Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racism in Latvia


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. Discussion on a merger can be continued on the relevant talk pages. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Racism in Latvia

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Content fork of Human rights in Latvia, this article is more about the legal framework of human rights and the prevention of racism in Latvia with respect to international treaties. This is treated in Human rights in Latvia, but there is little of any actual notable cases of racism itself with in the country discussed in the article. Suggest merge any useful material and delete. Martin (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge all unique, well-sourced content and delete all non-unique, or not-well-sourced content, per Martin. -- 1 2 3 Hedgehog  4 5 6  11:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, expanded since nomination. Fuseau (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article has been expanded, the reasons given for deletion do not apply any more to the article. --Glebchik (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge As per Martintg and 123Hedgehog456.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk)
 * Keep- Racism in X articles are standard, if undeveloped in the great majority of cases, and clearly covers a different but related area to "Human Rights in X" rather than being content forks. The article has clearly been substantially expanded and shows this well. However, even if overlapping with Human Rights in X the previous content was clearly an appropriate start to this article. Ajbpearce (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge- Not notable, Latvian population is predominantely caucasian, there is little acctual racism, so general xenophobia and even staring at person of diffrent race is seen as racism in Latvia (would make article confusing IMO). Xil  (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your points, Xil, about what exactly comprises racism can at most reflect on the titling of the article, which is a matter for a Move discussion on the talk page or a Move vote here. Anarchangel (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. Latvian population is predominantely caucasian - irrelevant. See racism - the term covers not only attitudes among races, but also ethnic relations. 2. there is little acctual racism Just a point of view is not sufficient for deciding. The sources in the article show that there are different views on whether racism is an urgent problem. Fuseau (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The article apparently tries to accomodate view that there are no races at all, but it still says it is discrimination based on genetic factors i.e. outward appearence and other congenital charecteristics, it also makes clear that there is no differentiation in legal definitions, but as nominator says, legal framework can be detailed under human rights. If you look into statistics on nationalities, you`ll see that major nationalities, which make up ~97% of population are white and AFAIK don`t have any distinguishing genetic charecteristics, which somebody would ever have used to state that they are inferior. I trust 3% of ``Other`` are of very diversified origin, so only part of them could be targted by racists, from some statistics it seems that of those largest groups are Roma and Jews, which make up around 0.4% each, as these groups are commonly discriminated around the world they probably merit seperate articles. But Russophones are not a race. And I did indicate that last part is purely my opinion (I believe POV is more geared toward article content, would be hard to have discussion without having any opinion), indeed, I believe that if every story on racism in Latvia I`ve read ilustrates it with interviews in which victims state that they are offended, because people (who don`t see people of diffrent race often) stare at them, then this person is unused to attention, used to think it is something bad and it is all a media hype - if a person has been given assignment to find racism, he or she would find it even if all inhabitants of the country were of same nationality Xil  (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * major nationalities, which make up ~97% of population are white I can advise once again to pay attention at least to the wiki article about racism, at least the lead section, where one can find: "According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnicity discrimination". See also ICERD, defining racial discrimination as "based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin". Russophones are not a race - right. And no one here contests this. But Russians, Belarusians, Romani people etc. are ethnic groups, which are relevant when speaking of racism, per above. if every story on racism in Latvia I`ve read ilustrates it with interviews in which victims state that they are offended, because people (who don`t see people of diffrent race often) stare at them A very strange choice of stories... It creates an image of Latvia more peaceful than what the government itself admits. Why not to read the references in the article, on which you are stating your position? Reference 9 - see pp. 79-83 - about criminal proceeding on inciting ethnic, racial and national hatred etc. You can also read those sources in Latvian, lack of command in which could explain some mistakes made by others: see reference 11 - pp. 31-33 speak about violent expressions of racism. In an older version of your userpage you'd claimed to have command in Russian, too. See, e.g., the reference 19, where K. Ejugbo speaks of attacks to people with differing skin colour. Fuseau (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What you say is at odds with one of the sources cited in the article published by the Latvian branch of European Network Against Racism, in its report "Responding to Racism in Latvia" which states: "There is no conclusive evidence that the larger ethnic minorities are victims of discrimination" --Martin (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, in the previous comment here I didn't even write about discriminating against larger ethnic minorities. However, at the reference 1 one can find Russian-speaking population highlighted as a vulnerable group by a Council of Europe's body. At the reference 2 one can find an UN Rapporteur stressing the situation of Russians.Of course, other source can express another evaluation, and the fact I've added the reference you are speaking of proves my neutral approach. The various points of view in various sources are normal.Fuseau (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You missed my point completly - this isn`t about legal definitions, but what everyone else understands with ``racism``. And saying that Russophones in Latvia are abused because of their race sounds like certain politicians who also say that there is apharteid in Latvia (and facism, nazism and what not). And I merely comented on articles from local daily press, there is nothing that should warrant racism a seperate article. If some idiots having ``racist discourse`` in Delfi is a concern, it can still be covered in more general article Xil  (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * this isn`t about legal definitions, but what everyone else understands with ``racism`` Please do not substitute someone's narrow opinions to "what everyone else understands to be racism". Wikipedia understands that "racism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race, ethnicity, or nationality are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that ethnic differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" (italics added). sounds like - I'm glad your position has no better arguments. If some idiots having ``racist discourse`` in Delfi is a concern If you've read at least those article's references which are mentioned in this discussion, you've seen that there are also violent attacks and desecration of cemeteries.Fuseau (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You`re still missing the point. I am not doubting that there is racism, I merely doubt that scale of the problem warrants it seperate article and your motivation to include non-racial minorities. If you`d leave out legal framework and ethnicities you would have very little to go with. Xil  (talk) 06:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ethnicities are also relevant to racism, not only in legal discourse, but in the understanding of Wikipedia - racism.Fuseau (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment regarding expansion: Although the article has now been expanded, the issue of WP:NOTABILITY remains. This article tends to conflate discrimination with racism by mentioning issues of religious and language discrimination which isn't necessarily racist. Even the Latvian branch of European Network Against Racism, which this article cites, in the section "Who is experiencing racism" of its report "Responding to Racism in Latvia" states: "There is no conclusive evidence that the larger ethnic minorities are victims of discrimination" and it goes on to mention a few surveys of attitudes to Roma, Africans and Asians, but there is nothing notable that would justify a standalone article. Looking at the article itself, the section "Racist crimes" doesn't discuss anything because there isn't any racist crime in Latvia. In the section "Racism in politics and media discourse", the two specific instances relate to politicians accusing each other of "racism", but accusation and fact are two different things. The section "Evaluations of the scale of racism" sums it up the problem with this article in a nut shell, there simply isn't any notable racism in the country, certainly not sufficiently notable for a standalone article. Therefore a merge to Human rights in Latvia is still warranted. --Martin (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, this is a criticism that goes to a retitling discussion. Have you, Martintg, considering dissolving the AfD and resolving these issues on the talk page? Because you continue to show that this article should exist as Ethnic Discrimination in Latvia, assuming that the reader accepts your assertions about the article. Anarchangel (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * by mentioning issues of religious and language discrimination which isn't necessarily racist The reference given shows that the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance considers these kinds of discrimination to be in its competence.
 * nothing notable that would justify a standalone article - there are secondary sources on the topic of this article. Which specific criteria you consider not to be met?
 * the section "Racist crimes" doesn't discuss anything because there isn't any racist crime in Latvia The reference mentions various kinds and examples of racist crimes.
 * the two specific instances relate to politicians accusing each other of "racism" In one case, Muižnieks is a well-known political scientist and specifically expert on racism (head of ECRI), and he wasn't active in politics when publishing this evaluation (2005); in the other - accusation is notable, being said inside one ruling coalition. Besides, one can call every evaluation of something as racist to be accusation, but refusing from all such sources wouldn't allow to write articles on specific cases of racism.
 * there simply isn't any notable racism in the country The references show this is the view of several ruling politicians and experts asked by the official newspaper. And they mention that these views are contested, too. If you wish, I'll expand this mentioning.Fuseau (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Obviously a notable subject. Racism is a very real problem in Latvia. The article is well-written and referenced. Nanobear (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You have a source to support your claim "Racism is a very real problem in Latvia", sufficient to establish notability, beyond the standard reports which these UN and NGO agencies generate for every country on the planet? --Martin (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * UN (and CoE) agencies are quite reliable when providing facts unpleasant for member states - of course, they can be biased, but the most probable direction of bias is that in favour of the criticized states (since the criticized states have votes in these intergovernmental organizations). NGOs may be very reliable, too - see, for example, the awards section of Latvian Centre for Human Rights, referenced in this article.Fuseau (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe Nano's Keep vote maintains that the article itself shows that racism is a problem in Latvia. A problem we have at WP is attempts to 'raise the bar' or 'move the goalposts'. The article shows evidence of racism, the UN and NGO reports show evidence of racism, but Martintg's reply insists on more evidence. Anarchangel (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, your characterisation of 'move the goalposts' is incorrect and seems to be an assumption of bad faith. The question is, and this was posed from the very beginning, is what sources are there beyond UN and NGO reports (which these organisations are mandated to produce for every country) that makes this topic notable? One one single book is returned in this Google book search, and that is just a reference to an NGO report. Google scholar shows equally dismal results as does Google news --Martin (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep or Move to Ethnic discrimination in Latvia. Racism exists in Latvia, there is no doubt whatsoever about that. Compare to the US, where racism exists, but is kept below the radar of media communications. In Latvia, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance reports, politicians, not only in public but in mass media, have repeatedly resorted to racist discourse.ECRI Third Report on Latvia, 2008 Para. 99-101 As for how this racism is to be named, I really don't care. Common usage of racism encompasses ethnic discrimination, but there is no harm in being specific, especially if it truly addresses the concerns of those who wish to merge. However, I currently have no reason to believe that this will be satisfactory to those who favor Merge. I cannot rule out the possibility that these arguments about 'discrimination, not racism' are red herrings introduced to divert the discussion toward any measure that will destroy or diminish the article. Therefore, I predominantly prefer a Keep resolution, and my offer of the Move option is, inasmuch as I have reservations, a rhetorical one. Anarchangel (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You should refactor you comment about the motives of others, as it is not helpful. A major issue is WP:NOTABILITY. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance is mandated to report on all 48 countries in Europe on the topic of Racism. The question is whether racism is particularly notable in the case of Latvia and stands out from these other countries, that it requires a stand alone article? Google books, Google scholar and Google news  indicates a lack of notability. Which leads to the other issue, being that Wikipedia is a not venue for case studies, which this article effectively is, see WP:NOTCASE. --Martin (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What you write shows that the Council of Europe considers that racism in every its member state is notable enough for periodic reports on it. Therefore, "Racism in X" with "X=a CoE member state" are notable topics for Wikipedia articles. If ECRI wrote one yearly report on the whole Europe only, this would be an argument in favour of non-notability of racism in a single country, but... this is not the case. Besides, it should be noted that the UN Special Rapporteur on racism etc. is not obliged to write a report on every country. On Latvia - he did.Fuseau (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the Council of Europe is mandated to write a report for each country whether or not racism exists, as does the ECRI. The UN Special Rapporteur on racism wrote a report on the invitation of the Latvian government back in 2007, if racism is so notable in Latvia why hasn't the UN Special Rapporteur written follow up reports for 2008, 2009 and 2010? --Martin (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So, CoE leadership considers that racism and intolerance are notable enough in every member state to mandate ECRI to write reports on it. As concerns the UN Special Rapporteur - he doesn't make country visits and, respectively, he doesn't write country reports so often. Everyone may see that he did only 33 country visits in 16,5 years. And he has visited 30 countries only (out of 192 UN member states), as he has visited twice USA, Germany and Brazil.Fuseau (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The CoE reports indicate sufficient notability for an article Racism in Europe. You implied the UN Special Rapporteur wrote a report on Latvia because he saw something notable that should be reported, but infact he did so on the invitation of the Latvian government. What government would willingly do that if there was a real problem? --Martin (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact, Latvia did issue a standing invitation for all UN HRC rapporteurs, which is quite commendable, but... many governments have done it, as you can see on the link.Fuseau (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge As per Martintg Tentontunic (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Notable or not, decide for yourself - Hate Crimes in The OSCE Region - Incidents And Responses Annual Report For 2009.
 * Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 17:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this relevant source, I'll add it in the article. However, for three reasons it is not a good idea to judge on notability of racism in Latvia just by this source: 1. It covers crimes only, not all racism issues. 2. It covers only those facts which are reacted to by the police etc. (e.g., by starting criminal proceedings). 3. There are many other relevant sources.Fuseau (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * On page 24 of this report there is a table of all countries reporting hate crime, and also on page 108, Latvia's numbers are in the single digits, comparable to Liechtenstein, while other countries report numbers in the hundreds and even thousands in the case of Sweden. The relevant findings are as follows
 * Page 46 - Latvia: No data on racist or xenophobic crimes were reported to ODIHR by officials. According to the Latvian Centre for Human Rights, there was no official or unofficial information on investigations of racial violence
 * Page 54 - Latvia: Based on information provided by the courts, the NPC reported an assault on two persons based on their Roma identity, for which each of the four perpetrators received five-year prison sentences, with three years probation. The Latvian Centre for Human Rights reported two court rulings in attacks against Roma.
 * Page 61 - Latvia: No official data on anti-Semitic crimes were reported to ODIHR. The Latvian Centre for Human Rights reported the desecration of a cemetery. The Stephen Roth Institute reported one violent incident
 * Page 79 - Latvia: No official data on crimes against LGBT persons were provided to ODIHR. The Latvian Human Rights Centre reported one incident of assault and three in which persons were threatened. The threats occurred during the Baltic Pride march.
 * As can be seen, racism in Latvia is on a such a small scale that it is insufficiently notable for inclusion into Wikipedia. --Martin (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A survey on the perception of juridicial transparency in Latvia probably could tell us more about why the numbers are in the single digits. The statistics provided only documented hate crimes brought to the attention of law enforcement, and gives a good indication about the awareness of human rights in this field. The Corruption Perceptions Index probably also might suggest why Sweden has report numbers in the thousands. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 21:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Other countries reported have far worse corruption record yet they also report significantly higher numbers of hate crimes than Latvia. Also included were independent reports from the Latvian Centre for Human Rights in parallel to the official police figures, and these are also single digits. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, we can't speculate on the reasons why the number of offical reports are low, and create an article on the chance that the numbers of hate crimes will go up sometime in the future. --Martin (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for poiunting to LCHR data, too, which I haven't found initially. This is interesting, and can be added to the article. However, racism is not limited with crimes only. we can't speculate on the reasons why the number of offical reports are low - exactly. But when ECRI mentions considerations on this issue, we can point to them, as it is done in the article. racism in Latvia is on a such a small scale that it is insufficiently notable You still do not provide any clear requirements and their justification. On the contrary, arguments in favour of the article are clear: there is significant coverage in independent secondary sources, which is enough per Notability Fuseau (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.