Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia

(moved from the project page)


 * (Igny (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Now thats just too easy. Gotta love how results more than double then you replace Estonia with Russia. Interesting why we dont have Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Russia yet?--Staberinde (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can get matches by suitably adjusting quotation marks. However, in the search (note: articles since 2005) I cannot find matches that actually claim the discrimination exists, indeed, quite a few of them mention Estonia only in the footnote or passingly. -- Sander Säde  14:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Human rights in Estonia can include the many positive aspects of individual rights in Estonia as well as a section appropriately titled allegations.... It can't, however, be what the article is now, merely renamed. To Staberinde's point, as for Russia, we can always start with the Finno-Ugric peoples. PetersV     TALK 17:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Even better, on Google searches:
 * "Soviet disinformation" returns 13,700 matches
 * "Russian disinformation" returns 1,020 matches
 * "Estonian disinformation" returns 1 match, to a novel mentioning KGB-originated "anti-Estonian disinformation."
 * "Latvian disinformation" returns 1 match, to a blog outraged about "anti-Latvian disinformation", and
 * "Lithuanian disinformation" returns no matches at all.
 * Food for thought. PetersV     TALK 17:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good job! I did the same search, except with one altercation. I put in "-2008" because there was a massive anti-Russia media campaign in 2008. And the results dropped to 625. So if you can get 595 bullshit sources, why not 1020? And then if I add "-iran" (to counter AIPAC's anti-Russian bias) the 625 number drops to 358. Adding in "-oil, -gas, -petrolium" drops it to 273. Then let's add "-soviet" and that drops the number to 162. Seems like PetersV is spreading disinformation about Russia's disinformation campaign. Ohhh, the irony! 68.164.238.159 (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to add "-a", because you only want concrete, specific cases of Soviet disinformation, not such indefinite ones that might be marked by this article of the English tongue. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 07:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have some interest against conspiracy theorists. Let me assure you, to a conspiratorial mind, this only proves that Estonian disinformation-makers are very good at hiding their tracks. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 07:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Look it is not some pissing contest of who gets more hits on Google. I just proved it is not OR. You are welcome. (Igny (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Quite clear. It's notable and discussed subject. And we have a UK scholar's confirmation on that above. So maybe just time to give up the OR argument? Check the lead for 6 reliable and well-known sources stating there is a discrimination in E. FeelSunny (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have already told you that the topic needs to be titled as "allegations of" whether on its own or as a section in another article. It also requires counterpoint to maintain NPOV—counterpoint that was deleted when the Russian-related content was forked over from Anti-Russian sentiment. All these allegations of discrimination have equally notable parties disputing the veracity of those allegations. "Stating" is alleging, not proving. Without a full discussion of contentions and counterpoint, the article is just a WP:COATRACK. PetersV     TALK 20:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it "quite clear" when Google Scholar search fails to find even one newer on-topic source? I'd say that if anything is clear, then it is the fact that article is unbalanced, coattrack and POV-pushing. -- Sander Säde  21:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To FeelSunny, this google scholar search reveals over 3000 hits for Red Army rape, should somebody start an article Red Army rapists? I hope not. --Martintg (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there some WP policy against creating such articles? WP is not censored, you know. (Igny (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC))


 * To Martintg: would there be a corresponding legislation in the USSR/ US/ UK etc. in WWII, encouraging rapes, there'd definitely were miriads of pages on this. In Estonia laws are officially promoting discrimination, can't you understand this point? Two similar people born in 1980 in Estonia could become a citizen and a non-citizen only because a grandparent of one of them came to the country in 1950, and another came in 1925. Doesn't it seem a little bit discriminating to you, to be rejected because of your grandparent's late arrival? FeelSunny (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To imply that this is unusual, or that one must be bound by the citizenship decisions of his grandparents and prohibited to naturalise where they feel appropriate, shows a profound lack of understanding what citizenship is about. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 06:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I got your point FeelSunny! Someone is discriminated unlike the other one because the grandparent who came to the country in 1925 applied for the citizenship and therefore his/her descendants didn't need to do that any more due to jus sanguinis principle of the citizenship law. But the other grandparent who came to the country in 1950, never bothered to apply for the citizenship and therefore his/her descendants are still foreigners in this country. And now the 1950 grandparent who never applied for the citizenship unlike the other one gets blamed for discrimiantion, and an article called Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia on Wikipedia needs to be created? Just that I don't see the article nor any sources saying anything about this discriminating grandparent. And again, why to bring such personal family issues to Wikipdia? --Termer (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. Discrimination of ethnic minorities by their grandparents.  And the reliable source would be the Bible, something like Ex 20:5. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 09:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To FeelSunny. No, it is not discrimination, but the rule of law and giving people a free choice on what citizenship they want. Most post war immigrants came from Russia. At the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the Russian Federation and the Republic Estonia, there was ambiguity with these immigrants, did they want to become Russian citizens or Estonian citizens? Rather than force Estonian citizenship onto somebody who may not want it, Estonia gave these people the right to choose. This policy has proven to be correct, because by last year, one third have chosen Estonian citizenship, one third have chosen Russian citizenship and the remainder haven't made up their minds. A similar process occurred in the 1920's after Estonia's independence war. The reason why someone whose grand parents immigrated into Estonia in 1925 doesn't have to choose is because they already have Estonian citizenship according to law, but there is nothing stopping these people giving up their citizenship if they want to. --Martintg (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The fact that this citizenship decisiding process for all inhabitants of Estonia went so swiftly after 1918 makes it all the more puzzling why there are some people who have failed to make a decision nineteen years after 1991. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 07:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. So you really miss the point. I do not feel like going into explaining why it's a discrimination once again. Take pain to read the first sentence in the corresponding article. PS. the remainder haven't made up their minds - hell yeah, after 20 years they still hesitate:)) Those Non-Estonians are all SOO indecisive:))
 * Seriously, what I like the most in your citizenship legislation is if you are born from a non-citizen living in Estonia for the last 30 years, you become - guess what? - right, a non-citizen minor. And then, after 20 years you will have to prove you have the right to get Estonian passport. Damn, those minorities are so slow with making up their minds and sell their property and leave the country for good at last... Care to search for data on how much those non-Estonians left after 1990 the country they lived in. FeelSunny (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's ethnic. I think it's cultural.  It might be that people who internalised Soviet system too well are so very afraid of anything even remotely political that they don't dare to pick any citizenship.  Or perhaps, some of these people are afraid that Russia might invade again, and do what Stalin did in 1940 -- which involved torturing, killing and otherwise repressing everybody who had had anything to do with running of the Republic, including people holding such mundane jobs as policeman's or schoolteacher's.  As I'm sure you're aware of, Stalin decimated the pre-occupation ethnic Russian population in Estonia based on some very silly notions about ethnicity and loyalty. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we could create an article Human rights in Estonia. The structure of it could be similar as the article Human rights in Finland. I do not see reasons why the opinions of Russian Federation over-weighted, when the problems are Estonia's internal. Also I don't see reasons why every single persons (incl. Bäckman) says his opinion (as in case of Bäckman, are not even approved by academic world). The opinions of international organizations are enough. So, the Moscow-based "Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia" should be delete at speed and rebuild a neutral one. Peltimikko (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Care to give one example of "opinions of Russian federation" in this article? What "Moscow bias" are you talking about, if it's UN, EU, AI and other international agencies' words? They are all agents of Putin or what? FeelSunny (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The article Human rights in Latvia is a good example of a balanced article and shows why this article Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia is a terrible POVFORK that needs to be deleted. --Martintg (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Neither the Human rights in Latvia nor Non-citizens (Latvia) articles deal with 5% of the information which must be presented in this article. This is censorship through Wikilawyering once again. Multiple reliable sources say there is a discrimination against ethnic minorities in Estonia. FeelSunny (talk) 08:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The article Human rights in Latvia has its good sides and bad sides. The good side is that the article gives detailed information the ratifitions of treaties (the matrix is great!). The bad side is that the article is just technical legistlations, treaties, laws... I think the matrix could do all the technical work and the article should focus more on problems presented by Amnesty international, Human Rights Watch, Freedom House and International Press Institute. And also needed some section of LGBT rights in Latvia. Peltimikko (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Right. In Russia, when gays announce they want to have good time, they get a battalion of well-muscled and uniformed OMON troops to entertain them, play bondage games and do other kinky stuff.  This right is, unfortunately, not well honoured in Latvia. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not a discussion on Gay rights in Russia. But would you create such an article, I will have no objections. As to "not-well honoured" - in Latvia, gays just do not decide to hold a parade when is it not allowed by the city officials. PS. Oops, the page exists. FeelSunny (talk) 10:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Russian internal politics is far too complicated a topic for me to properly understand. Just to *list* all the gay rights marches in Russia that have ended, well, with government-sponsored bondage I would have to spend at least a week. I can't afford spending that much time to a topic that doesn't interest me. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. But what it has in common with ethnic minorities in Estonia? FeelSunny (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. --Martintg (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. The fact, confirmed by multiple respected sources, is there is an institutionalized discrimination policy against ethnic minorities in Estonia. It is presented without bias and in the words used in the corresponding sources. If you claim UN, EU and AI all biased, and not objective on this, you are free to explain why they should not be used as reliable sources. Unless you do this, your words of POV-forking are meaningless, as you did not present any similarly reliable sources stating there is no state-level discrimination in Estonia. It's just your and many fellow ethnic Estonians opinion aganst EU's, and UN's views. Can't you see it? Give some other POV sources at last, if you beleive they exist, and stop calling the page non-neutral then. FeelSunny (talk) 10:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Your statement "The fact, confirmed by multiple respected sources, is there is an institutionalized discrimination policy against ethnic minorities in Estonia" is a great demonstration of why this article is a POVFORK which basically makes the same claims as in History_of_Russians_in_Estonia and Anti-Russian_sentiment, but avoiding the other viewpoint presented in those articles. --Martintg (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What is it, you totally can not read my posts? Give examples, sources, anything to prove there exists any other POV - other than that of AI and EU and UN, and there will be no "bias" in this article. Can I see at least one source from your side after all this heated discussion??? And I have explained many times why this article just won't fit into the borders of one paragraph in those two small articles. FeelSunny (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, as has been pointed out repeatedly, not only do the original sections have valid sources of other POV, even this AfD discussion contains several (at least four last time I checked) sources. It is not Martin's duty to include those, it is the duty of the people editing the page to follow NPOV guideline and not cherry-pick sources representing their firmly fixed viewpoint. -- Sander Säde  12:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)