the text which speaks about Estonia, not about Europe. Also, you write the source says about elections in Estonia and about "influence Estonian politics through getting... ", then the section title is incorrect: it is about Estonian politics, not about European politics. And please don't tell me that Estonia is in Europe hence it is European polictics. By this logic the whole article must be titled "Russian influence in Europe".  Mukadderat (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing the text of the section, so that it speaks about Estonia now. Mukadderat (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The section mentions "Aleksei Semjonov or Dmitri Klenski" I see Klenski but don't see Semjonov in European Parliament election, 2009 (Estonia). Can someone write articles about them, since they seem notable in politics of Estonia? Mukadderat (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I also noticed the different spelling: Dimitri Klenski used in European Parliament election, 2009 (Estonia). Which one is correct in Estonian language (I understand it is a transliteration of the Russian name). Mukadderat (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dimitri Klenski is correct . K731 fixed the name in the article already. -- Sander Säde 09:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Second phrase
I became very curious of the subject and read around. In particular I have found that KaPo reports are extremely informative and may serve the basis of several new wikipedia articles. I was attracted to them because one sentence in the discussed sentence sounded very dubious: alleged activities of Russia to make Russian official in EU. It is legally impossible since Russia is not member of EU. Therefore I decided to find the mentioned report, rather than the newspaper piece cited in wikipedia page. The report in English is readily available (swf) at KaPo webpage: http://www.kapo.ee/eng_yldinfo.html Yearbook 2008] (most recent) I would praise the openness of this state security organization. The text in question literally says as thus: "...in the Baltic states they [Russia's compatriots] are planning access to the European Parliament with the one of the aims to acquire of the official language to Russian". From this phrasing it is unclear whether the allegation says about status of Russian in EU or in the Baltic States. From the logical common sense I think that the latter is more probable. I admit that the English translation is not very good. I would like to ask Estonian-speaking wikipedians to read the Estonian text of the Yearbook and check whether it is less ambiguous. Mukadderat (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. The following phrase seems to corroborate my version: "...to bring pressure to the government via the structures of the European Union".Mukadderat (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome, the sentence must be changed: if it is not directly related to Estonia, in does not belong to this article, if it is, then it must be fixed accordingly. Mukadderat (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Bit late to add the extra info here since Mukadderat has been blocked in wiki due to his/hers previous activities but will do it anyway to counter misinformation. "It is legally impossible since Russia is not member of EU." - this is not true. It can be done just as Irish has been added to the list of official EU languages from 2007 despite Ireland joining EU in 1967. Details: https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-languages_en. "if it is not directly related to Estonia, in does not belong to this article" - Estonia is a member of EU, hence in a relevant context, Estonia does not have to be specifically mentioned since EU legislation and other activities regarding EU, applies all the EU members the same. 91.236.129.5 (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Article scope/title
I would suggest to think about a better title, something like Efforts of Russia to influence Estonia:
 * "operations" is from, like, James Bond. "Efforts" is more general
 * "In" is too restrictive: As I see European-scope Russian activities that may influence estonia are intendd to be covered
 * "Russian" has several meanings. As I see, the scope is about of the efforts of Russia.

Also, the article is almost orphan. Please wikilink it. It is not even linked in Estonia–Russia relations. Speaking of the latter, its content must be syncronized/cross-merged with this one, possibly according to Summary style. Mukadderat (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any response to my comments. Mukadderat (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest we remove all this crap and start fresh at Russian–Estonian information war. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)