Talk:Russians in Estonia

Soviet

I am sorry - "the Soviet Union occupied and annexed Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 1940. " How did Soviet Union do it if they entered Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania without firing a shot and the three republics were admitted to the USSR after referendum? I understand Iraq - that's an occuppation - country invaded, perhaps as many as million civilians dead (more than there are Estonians alive), fake elections.

There were no referendums held in either Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania about "admission to the USSR", nor were there held any other referendums of any kind in 1940. --3 Löwi 15:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course there were three referenda held in each statelet and only after majority voted for union with the USSR, were Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian SSR admitted. Modern day Estonian Nazis may deny that angrily with foam at their mouths but that's a histroic fact. The only thing those who at least know their short history (I mean Estonian and Latvian ethno-Nazis) say against the validity of the referenda and subsequent elections is the preposterous claim that referendum or election in presence of foreign troops is somehow invalid. Tell that to Iraqis. Roobit 09:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Roobit, what on earth are you talking about?! See: Template:Quotation1

Perhaps you should read history a bit, before making such statements...

DLX 09:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is "housing discrimination"???80.235.52.181 13:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In the Soviet days of central planning, it was typical to divide housing into quality classes, people to be housed into importance classes, and assign housing to people matchingly. For example, the all-convenience block housing in newly constructed buildings were invariably distributed to immigrant industrial workers first.

Such discrimination obviously does not apply in market-based system. I'm under the impression that the claims about 'housing discrimination' were made by people unaware of Estonia's 1990s' conversion from central planning to market economy, or directed at people unaware of that. Digwuren 13:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Those of us who have spent longer under a market-based system have found otherwise: see Fair_Housing_Act_of_1968#Housing_Discrimination. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

After independence, this block housing was "privatized". Most Estonians paid for their apatments with privatization vouchers. Were these vouchers given to all Estonians or only citizens? -- Petri Krohn 19:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The vouchers were given out as compensation of property unlawfully taken by the Soviet Union. It is quite obvious that the post-WWII immigrants could not have pre-occupation property in Estonia taken from them. Digwuren 20:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only. There were compensation vouchers and also vouchers of "working years" (known as "kollased kaardid" in Estonian), which were provided in accordance with the number of years one had worked in Estonia. These vouchers were given to all inhabitants of Estonia notwithstanding their citizenship or ethnics. And yes, the block housing were privatized (writing without quotas, by the way) by vouchers several times cheaper than market price. By some reason (guess why) the Soviet time immigrants lived/live in newer block-houses, while there are more ethnic Estonians among inhabitants of houses built before 1940. These houses were given back to the former owners and inhabitants didn't had an opportunity to privatize cheap apartment.80.235.55.248 20:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. I had forgotten about the work vouchers. Sorry. Digwuren 14:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I suspect I have found the source of the "housing discrimination" claims: [1]. The article has a picture of an ostensible screenshot of an unnamed real estate management company, with "We do not serve tiblas (russians)!" printed on it. (The parenthesised clarification is in the original screenshot.) The inflammatory commentary is in English and can be read by everybody here, so I won't need to comment on it, nor the comments on the commentary.

In summary, it's red herring, possibly a deliberate attempt to incite international hatred. Digwuren 20:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Some user has removed my additions and links to the Amnesty International and the European Centre for Minority Rights reports, claiming it was NPOV and arguing that it has been dealt with on the talk page. Actually, they haven't been dealt with on here. All they do is give an opposing view to counter the argument that "no pattern of discrimination has been found to exist". Both Amnesty International and the European Centre are respected international organisations and can hardly be said to be biased.

Just because you don't like something doesn't make it NPOV. If you want to delete this we need to also delete the comment about the OSCE not believing there to be any pattern of discrimination. Shotlandiya 14:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This particular claim was not just non-factual; it was also presented in a WP:POV way. If you want it kept, you should phrase it in a neutral way, such as "Amnesty International has expressed concern ...". As for now, I'll remove it again. Digwuren 14:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the OCSE reference you mentioned. I considered removing it, too, as it claims "declared ..." in this very similar way. I decided against it, on the grounds that contrary to AI, OCSE actually has investigative powers and tools, so it actually is in the position to make such declarations. You're welcome to rephrase that, too, of course. Digwuren 14:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Subsequently, Irpen reverted, without addressing the concerns I raised. I addressed them myself. Happy? Digwuren 15:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not touch the OCSE reference. It should similarly be reworked. Digwuren 15:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I guess this current version is acceptable. Please do not remove it or alter it again. Just because you deny that discrimination takes place, it does not give you the right to remove factual, referenced material from Wikipedia. Shotlandiya 15:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would you think I deny "discrimination takes place"? Digwuren 16:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Because you are quick to delete any point of view which does not agree with your own, even if it is properly referenced and cited. Shotlandiya 13:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

baltic russians as 5th column of Russia

There is a large study written in estonian at website www.okupatsioon.ee by Henn Sarv that gives a clear view about ethnical politics during the occupation and Karaganov's doctrine that gives a plan of using russian-speaking people in baltics and other ex-soviet occupied countries as a tool for russias agressive foreign interests. could someone translate the text for better understanding of the whole topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.126.203 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of text; it can't be translated rapidly. Do you have any particular passages in mind? Digwuren 11:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Etymology of 'raamat'

My understanding is that 'raamat' has been traced from Greek γραμ* ('write', 'writing') through Old Slavic грамота, 'record' to Fenno-Ugric, including Estonian raamat ('book').

It's still weird that the meanings given for the Estonian words mentioned in the article are from Russian. Digwuren 09:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Russian cultural influences on 11th century

There weren't any Russians in the 11th century, as that level of ethnic combination had not yet been made. One could, at best, talk about Krivich influences or Slavic influences. Otherwise, it sets a nasty precedent, leading towards explaining Roman wars as being held between Americans and Italians. Digwuren 09:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Fisenko (talk · contribs)

I am somewhat perplexed by the edits of Fisenko (talk · contribs). He claims to have sourced his claims from "Kahk J., Palamets H., Vahtre S. "Estee NVS Ajaloost Lisamaterjali VII-VIII Klassi NVS Liidu Ajaloo Kursuse Juurde 7. Trukk" Tallin: "Valgus", 1974" - but considering how many errors he makes even in spelling that reference, I am fairly sure he cannot read Estonian and therefore has not read that book - probably using it as a source that cannot be verified. In any case, considering that the book is from the height of russification, when the dogma was rather different from reality, I don't think that the source can or should be used today - it is a schoolbook for mid-school. As all Soviet sources about history, it is flawed and inaccurate. However, as I am an "involved" editor, I would like someone else to take a look at this situation and all edits made by Fisenko to the article. Thanks. Sander Säde 07:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I questioned him on this topic. I'm not convinced by the answers.

In line of WP:AGF, I wouldn't consider it impossible that he reads Estonian better than he writes it; still, such carelessness in copying a citation is unexcusable. And finally, this history textbook certainly does not count as a WP:RS, as you point out.

I propose explaining this, especially the latest part, to Fisenko, reverting the edits wholesale, then sifting the intermediate diffs for anything that may be salvageable. Digwuren 11:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

House of Representatives of Ethnic Minorities of Estonia

I am perplexed by Martintg's campaign to tag information about House of Representatives of Ethnic Minorities of Estonia as dubious. I provided plenty of links from Estonian Russophone media, describing creation of this organization. I do not think WP is appropriate place to list every single group from 196 founding members. Besides, if wikipedian has concerns about reliability of provided sources, it is a good idea to use talk page to ask questions. RJ CG (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I just made some minor edits, but noted your reversion of the previous edit re [WW]; I was going to also tidy up the same paragraph to make it more accurate, the previous edit did not look too bad to me, perhaps a compromise could be made so that any offending [WW] can be toned down? Ray3055 (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm cool with any edits as soon as they don't distort actual statement. Yours are fine so far. Actually I was wondering how could I be so sloppy with translation. RJ CG (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the claim that "almost 200 groups created" this organisation, which clearly is dubious. Can you identify these 200 groups? Any single person can create an NGO and make any wild claim. Does this group have an office address or website? Are their opinions equally notable to Amnesty International? Until there is additional verification beyond some editorial opinion on some yellow news site, the tags remain. Martintg (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone already added an additional source about this group. Martintg (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It is funny you call Postimees "yellow press". This opens whole bunch of possibilities to remove numerous claims favourable to official Estonian POV from WP, as they refer to yellow Postimees. Should we do it? Regarding your other edits, linking House to Bronze Night seem to be a little bit OR-ish to me, although I'm ready to consider it. Speaking about House's credibility, "beauty is in eye of beholder". Even AI's credibility and impartiality is challenged by many. That does not prevent many others from seeing AI as pillar of impartiality, nor does it prevent AI's documents from being used as RS. I considered House's statement WP-worthy material, as it seems that there's no serious group within Estonian Russophone community challenging House's status as umbrella organization. RJ CG (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

RJ CG: so far you have provided three links, two of them are pointing to almost identical articles in Delfi and Молодежь Эстонии - same press release, different media outlets, and unfortunately this press release does not say anything about the organization itself. Third link (dzd.ee) contains a bit more information, but again, there's almost nothing about the House of Representatives of Ethnic Minorities of Estonia, only that it was founded and name of the chairman. Nothing about the 196 founding organizations. While their opinion expressed in the press release is of course noteworthy, there's right now serious problems with WP:V and probably WP:UNDUE as well (until we don't have reliable source saying who they really represent). So, while I agree that full list of every 196 founding members is not needed here, could we please have a link, which points to reliable source about the organization, containing' that list. And if they really are significant enough, maybe you could start a article about House of Representatives of Ethnic Minorities of Estonia? 213.35.230.86 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

RJ CG, you reverted edits made by Suva and left him nice warning about vandalism, however, don't you think that you owe some explanations to this discussion page also? There seems no consensus about notability of this House of Representatives of Ethnic Minorities of Estonia, so could you please provide couple of additional sources about this organization? 194.126.101.134 (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• There is the Estonian Roundtable on National Minorities that has been representing ethnic minorities in Estonia. The self proclaimed "House of Representatives of Ethnic Minorities" is clearly a partisan group and including this in WP, to maintain WP:NPOV the opinions of the roundtable should be listed next to this underground organization that only has inflaming statements available. Otherwise the opinions of the house in here are nothing more or less than WP:Point and WP:BATTLE.--76.168.108.240 (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that majority of "disagreements" here falls under WP:IDONTLIKEIT from unregistered Estonian users (isn't tracert a little wonder), who are aggrived by abrasive tone of House's statement. Regarding request for more sources, we got a problem here, as I don't read Estonian too well (I can generally follow a simple article, but can't write and, therefore, use Search) and IP editors (who seem to possess exceptional proficiency in WP lingo, isn't it a little wonder for occasional user?) are not satisfied with half-dozen sources already provided (including Russian edition of Postimees). And internal politics of Estonia seems to attract preciously little attention from Anglophone media, if event can not be used to bash Russia. BTW, "House" is headed by Rafik Grigorian, who's hardly "marginal anti-Estonian extremist". I have a suggestion, though. Why don't you guys go do your homework with regard to this organization, it's membership and influence and come back once you have more solid grounds than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? I did and provided enough sources regarding organization. Then we can discuss this issue again. Otherwise, there's always page protection from IP editors.... RJ CG (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that majority of disagreements here are coming from people who hadn't even heard about this "House" before you introduced their report here, although they live in the country where all this "representing" should been taken place, and they can (at least) read the languages this "representing" should been taken care of. Hence the suprise and questions - honestly, these three (and not half a dozen) articles you provided seem to be all that one can find about the existance of this organization. I already told you that I personally wouldn't complain if this report had been compiled and signed by their chairman (who is well-respected Russophone intellectual) - making it fully acceptable opinion, coming from prominent person. However, this report claims to be from House of Representatives of Ethnic Minorities of Estonia, representing nearly 200 minority organizations - and only thing we reaaly seem to know about this organization, is the name of their chairman (albeit it's quite prominent). 194.126.101.134 (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. Why on Earth do you think that somebody editing unregistered might be trying to hide their orign? Have you considered that in reality it's way harder to track registered account's orign, as you can't see their IP-s (unless you happen to be some admin's buddy or sockpuppet account) and you don't have anything to feed to your precious tracert (actually, tools full name is traceroute, it's tracert only in one specific OS, and in reality there couple of tools that can do this job more quickly and accuratly)? Yes, I'm from Estonia, have never denied it. Editing unregistered is my right, as long I'm not disruptive. Your calls to protect some pages from IP-editors, because they are asking from you to provide (more) sources for your claims, is showing really bad faith against your fellow editors. 194.126.101.134 (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

PPS. Re to your "suggestion to do our homework" - I see that long wikibreak has not been good to your memory, so I have to remind you of WP:PROVEIT. Yes, I happen to know these WP-prefixed shortcuts. And no, there's nothing sinister about it. Really. 194.126.101.134 (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In other news, the organization is registered as non profit org in Estonia. In the late 2007. The legal status of organization is still under a serious doubt because you can't actually represent a group of people without correct authorizations from the actual people they are representing. The group definitely doesn't have those and thus they actually don't have any legal right to call themselves the Representatives. I am waiting for the reply from some authorities in this matter. Suva Чего? 06:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You RJ CG got it exactly right: WP:IDONTLIKEIT because it violates WP:NPOV, you should know that there are much more prominent minority organizations in Estonia, the one mentioned above you chose to ignore that don't see the things the way this organization WP:YOULIKE has been presenting. I mean, making a connection between "citizenship and basic human rights" speaks for itself. There has been no splitting of society into citizens and residents denied citizenship ; every Soviet immigrant who wanted has got the Estonian citizenship according to the laws of Estonia. Who didn't want it got Russian citizenship according to the laws of Russia. The idea that "non-citizens" should be defined anywhere as an "ethnic minority" also is an interesting take. Since when any citizenship, in this case non-citizenship defines someone’s ethnicity? Unless of course somebody somewhere defines him/her as ethnically Soviet, that could be the only explanation for this POV. Unfortunately for ethnically soviets there is no such a place any more. So in case they'd like to exercise their understanding of human rights, they better apply for either Estonian or Russian citizenship. Whatever the decision is going to be, it’s not going to be solved on WP and once more I personally indeed WP:IDONTLIKEIT that such personal matters like choosing a citizenship are brought to an encyclopedia. Unless of course you’d like to rewrite the section according to the facts what established minority organizations in Estonia think about the issues as well and bring the section into compliance with WP:NPOV , I wouldn’t mind having this interesting take on the issues listed as one of many over here.--76.168.108.240 (talk) 06:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Rename

the current title "Russians in Estonia" is too abstract, it could mean anything like an American in Paris. Since there is a clear pattern how such articles are named in WP such as Baltic Germans, Baltic Russians, Estonian Swedes etc, this article should be named accordingly and according to the content Estonian Russians that also gives 110 returns at google books and 130 at google scholar.--Termer (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There is, and can be, no clear pattern. This is WP:ENGVAR; the branches of English differ. African Americans are of African descent and live in the United States; but Baltic Germans live (or lived) in the Baltic countries and are of German descent, exactly the other way around. Probably better to be clear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was interesting but how it relates to the question remained unclear. First of all, can we agree on that 'Baltic Germans' are 'Germans' and 'African Americans' are 'Americas'? If that is so, how would that relate to 'Americans in Africa' or 'Germans in Baltic' that the question here is all about? I mean, not all 'Americans in Africa' are 'African Americans' and not all 'Germans in Baltic' are or have been 'Baltic Germans'. Since this article is not talking about lets say 'Russian (tourists) in Estonia' but about 'Russians of Estonia', it would make sense to call it Estonian Russians like there is an article Estonian Swedes or Baltic Russians and Baltic Germans etc.--Termer (talk) 06:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. And surely it is possible to find other not really related exceptions to the "pattern". For example they call Finnish Swedes these days Swedish-speaking Finns instead.--Termer (talk) 06:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose move to new title would make it less clear, which would be worse. Estonian Russians or Russian Estonian... Estonians who are Russian or Russians who are Estonian? What about Estonian nationals of Russian descent instead? Or Estonian nationals of Estonian traditional Russian ethnicity 70.55.200.131 (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I think it's worse; the article mentions "approximately 27% hold Russian citizenship, 35% hold Estonian citizenship, and 35% continue to have undefined citizenship". The article is not about "Estonian Citizens of Russian descent", as would be implied by Russian Estonians or Estonian Russians. I interpret it as being about "Ethnic Russians who currently live in Estonia". "Russians in Estonia" seems a reasonable shorthand for that. --Rogerb67 (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Non of this makes sense since the 27%-35%-35% you're talking about are Russophones , not Russians of or in Estonia. I mean the Irish are Anglophones, it doesn't mean that they are English people. The article should be fixed up in that respect. In case the suggestion to rename the article to current redirect Estonian Russians is not getting supported, the article is going to need a new title anyway, either "Russians of Estonia" or whatever other than ambiguous "Russians in Estonia".--Termer (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I was merely quoting the article; it calls them "Ethnic Russians". I'm aware that Russian-speaking is different to Ethnic Russian, and don't need educating on this point; if the article is wrong, please correct it. --Rogerb67 (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded like lecturing, the text that you were merely quoting has a citation needed tag attached to it. Therefore I simply missed the reason why would anybody rely on the text in the first place. The article is messy in many respects and needs a lot of work. But first it would need a title that would make sense and then can the content be adjusted accordingly. Currently I just don't know what the article wants to be all about. Either about the Estonian Russophones in general that would include the ethnic Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, some Jewish people etc. all kinds of nationalities that migrated to Estonia during the Soviet era. Or is it about the ethnic Russians of Estonia like the title kind of suggests? And no wonder that the facts jump in between the ethnic Russians and the total of Russophones that just requires citation needed tags to find out what exactly is the text and the article in general talking about.--Termer (talk) 06:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The tag was placed after "Estonian Statistical Office", indicating it was that organisation that is somehow in doubt, rather than the statistic they are said to have produced (which may have been generally accepted as fact or close to fact by all parties). If a statement is so obviously and dangerously incorrect as to cause that kind of a reaction in a debate on a talk page, it should be corrected, removed or tagged by placing {{dubious}} after the statement, while the issue is resolved. However I accept your assertion that the article is messy and that significant parts of it cannot be relied upon at all and withdraw my vote on that basis. --Rogerb67 (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's bit hard to imagine that the existence of "Estonian Statistical Office" could be put into question, every country has one and a simple google search directs you right to it.[2] Therefore it seems obvious that the facts that follow have been questioned. I'll check it out as soon as I can what's the real deal with the percentages. it seems the most detailed and recent data is available over there at the Population Census [3]--Termer (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The name was red-linked; it might very well have been incorrect, and the organisation called something such as Census Office of the Republic of Estonia. Presumably the name is in the Estonian language, and there may have been disagreement about its translation. There was no reason to doubt that interpretation. Do I understand correctly that you are saying, in order to interpret this article correctly, I must look for tags in the vague location of the content I am interested in, then do a Google search in order to try and infer which tag should have been used, and where it should have been placed? And without doing so, any comments I make here may justifiably be criticised on that basis? This seems to set the bar of participation very high for content that is supposed to be "accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible", in a discussion about a title that is supposed to reflect "What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?", and thus reasonably open to any interested editor for comment. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You almost sound like I've offended you somehow. Sorry since it wasn't my intention. I don't think it's reasonable to go on and argue about how exactly interpret the tags in the text. I understood it one way, you another, lest call it a misunderstaning and leave it with that. The only question important at the moment is would 'Estonian Russians' or 'Russians of Estonia' make more sense as a title than 'Russians in Estonia'? And once the title makes sense we can go on and make sense of the content in the article.--Termer (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave it as a misunderstanding. For what it's worth, I think this is the wrong way to go about it; I would suggest, first agree what the article should be about, then choosing a name for it should become much easier. Personally, I think that "ethnic Russians who live in Estonia" and "Russian speakers who live in Estonia" are both encyclopaedic topics; since there must be considerable overlap, and apparently considerable confusion regarding this, both might reasonably be treated in the same article, suitably clear and organised. Otherwise, a split might be in order, provided this does not become a de facto POV split. I certainly don't feel qualified to contribute further to what appears to be a content dispute that has spilled over into a move request. I wish you every success in sorting this out. --Rogerb67 (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Now when you say it: Russian speakers who live in Estonia would be even more ambiguous since the most of ethnic Estonians are bilingual and speak Russian as their second language.--Termer (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Those were not proposals for the names of articles; they were descriptions by a lay person of his understanding of the possible subjects for this article. I no longer have any opinion on what this article should be called, and will not as long as there appears to be a dispute about its subject. --Rogerb67 (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Dispute? Sorry but I must be missing something, what exactly did you have in mind by saying that there appears to be a dispute about the subject?--Termer (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps dispute was the wrong word to choose given its technical meaning on Wikipedia; I meant it in the sense of a lack of common agreement; you yourself said above "Currently I just don't know what the article wants to be all about." What I meant by my above comment was, as long as there appears to be some question over what this article is about, I will not have an opinion on what it should be called. --Rogerb67 (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So much is clear I think what it should be about: Like Baltic Russians or Estonian Swedes it should be about "Russians of Estonia", not "Russians in Estonia" that can refer to anything not related. I think Hexagon1 below has spelled it out better than me.--Termer (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support, logical, consistent (in the Baltic Germans vein) and largely unambiguous. 'Estonian Russians' makes no claims of citizenship or nationality so the statistics quoted above are irrelevant. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. The corresponding article for Latvia, for which I pretty much rewrote from scratch the entire Russian empire period, is History of Russians in Latvia. I think History of Russians in Estonia would be more descriptive and useful. It also makes the title descriptive as opposed to being a label. —PētersV (talk) 04:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I think Pēters has a very good suggestion. Oth (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)