Talk:Human rights in Estonia

Article structure

I am afraid the article structure is wrong. Nowhere I have seen an encyclopedia article is sectioned by writers on subject. A normal way is to section by topics, i.e., by particular human rights. Also, history section and possibly something like "Current status" would be nice. Mukadderat (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

International Federation of Human Rights and a report during the Bronze night

International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) have given only a one, short report [1], and that happened during the Bronze night. The paper expressed "a concern about the human right violations perpetrated both by demonstrators and police during riot". What does it mean? Was it a full report (as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and/or Human Right Report of United States Department of State)? No. Notice: FIDH released 72 human rights violations reports of Russia [2], but of course this does not have anything to do with the article. Shame on me! Peltimikko (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Exact quote: "Their also call upon the Estonian authorities to put an end to any practice of discrimination against the Russian-speaking minority, which constitutes about 30% of the Estonian population, and to conform in any circumstances with the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination. More generally, FIDH and LHRC ask Estonian and Russian authorities to avoid any action which would aggravate the violence."

This is relevant and should not be removed. We are not here to engange in WP:OR to speculate what it means. Notice: human rights violations in Russia goes to Human rights in Russia. Offliner (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip! I forgot the Freedom House and luckily pick it from the article "Human rights in Russia". I especially liked the "Map of Freedom in the World" [3] Peltimikko (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Some sources

Just collecting some sources for the article. -- Sander Säde 18:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Estonian minister: Amnesty International citing false allegations
• Rejoinder to James Hughes
• Amnesty takes on Estonia (full)

Some more sources

• “Estonia has an apartheid regime”
• "Amnesty International Calls on Estonia to Stop Discrimination against Russian-Speakers"
• UN reports on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in Estonia

(Igny (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

I really don't think Bäckman quoted on Russian state media constitutes reputable charges of "apartheid". The others reports can be treated appropriately. PetersV       TALK 01:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Amnesty International and the big picture

I think the most of the editors have got wrong the role of the Amnesty International. The Russian side think it gives a big picture of the situation in Estonia, and on the other hand, the Estonian side critise that Amnesty International have taken a part of the Kremlin propaganda. Amnesty International do not make balanced, fullcovered reports of the human rights situation in a country, unlike Freedom House, Human Rights Watch or Human Right Report of United States Department of State. It just reports particular human rights violations without "big picture". For example Amnesty International have reported several violations in Finland [4]: (1) Violence against women and girls, (2) Returnings of refugees and asylum-seekers, (3) Finland has prisoners of conscience; conscientious objectors to military service. So, a person who would made conclusions by reading this report only, would think Finns are beating women and girls, people are racists and the country has political prisoners. Sounds like a dictatorship! Peltimikko (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"The Russian side" is not the Russian side, it is a Russian side. There is no such thing as the Russian side. Colchicum (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fair to take that as "official Russian position" and those which agree with/defend it. It's certainly not mass hysteria/mass delusion on the part of all Russians. I can't say I've met one yet that does agree with the "official Russian position." Of course, they are all Russians who have left Russia. And not to mean there aren't plenty of Russians in Russia who disagree with the official position—but will now find it more difficult to disagree publicly based on pending legislation. PetersV       TALK 03:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK

Is the article stable enough to DYK it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Opinion sought

Please voice your opinion in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_11#Category:Resigned_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union_members. If you agree with keeping it, please help populate it. I find it ridiculous to have people like Jüri Kukk listed simply in Category:Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union_members. - Altenmann >t 00:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see a similar vote Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_7#Category:Members_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union_executed_by_the_Soviet_Union - Altenmann >t 07:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Bronze night

I am not sure if there is some confusion about nomenclature: is "Bronze Night incident" the same thing as "Bronze soldier incident"? If so, the relevant para in the article should be tidied up. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted and it's fixed now. --Martintg (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised it made DYK, as the article is work in progress. --Martintg (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Employment issues

Should not employment issues be in an article like Estonian labour relations or something similar, rather than an article on human rights? --Martintg (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Whenever an issue of discrimination is raised, it belongs here. (Igny (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

Indeed. Offliner (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Only if you have found a source claiming that there is a right not to be discriminated. But there is no such right of course. An employer has a right to decide to employ somebody or not, and if he wouldn't like to employ Russians/communists/lesbians/vegetarians/wikipedians/atheists/smoking people/people unfit for the job or whoever, well, it is his business and his right. Colchicum (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That is the statements like this make me wish that we had Wikipedia by children and for children, similarly to Simple English Wikipedia. (Igny (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

Yeah, unfortunately for you guys in this Wikipedia there are rules such as WP:V and WP:NOR. You cannot stuff the article with whatever you wish. First you absolutely have to show that the issues of discrimination are considered in reliable sources as human rights issues. Colchicum (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Now I am confused. Didn't you argue here that the discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia has to be merged here? Are you saying now that the discrimination has nothing to do with the human rights? Do we need to recreate the article on the discrimination? (Igny (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

I argued that the salvageable material from the discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia had to be merged here. Some forms of discrimination (discrimination by the state) obviously have something to do with human rights, some others (discrimination by private employers) don't. Colchicum (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Article 23 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:

• Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
• Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
• Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
• Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Please, Colchicum, do some googling or use common sense before claiming that "job discrimination is not covered by human rights." Offliner (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I am familiar with this. There is a dilemma: private employers have the right not to employ you, too, for whatever reason they deem reasonable. Nowhere does the declaration say that you have the right to work wherever you wish without the consent of the employer. It merely requires that no person be forbidden to work. To the best of my knowledge, nothing like that happens in Estonia. And only die-hard communists may know what the fuck "equal work" means objectively. Colchicum (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not equal work, it is rather equal opportunity to get the available job. As soon as the employer makes the hiring decision based on property X of an individual, that means unequal opportunity with regard to this property (language, race, gender, or just physical shape). In part, this article addresses the unequal opportunities (aka discrimination) for the Russian minority. It does not discuss any other discrimination but by the language. (Igny (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

Is Colchicum trolling? Read Amnesty's report:

• "Article 1 of the ILO’s Convention concerning Employment Policy states that "[w]ith a view to stimulating economic growth and development, raising levels of living, meeting manpower requirements and overcoming unemployment and underemployment, each Member shall declare and pursue, as a major goal, an active policy designed to promote full, productive and freely chosen employment…[…]…The said policy shall aim at ensuring that…[…]… there is freedom of choice of employment and the fullest possible opportunity for each worker to qualify for, and to use his skills and endowments in, a job for which he is well suited, irrespective of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin"(94).
• "The principle of non-discrimination is a well-established norm within international law. This principle extends to all spheres of life, including the right to work. In addition, Article 2 of the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Convention concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation states specifically that "each member for which this Convention is in force undertakes to declare and pursue a national policy designed to promote, by methods appropriate to national conditions and practice, equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of employment and occupation, with a view to eliminating any discrimination in respect thereof."(89)" Offliner (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Offliner, do notice that there is no mention of language skills, which often are a basic requirement for a position. If someone wants to be a doctor and cannot communicate with his/her patients, do you think it is a discrimination if s/he is fired? -- Sander Säde 19:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you read Amnesty's report as I requested?

• "In many parts of Estonia, notably the north-eastern region of Ida-Virumaa, Estonian is not spoken by the majority of those residing in the region. This means that Estonian language skills are de factonot necessarily needed in all professions. The result is that although many persons belonging to the Russian-speaking linguistic minority would be able to carry out several functions in the labour market without endangering public safety or order, they find themselves unemployed with no or limited realistic opportunities to gain legal employment in the formal sector as they do not have the appropriate Estonian language certificate. Many persons belonging to the Russian-speaking linguistic minority thus find themselves working in the informal sector; performing low-skilled labour in the formal employment sector; or being unemployed." Offliner (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We all know Amnesty's view. Thanks for pointing out that the ILO excludes lack of language skill as a form of discrimination. --Martintg (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Amnesty's report is already in the article. Thanks for pointing out the other relevant notions of the national extraction and social origin. (Igny (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

(od) All, we need to be clear on what is officially reported by the government in relation to human rights (or Estonian statistics reported through other agencies) versus what are allegations of discrimination. In this case, this would be "Allegations of job discrimination" as a section/sub-section. The Estonian constitution and work laws are quite clear on the right to work. PetersV       TALK 18:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Vecrumba, I really do not understand why you mix up POV of the Estonian government with truth? Why do you imply that everybody who says something different to "officially reported by the government" deserves doubt? Has the "official" Estonian POV been "officially verified" as "trith" by Wikipedia already?FeelSunny (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD)

I think we need a subsection to United Nations Human Rights Council to mention this committee (see [5]). In its 2006 report regarding Estonia, they acknowledged the positive aspects of the situation with human rights, but they raised a number of concerns ([6]).

Given that reports of CERD haven't been covered in the media to the degree that Amnesty International's reports have, I don't think it is sufficiently notable and thus would be given undue coverage. A quick scan of the UNHCR site shows:

• 3125 reports concerning the UK
• 2585 reports concerning the Russian Federation
• 2032 reports concerning the USA
• 1163 reports concerning Australia
• 1114 reports concerning France
• 346 reports concerning Estonia

So Estonia is hardly a hot spot in the view of CERD. --Martintg (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So it is a yes then. (Igny (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

No, I think it would be bordering on OR, as there is no context in which to discuss this primary source. In contrast the Amnesty report was widely discussed by third parties, hence there are plenty of secondary sources. --Martintg (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

How can it be OR if I got a source? (Igny (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

It is OR if you make interpretive claims from the sources. What I am saying is that the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is not that notable when compared to AI or the US State Department. The self published report, which just offers procedural recommendations, doesn't really add anything that is not already mentioned in the article. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of facts. --Martintg (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Igny, a source? pr WP:RS there is a difference between primary and secondary sources, and pr WP:OR 'Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims'--Termer (talk) 02:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The very first statement in this article

Human rights in Estonia are generally respected by the government.

cites this and this primary sources. Isn't it OR according to you? Care to find the secondary source? (Igny (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

These are secondary sources. Human rights in Estonia are generally respected by the government is what is literally said in the latter and not our own original interpretation. Colchicum (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

They are as secondary as this concluding report] by CERD. (Igny (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

For what statement is the report a secondary source? There is no such thing as a secondary source in general, it can oly be a source of a certain statement. Colchicum (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

So it is ok for me to cite the CERD report? That was what I was trying to figure out from the beginning. (Igny (talk) 18:56, 17

June 2009 (UTC))

Those are all primary sources, including the ones pointed out by Igny. There are plenty of secondary third-party, published sources out there. Just type "human rights Estonia" into google books or google scholar.
So I'd urge to use published secondary sources to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH concerns.

PS. for some reason the controversial aspect of the ‎subject is getting removed from the lead section. It's clearly spelled out by Cliohres publication: Immigration and emigration in historical perspective that Human Rights questions in Estonia are used for political axe grinding. Just underlining that such controversial aspects need to be spelled out in the article lead pr. WP:LEAD.--Termer (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Here we go. Same thing about discrimination in Estonia. (Igny (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

For example one of the articles here cites the CERD report quite heavily.

Soon after achieving independence, Estonia invoked very restrictive citizenship

laws that effectively excluded most of the Russian-speaking population. Specifically, these laws require evidence of pre-World War II historical roots in Estonia in order to obtain Estonian citizenship, even for residents born on the territory or having lived there for several decades. Initially, according to the Aliens Act (1993, section 6(1)), application for citizenship required passing a language exam and demonstrating suf- ficient knowledge of Estonian history.68 Far from ‘protecting’ minorities, as demanded, these citizenship policies were designed to punisha certain minority group: the Russian-speaking population that arrived after World War II. While resi- dent non-citizens are allowed to vote in local elections, this citizenship policy denied a large portion of the Russian-speaking community an ability to stand for high- office, to vote in national elections, and has adversely affected the group’s educa- tional and occupational opportunities.69These policies were criticized directly by the EU and other Euro-Atlantic Structures but, far from reversing its policies, the gov- ernment defended its position as in-line with European norms, citing the example of Turks in Germany.70In fact, as one Estonian participant at a 1998 seminar suggested, it was then easier for a Russian resident to gain citizenship in Estonia than for a Turkish migrant worker in Germany to get a German passport.71 Further, the Estonian government has signed and ratified the European Framework Convention 2001 and 2002 Regular Report on Slovakia’s Progress Towards Accession; for the Protection of National Minorities, but is not in breach legally because it sim- ply does not include its Russian minority as a ‘National Minority’, despite the fact that Russians account for almost 30 percent of the population. The Estonian govern- ment has gone out of its way to both acknowledge that minority rights will be restricted to those with citizenship, and to justify this practice by citing multiple precedents in international and especially EU law and practice. The government stated, in reference to its Declaration accompanying ratification of the Framework Convention that, “there are many and persuasive examples of limiting minority

rights to citizens”.

And this is an opinion of a PhD student at the University of Maryland? Surely Wikipedia can do better than that, for example already mentioned Cliohres, the European Network of Excellence organized by a group of 45 universities has a lot to say about the subject. Other than that, the most of "discrimination in Estonia" google scholar returns are about 'anti-discrimination and equal pay provisions into Estonia's labor laws' and about 'the alleged discrimination' etc.--Termer (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

PS.The PhD student's work doesn't need much comments. statements like citizenship laws that effectively excluded most of the Russian-speaking population and does not include its Russian minority as a ‘National Minority’ are completely ridiculous. The facts are Between 1992 and 2007 about 147.000 people acquired Estonian citizenship bringing down the proportion of stateless residents from 32% to about 8 percent , see :Freedom in the World: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties, p. 248. and a ‘National Minority’ in Estonia are any citizens of Estonia belonging to an ethnic minority greater than 3000 people. [7] Considering that only between 1992 and 2007 about 147.000 Russians became Estonian citizens and comparing this with required 3000 people, a claim by the PhD student about does not include its Russian minority as a ‘National Minority’ is a bad joke at best.--Termer (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not an opinion, this is an analysis. This paper did not strike me as written unprofessionally, and the author seems to be well educated. Besides, International Journal on Minority and Group Rights is a peer-reviewed journal. Besides, the paper's statements are well in sync with the CERD. But I understand that you want to discredit this particular information by any means possible. (Igny (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

• This paper presented by Igny makes a distinction between minority rights and human rights. Also the paper mostly discusses citizenship, so it's not really applicable here. --Martintg (talk) 05:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Do not make me laugh. Anything what concerns anyone's rights surely concerns human's rights, unless you think the minorities are not humans. Stateless people in Estonia is one of the human right issues so it belongs here.(Igny (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

I'm getting a Déjà vu, there was User:RJ_CG who consistently loved to make a connection between "citizenship and basic human rights" in Estonia. I don't mind repeating the question: 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" speaks for itself. 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. Just that why to bring such personal matters like choosing a citizenship to Wikipedia?--Termer (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue of statelessness is a personal issue. There is no barrier in law to obtaining either Russian or Estonian citizenship. --Martintg (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• I object to Igny's continual insertion of material despite concerns of WP:UNDUE, WP:OR and Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information expressed here. He seems to be engaging in WP:IDONTHEARYOU and ignores our concerns here and dismisses them as frivolous in his edit comments. --Martintg (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Your objection is noted.

I am not talking about citizenship per se, I am talking about discrimination and marginalization of the Russian-speaking minority in Estonia, a well established phenomenon with many sources to confirm and support. Just Google for sources. The CERD report was the first in many sources which I found, and I am trying to add this reputable source here to counterweight the opinion that UN thinks Estonia has no problems with human rights. Somehow there is not problem with alien residents in USA for example, where Spanish became a second language in several states, and where there is not discrimination of minorities by language skills. I just was in Glendale CA for example, where the standard cable TV had about 30 channels and there were 10 Spanish and 5 Armenian channels there. Why can't Estonia fix this problem the same way? (Igny (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

I read the publication by Cliohres that says alleged discrimination of the Russian minority in Estonia is conducted by Kremlin in order to take advantage of the Russians living in Estonia and keep Estonia under the sphere of influence of Russia.--Termer (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry but this is getting too far out the standard cable TV had about 30 channels and there were 10 Spanish and 5 Armenian channels there. Why can't Estonia fix this problem the same way. Are you suggesting that English speakers in the US make Spanish and Armenian channels there..? Or the state of California does or maybe even the federal government? And Estonian speakers in Estonia and Estonian government should do the same for the Russian speakers in Estonia? Again, why such issues on WP talk pages? Please stop!--Termer (talk) 06:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought that as soon as Estonia became a member of EU, that Russian influence myth died painfully. Now all the discrimination issues in Estonia became EU problems. (Igny (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

Again, in case Russian was to become an official language in Estonia, it would become an official language of the EU, meaning everything would need to be translated into Russian in the EU. Therefore sorry for the EU that discriminates people who'd love to speak Russian only everywhere. But how exactly is that EU problem?--Termer (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It is EU problem because of the EU laws explicitly prohibiting discrimination. It is bad for EU's international image as it is now being accused of having double standards. Oh wait. I finally got it. Estonia apparently discriminates the Russian minority to help EU to save a bit of money on translators. This is a financial crisis after all. (Igny (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

No, the EU simply considers it not discrimination that foreigners need to learn the language of the country they live in.--Termer (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Then why did EU find it important for the accession conditions? Example: here. (Igny (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

• Igny, are you here to build an encyclopedia or to use it as a WP:SOAPBOX to promote your particular Russian nationalist viewpoint? --Martintg (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop with personal attacks please. Also I wish you could stop being hypocritical, but that is probably hard for you. (Igny (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

Hypocrisy is claiming that the need to lean Estonian language in Estonia is discrimination.--Termer (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In this case the hypocrisy is to accuse other people for not having a virtue which Martin himself does not possess. Notice that I am not actually accusing Martin of being a nationalist POV pusher, because that would be too naive for me to hope that he acknowledges the fact and changes his ways. (Igny (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

"Hypocrisy is claiming that the need to lean Estonian language in Estonia is discrimination." - no, you are absolutely wrong. Nobody should be forced or "put in need" to learn a language by any government aspiring to become democratic, or forced to stop communicating in his own language in any sphere of life. Check European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages - http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/html/148.htm - The Parties undertake to eliminate, if they have not yet done so, any unjustified distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference relating to the use of a regional or minority language and intended to discourage or endanger the maintenance or development of it. FeelSunny (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

another source

here by Hughes. (Igny (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

Who is this James Hughes? Same as this guy? Peltimikko (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that's the American James Hughes. The British James Hughes is here. He has published some interesting papers about the Chechen conflict, in his paper The Chechnya conflict: freedom fighters or terrorists? he argues the Chechens were freedom fighters forced into committing terrorist acts by Russia's disproportionate brutality during the Chenchen war. --Martintg (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Opinions of the "foundation" of Natalia Narochnitskaya and moscow-based "institution"

Yet another "institution" have found itself to an article. First there was Johan Beckman Institute who promoted, well, Johan Bäckman, and then we found the pro-Kremlin San Fransisco professor Vladimir Belaeff, whose institution the Global Society Institute was a website and a rented mailbox [8]. Now, there pro-Krelmin insititution Historical Perspective Foundation ran by (president) Natalia Narochnitskaya. By google-search her only foundation is located in opinions&analysis in RIA Novosti or in Voice of Russia. Not very reliable source indeed. And secondly this other source: Institute for Democracy and Cooperation (moscow-based) - see the website and think. According to Chicago Tribune [9] some sort of pro-Kremlin academic think tank. Peltimikko (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a reliable source per WP:RS. The study may or may not be biased (I need to investigate this further; or maybe we should wait until the book comes out to get a better view of their evidence), but I want to point out that there are a lot of "biased" institutions out there, starting from the US-government funded Jamestown Foundation, Hoover Institute, etc. Government sponsoring does not make an institute an unreliable source. We regularly use reports from institutes whose publicly stated mission is to "advance the interests of the US abroad" in WP. Offliner (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about so-called "foundation" anywhere, no real webpage, no information about it's members or staff, no information about it's funding, impossible to find the original of that same "study" (is it even published? where?), nothing. Not even close to WP:RS. Põhja Konn (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

http://fiip.ru/ - official "real webpage" of the Historical Perspective Foundation. [10] - about the Foundation. [11] - here "information about it's members or staff". Natalia Narochnitskaya - WP page of NN. http://www.narochnitskaia.ru/ - her personal portal in 4 languages, including English. It is really regrettable that Peltimikko, and Põhja Konn in their "not reliable" are not reliable.FeelSunny (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The Economist

...is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. This "many contend" business is not a sufficient reason to remove it as a source. Who are these "many"? Where? How? If there is a problem with the source the proper place to bring it up on is the reliable sources noticeboard.radek (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a reliable source, but it is nowhere near as credible and respected in human rights issues as international human rights organizations are. Offliner (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

By who's measure is it "no where near as credible"? The Economist is an international publication covering international affairs, and is certainly qualified to discuss and criticize Amnesty International as an international organisation. --Martintg (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"international human rights organizations" are primary sources in the context, Wikipedia however needs to be based on reliable secondary sources. Please see WP:PSTS Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
The Economist however is a secondary source that in this case contradicts what do the primary sources claim. Considering that the whole human rights issue, discrimination against Russian speakers in Estonia is orchestrated by Kremlin, the case that is made clear by the study group of the 45 European Universities Cliohres publications [12], it should be pretty obvious to everybody what exactly is going on in here.--Termer (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Wording tweak

This edit introduced misleading wording in the lead. The source does not say that 17% is "little"; the word "only" just refers to the difference between the two figures. I also do not like the first sentence in "job discrimination". It says "A number Russian activists continue to allege..." But now we have very clear statistics of this, so we shouldn't use such wording (it's not just activists who say there is discrimination, and it's not "an allegation".) I've never heard survey results being characterized as "allegations." I have changed these two wordings. Offliner (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletionism

It would be helpful to discuss first and not interact merely through edit commentaries, especially when removing content, regardless of how long something might be tagged for further citations or links, etc. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

POV edits

I've reverted edits by User:FeelSunny as they introduce some POV problems to an otherwise balanced article. Please gain consensus first here on talk. --Nug (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nug. Unfortunately, it looks like you reverted indiscriminately all of my recent edits in the article, including working links, tables with sourced data, quotes. You say these edits "introduce some POV problems to an otherwise balanced article". Could you please explain what exactly are these problems, for each of the following edits? Otherwise, your actions may amount to the Disruptive editing, and in many cases may be breaking core WP policies, like NPOV editing, weasel words, verifiability, and others. Edits in question:

1. [13] - I repaired the link to the UN that was previously broken, cited the UN document. You reverted the edit, deleting the working link to the UN document and all verbatims.
2. [14] - I deleted the unsourced phrase from 1993, directly contradicting to the sourced info from 2008. You reverted the edit, reinserting the unsourced information, and adding a contradiction to the sourced, more recent data.
3. [15] - I removed weasel words like "as usual", and cited the report in question, providing links. You reverted the edit, reinserting weasel words and deleting the links I added.
4. [16] - I added links to the work in question by the US sociologist, and cited the work. You reverted the edit, deleting the link and the verbatims.
5. [17] - I removed the charged word "alleged" per WP:Alleged, "Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused is used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.". I changed the charged wording like "believed" to POV-free "said" or "characterized". You reverted the edit, reinserting the implication of the poll's inaccuracy.
6. [18] - I inserted two sourced tables containing data directly relating to the section. You reverted the edit, deleting both tables.
7. [19] - I moved Roma issues and the Bronze night part to the end of the section for consistency. The first part was describing about polls of Russophones, the third - job discrimination of Russophones, and the second Roma part in between was adding inconsistency to the article. You reverted the edit, reinstating inconsistency.
8. [20] - I changed the wording in the introduction to more NPOV, to reflect the fact that some international organizations raised some concerns regarding the HRinE. You reverted the edit, to a more POVed version (promoting the POV of the US Dept of State).
9. [21] - I took US Dept of State to the last place in the "Human Rights organizations", because it is not a human rights organization (probably, I should have moved it to the "other organizations" section). You reverted the edit, moving the US Dept of State to the prominent position among human rights organizations again.

Thanks, FeelSunny (talk) 11:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Your very first justification "1. [22] - I repaired the link to the UN that was previously broken, cited the UN document. You reverted the edit, deleting the working link to the UN document and all verbatims." is misleading. No, you added a sentence that incorporate particular terms that appear to have been cherry picked from a document and given prominence as the lead sentence of a section which suggests there is an element of tendentiousness to your edits. Most of your other edits were of the same vein, so it was simpler to just revert. Please be mindful of issues of WP:ADVOCACY and please adhere to Wikipedia policies. Thank you. --Nug (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nug. Your accusations of "cherry-picking" are inaccurate. Probably, you have not read the source itself. Here it is: 1. Had you check it/ read it more carefully, you would have noticed that the quote I gave in the article is from the finding #5 in the report, and it is the first finding in the report describing the Rapporteur's views on the existence of discrimination in Estonia (see the section "Analysis and assessment by Special Rapporteur", page 19). Other findings are (I note them all here, in the same order): 1. There is will to fight racism and discrimination in Estonia; 2. Tolerance must be strengthened; 3. The SR is particularly impressed by a roundtable; 4. Government and minorities have different views, minorities say "they regularly encounter discriminatory practices that directly affect their capacity to enjoy their human rights". 5. [...]"Special Rapporteur considers extremely credible the views of the representatives of the Russian-speaking minorities who expressed that the citizenship policy is discriminatory".[...] 6. Problem of statelessness; 7. Language policy is seen as problematic by minorities; 8. Bronze soldier; 9. There is a stigmatization and structural discrimination of the Roma community in Estonia (sic!); 10-12. - on Estonia within the EU.

The first and only conclusion where the SR talks about his assessment of the situation with discrimination of Russophone community directly, and says, yes, he strongly believes minorities are right when they say discrimination exists. You call it "cherry-picking".

Again, I want a consensus, and would be more than happy to include whatever else conclusions from the report you'd like to include in the article, to make the description more balanced. I just don't see any reasons to delete the source from the article altogether, including even a link. Thanks, FeelSunny (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll be happy to discuss very edit you talk about this tomorrow. Please could you explain by then why you did not restore a broken link I found - it took some time to do it, before you just deleted it.

In the meanwhile, Nug, could you please also give some explanations to the other reverts. I think you probably missed the point of my post above: you reverted a dozen of edits, and now please explain why you reverted each of them. You could have reverted each one you disliked separately, but this indiscriminate reverting means you dislike them all, so please explain reasons for every edit. FeelSunny (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Please try to understand that I really want some feedback, and I do not want to take the discussion out of this page. There are simple rules for reverting that demand to give an explanation: see Problems that may justify removal (most important source in this case), Explain reverts, Revert only when necessary, and What bold-revert-discuss is, and is not.

Your edit in question probably violated all of the policies above. It looks so, as you have not yet give a single explanation that goes in line with the "Problems that may justify removal" part. Instead, you decided to remove a bulk of sourced information you find inappropriate. Again, please explain your actions, for I want to resolve it in a civilized way. Thanks, FeelSunny (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

FeelSunny, you are yourself a Russophone adding contentious material about russophone discrimination, please read and understand WP:ADVOCACY, WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. The fact that you made misleadingly claims like "I repaired the link to the UN that was previously broken" (when you in fact added text) and "I removed weasel words like "as usual", and cited the report in question, providing links." (when in fact you added more text) and "I changed the wording in the introduction to more NPOV" (when in fact others have objected with the edit comment "tried to improve the new tendentious intro.") adds weight to this perception that you are engaging in advocacy. --Nug (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"you are yourself a Russophone" - Nug, I'm afraid I can hardly agree with you on this. The thing is, you seem to not understand the core policies of Wikipedia: first, you do not need to be impartial to edit here, you just need edit impartially: to give sourced facts on the subject. If you're a fan of a sports team, this does not ban you from editing an article about this team, as long as you support your input with sources. One more thing is, you are not at all sincere in your claim that me being a Russophone makes me biased: you clearly have much more interest in Estonia-related issues, than me, judging by articles you edit. I suppose you either live in Estonia, or feel yourself closely connected to the country. Note I do not think your interest/ love of the country somehow restricts your editor rights in articles on Estonia.

"you made misleadingly claims" - do you mean I lied, or was not making summaries in good faith? If so, please say it less vague. Because I believe I actually insert a new link, as I wrote. And I removed the weasel word "as usual" from the article, as I said. And I cited the report (for which you claim I "in fact added more text" - yes, "citing something" means inserting new text in the article).

So far, unfortunately, I have not seen an explanation from you describing what exactly made you remove a big bulk of sourced text from the article, including links to the sources, neutral wording in the place of words like "as usual" and "they believed", etc. No policy of Wikipedia, AFAIK, encourages editors to take away properly sourced information from neutral and reliable sources, when editors find it "introduces some POV problems to an otherwise balanced article".

I really ask you, before your next post, to think about what exactly prompted you to remove all my edits.

If you believe there were any violations of any WP policies from my side, that were so severe that the only way to resolve issues was to remove a dozen of edits, indiscriminately, then, please, name these policies and these violations and, please, quote places from policies that encourage deletion of sourced material.

If you find you were prompted by the perception of my edits as "hostile" to you and/ or Estonia, or "untrue", or "unbalanced", then, please, revert your edit where you deleted this information yourself. Consider instead correcting what parts of my edits you think are "undue" or do not go in line with the article.

To sum up: please either give exact quotes from policies, that encourage deletion of text, and cite what policies each of my edits violated, or revert your deletion yourself and instead correct my edits you find unbalanced. Thanks, FeelSunny (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Nug, could you please answer to my post above, and as well to the following three questions:

1. Are you a user previously known as User:Martintg, a member of the Eastern European Mailing List?
2. When you say, "others have objected" you give a link to one edit, made by User:Sander Säde. Is it the same Sander Säde who was another editor, part of the EEML?
3. If you are the same Martintg, and the second editor is the same Sander Säde, did you contact each other before coming to the article to remove my edits? Thanks. FeelSunny (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Nug, unless you (or S.Sade) name any rules that prompted you to delete all my edits, or at least some of them, I will consider you (and S.Sade) actually has no arguments pro deletion other than personal impression that my posts "add problems to the article" - which is not exactly a valid reason for removal.

I will have to revert your revert, unless I see answers to this question above: what exactly made you remove a big bulk of sourced text from the article, including links to the sources, neutral wording in the place of words like "as usual" and "they believed", etc. No policy of Wikipedia, AFAIK, encourages editors to take away properly sourced information from neutral and reliable sources, when editors find it "introduces some POV problems to an otherwise balanced article". I really dislike these revert games, but I will have to, to repair the damage to the article your edit caused.

Please explain for each edit you would rather have not returned in it's place. Thanks, FeelSunny (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've already explained my reasons, but it is apparent that WP:YOUDIDNTHEARTHAT. Note I have also removed another tendentious edit of yours, please do not turn articles into a WP:BATTLEGROUND in order to advance your POV. Thanks. --Nug (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Nug, I can not see a single quote of any rules that you took as a guide for removing my posts. Your WP:YOUDIDNTHEARTHAT breach claim is wrong, as this policy describes defying a consensus of users. So far you and I are the only users being involved in this discussion. I hoped to resolve it in a more easy way, but you just decided to ignore my request to explain why so many edits were just reverted. Probably the 3O could help. Thanks, FeelSunny (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (appropriateness of recent reversions):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Human rights in Estonia and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I'd like to preface my comments here by saying that both of you know a whole lot more about human rights in Estonia than I do, so I won't pretend to be able to know that edit #1 is correct, and edit #2 is POV-pushing, etc. Rather than discuss the details of the edits, I'd rather discuss how to get you two to discuss them amicably instead, since leveraging your combined knowledge on the subject would be far more valuable than trying to leverage my knowledge. I think you both have taken some good steps towards this end, but I also think you both need to be more compromising. Nug, please try to realize that FeelSunny put a lot of work into his improvements of the article, and to just mass revert them without a detailed explanation can cause frustration. And FeelSunny, accusing Nug of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry and off-site canvassing (without evidence) only serves to shut down the conversation. The article would be best served by a civil discussion about each edit, with the goal of coming to a compromise. Please try to refrain from discussing each other, your nationalities, your previous identities, and your off-wiki activity. Keep the conversation to the facts. If a statement is factually accurate, it should remain in the article. If not, it should either be removed or neutrally reworded. I will create a framework below to facilitate the discussion of each individual disputed edit. Nug, please start the conversation by briefly commenting in each subsection below about specifically why you object to the edit. If applicable, provide an alternative way of phrasing the content that would be acceptable to you. If anyone else from 3O would like to comment on this (particularly if you are more familiar with the subject), please feel free. ——SW— spout 22:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reverted mass revert of constructive edits. Nug, not feeling like taking your time to fix things is not an excuse to just revert everything. Discuss the problems or edit the specific problematic things. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 22:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems that FeelSunny does not even understand what is wrong with his edits. Compare [23] these two ledes. One is sourced and neutral - but FeelSunny's version starts off by insinuating that there is something wrong and international "human rights organizations and agencies" need to constantly discuss it. Many of the other edits are in the similar vein, as detailed by Nug above.

I don't see the need to discuss every single FeelSunny's edit, but the opposite - FeelSunny should describe what needs changing and why, giving sources and reasons. And then we can discuss those and incorporate the edits into the article, without compromising the integrity or the quality of the article, without edit warring or similar problems.

--Sander Säde 06:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

One of these lead sections begins with "Human rights in Estonia are generally respected by the government" with the attribution of this evaluation hidden in the reference. It is the opposite of neutrality - why should point of view of American diplomats be supported and why should it be in the very first sentence, while, for example, the point of view of Russian diplomats is not? The other lead section is not perfect, but on the background of the aforementioned it's better.Fuseau (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Fuseau, please do not reply into the middle of my post. Put it under like it is normal in Wikipedia. And I believe you can find the answer to your question below already. --Sander Säde 19:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Sander Säde. Firstly, could you please refrain from "even" word in phrases like "does not even understand what is wrong"; words like "insinuating". Let's keep it civil.

Second, could you please respond to the content of the Fuseau's comment, not just form? No, there's no explanation why we should promote a view of a government allied to Estonia, and violating human rights in Baltics, on human rights in Estonia. If you have some explanation, please contribute to the discussion.FeelSunny (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about each edit

Please discuss each edit in its own section. Limit discussion to the content only, not about the editors who wrote the content. The goal is to come to a compromise, so please be flexible, pick your battles, and be open to giving in on a few points. I have tried to briefly summarize each edit as neutrally as I could, and provide a diff. Once an agreement has been found for each edit, please take the appropriate action in the article. —SW— ^prattle 23:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit 1

• Added content: The 2008 United Nations Human Rights Council report called "extremely credible" the description of the citizenship policy of Estonia as "discriminatory". + ref
  • Saw no problems with this. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit 2

• Removed unsourced content: The 1993 United Nations Human Rights Council 48th Session's Mission on the situation of human rights in Estonia and Latvia found no evidence of discrimination along ethnic or religious grounds.
  • Saw no problems with this. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Removal changes the balance, given that the mission was identified then it wouldn't be a problem locating the mission's report that makes that assertion. --Nug (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
      • So what do we do? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
        • And in the next paragraph we have: The 2008 United Nations Human Rights Council report called "extremely credible" the description of the citizenship policy of Estonia as "discriminatory".[40] Probably we should either report the earlier 1993 mission "found no evidence" of discrimination, or that the latter 2008 mission found discrimination "extremely credible"?FeelSunny (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
          • The two reports discuss different things. The first report (I'll look for the reference and will provide a cite) discusses systematic or policy based discrimination, the second report is referring to the perceptions of the respondents. Both should remain in the article. --Nug (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
            • Please look for a working link and let's discuss.FeelSunny (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit 3

• Removed "As usual", added list of concerns named in the UN report.
  • Saw no problems with this. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit 4

• Reworded paragraph about James Hughes and Nils Muiznieks, kept existing sources.
  • Saw no problems with this; the edit clarified who the people are. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit 5

• Change section title to "Ethnic discrimination: polls", other minor rewording which doesn't substantially change the meaning of the sentences.
  • Saw no problems with this; clarifying edit (see also: WP:ALLEGED). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Given that proven ethnic discrimination is a breach of treaty obligations and thus international law, and thus fall under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, I think "allege" is entirely appropriate. --Nug (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Okay, I'm not really sure now. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Nug, so if respondents say discrimination exists we should report it like they lie, until the EU CHR decides so? We report a poll here, a poll where people "said" it exists, and there's no need to cast any doubt by saying they "alledged", or "supposed", "purported" it. We do not say it exists, we just report people in this poll "said" so. "Say" is a neutral word, not implicating disbelief, unlike "alledged", see the Wikipedia:ALLEGED#Expressions_of_doubt policy that I cited above, please. We should not cast any doubt on words of respondents, just because EU HRC did not confirm they are not lying.FeelSunny (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
          • No, stating that it is an allegation is not "reporting it like a lie", it simply means that it is unproven. Since ethnic discrimination is a breach of the law, if a respondent claimed they were discriminated against on the basis of ethnicity, it remains an allegation until proven by some judicial process. Note that the majority of respondents have not personally experienced discrimination even though they believe it exists, in other words their belief is on the basis of hearsay. --Nug (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• "it remains an allegation until proven by some judicial process". - As well as it remains an allegation after proven by some judicial process. If you don't believe me, check Oxford Dictionary of English: allegation - a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong.... And Oxford adds: "...typically one made without proof".

Nug, please, read the policy I linked to. Let's stop discussing if expressions of doubt named expressions of doubt by Wikipedia are expressions of doubt. Let's stop inserting them just because we don't like statements made. FeelSunny (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Policy is clear: "Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". This is what we have here. --Nug (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It is more than clear: Said, stated, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. If you have your reasons for using a loaded term instead of a neutral one, let's discuss.FeelSunny (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing loaded here. Assertions of wrongdoing, which ethnic discrimination is, are allegations. --Nug (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Nug, do you understand that "alleged" verb implying expression of doubt is a loaded verb, compared to neutral "said"? FeelSunny (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit 6

• Added tables for education level and income level + 2 sources, clarified criticism of Amnesty International's report.
  • Saw no problems with this, nothing wrong with tables. The edited sentence confuses me a bit. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Adding tables sourced to an advocacy group concerned with promoting the rights of Russian-speakers gives undue weight to their viewpoint. --Nug (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
      • The organisation is reputable - member of Fundamental Rights Platform (civil society forum of the EU Fundamental Rights Agency), focus point of RAXEN. The fact they are specializing on ethnic issues doesn't make them less relevant, so the persistent removal of tables is unfounded.Fuseau (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
        • The Legal Information Centre for Human Rights works hand-in-glove with the Russkiy Mir Foundation, so I hardly think they are a neutral source for such data. --Nug (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
          • "Hand-in-glove" is just a loaded evaluation. No WP rule which would prevent the article from LICHR is shown. P.S. Demanding that the sources of information don't get support from some state-affiliated bodies would deprive Wikipedia of most academic sources, as well as many human rights organisations, which often operate under pressure in their countries and are looking for grants abroad, too. In the modern world it's a normal practice. Fuseau (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
            • Never the less, according to Wikipedia policy WP:WEIGHT minority viewpoints should not be given undue weight. --Nug (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
            • I agree, undue weight. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
              • This is hardly a "minority view", say, Dutch TIES report (page 56) says "the labour market situation of Estonians is somewhat more advantageous, as their average occupational status is higher and they get more responsibility for supervising. Job quality in terms of stability of work and career perspectives differs to some extent between ethnic groups. Russians often get less stable jobs with lower career perspectives. Their current job quality is not as high as Estonians. For instance, the share of Estonians who have participated in on the job training is significantly higher compared to Russians. Also young Estonians more often receive promotions than Russians."FeelSunny (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
                • The Dutch TIES is certainly more neutral, but note that they do not claim the job disparities are related to ethnic discrimination. There are a number of reasons for job disparities unrelated to discrimination, the main one being the isolated and disconnected social networks that many of these unemployed people belong. Also recall that most of these immigrants were imported as labour for union level enterprises during the Soviet period, consequently after the collapse of the SU many of these enterprises ceased to exist causing mass unemployment. Also a factor is the subsequent economic actions by Russia against Estonia with the diversion of transit trade by Russia to its own ports, as I recall Russian speakers were dominant in this business but Russian actions have hurt them more than any alleged discrimination. --Nug (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Nug, do we understand at all that above we discuss if views of minority on minorities discrimination issues are given an undue weight?FeelSunny (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Even within the minority a significant proportion believe no discrimination exists, so I don't think we should give undue weight to the viewpoint of a vocal minority within a minority. --Nug (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• So do you agree that adding tables sourced to an advocacy group concerned with promoting the rights of Russian-speakers does not give an undue weight to their viewpoint, or not? I do not understand your position.FeelSunny (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• No, because advocacy groups by their very definition have an agenda and we don't go stating as fact their opinions. --Nug (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• But you yourself claim their agenda is promoting minorities' views on discrimination of minorities? So minoities views are irrelevant in this article, after all? FeelSunny (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• According to that understanding, every human rights organisation is an advocacy group and has to be considered unreliable. This leaves us almost without sources, despite human rights organisations being experts on the relevant issues. If an understanding leads to absurds, something's wrong with it. Fuseau (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit 7

• Moved two sections to a lower part of the article, sections were otherwise unchanged.
  • Saw no problems with this, edit summary makes sense. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit 8

• Reworded lead sentence and added 3 paragraphs to lead, plus sources.
  • Problematic, though this part has been reverted now. The editor should discuss this before changing it. I'll take a better look at this in a bit. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the first sentence should say "Human rights in Estonia are generally respected by the government, according to US Department of State, and the Freedom House." Human rights are always a topic of discussion, everywhere, it shouldn't be pointed out like it's a special case when concerning Estonia. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I approve of the improvement Sander made, basically reverting but keeping the new paragraph about the UN and so. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
    • The problem is, why is the POV os US diplomats given preference over, for example, Russian diplomats? Why is Freedom House put in the first sentence, not Amnesty international? I consider this to violate WP:NPOV.Fuseau (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Russian diplomats are renowned for their bellicose attitude to this issue. --Nug (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
        • I agree that Russian diplomats' view should not be presented without in-text attribution or as truth, or in the first sentence of the article, since it can be biased. And neither should be that of American diplomats. Now, the article gives preference to US official POV.Fuseau (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
          • WP:WEIGHT policy requires due weight to be given to major viewpoints over minor viewpoints. --Nug (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
            • In the matters of law US and Russia are equal. I would agree that both might be hypocritical in their criticism of human rights situation in certain countries and silence on others, but, if that's a reason against representing the views of Russia, the same approach should be taken against US. Also, if the wide criticism of human rights situation in Russia makes its evaluations of human rights abroad less credible, then the same should apply to the US, also widely criticized. So, either both or (in my opinion, better) none should be in the lead section. And I repeat the question - why US-financed Freedom House is in the first sentence, not Amnesty International?Fuseau (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Thing is, it's generally accepted that the US and other leading Western countries have authority over concepts like "democracy" and "human rights". Whether I personally like this or not is not even important. These Western organizations' opinions about us are important and relevant to this article. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
        • I can really hardly agree that a POV of a military ally on minority issues in a country is a "majority" view, when compared to a view of a country that most representatives of minorities feel close to, and compared to the concerns voiced by the UN agency, and to conclusions of several researches by the EU agencies/ universities. The US government is much criticized for violating human rights, including in Estonia and other Baltic states, like for CIA prisons, torture flights.

Taking this into account, here we have a Wikipedia:Reliable sources may be non-neutral policy, that explicitly says that, On controversial topics, Wikipedians often need to deal with sources that are reliable but non-neutral. The best solution to this is to acknowledge that a controversy exists and to represent different reliable points of view according to the weight that reliable sources provide.

So, Nug's logic in calling the US Dept of State a "majority view" and promoting it here completely escapes me.FeelSunny (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• The Russian viewpoint is very much in the minority, look at this latest report from the UN[24], all other countries praised the efforts of Estonia, only Russia stands alone with the claim "Estonia’s human rights policy was a failure." --Nug (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Link is broken.FeelSunny (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Russian official POV, either of minor, or major importance, is not there in the lead anyway. Let's return to the US official POV strongly promoted in the article. Please answer my question of why a view of government of an officially non-neutral country, seemingly violating human rights in Estonia, should be considered "major" and promoted, in violation of the policy, to acknowledge that a controversy exists and to represent different reliable points of view?FeelSunny (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • First, there are lots of criticism in the field of human rights directed to western countries, too. I don't insist on mentioning Russia's opinion in the first sentence of the article - that would be better than the current one-sidedness, but the best would be to free the lead section from inherently biased diplomatic viewpoints at all. Second, Amnesty International is also a Western organisation, but currently the article's very first sentence uses Freedom House compliments to Estonia, not AI criticism. In conjunction with the use of US official POV, that represents bias in favour of Estonian authorities.Fuseau (talk) 15:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• Everybody involved, this issue with the lead is basically the most important of the issues with the article. With all due respect, I'd ask us all to concentrate on finding a compromise solution for this issue first, and then turn to other issues. FeelSunny (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit 9

• Moved US Dept of State section to lower in the article, section was otherwise unchanged.
  • Saw no problems with this, edit summary makes sense. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Others

• ethnic discrimination is a singular issue, reorganize and edit title, no changes to content. Nug made a similar edit here, though I disapprove of their use of the word "advocacy" (in edit summary). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 11:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• restore addition that went missing between reverts. (edit: and this) Add section "Ethnicity and crime" under section "Ethnic discrimination". — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• (restore human trafficking section, rem see alsos already linked in the article). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

Currently we have both this:

Several /--/ organisations, such as /--/, have found no evidence or pattern of systematic abuse of human rights or discrimination on ethnic grounds, while others, such as Amnesty International in 2009, have raised concerns regarding Estonia's significant Russophone minority.

and this:

[Certain organizations] all raised concerns about possible violations of human rights or discrimination of minorities in Estonia.

in the lead section right besides one another. These should be reworked to make sense. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Politically polarized view. For example, the Amnesty International report was pilloried as total Russia-driven advocacy trash by outside observers. We never hear about the international convention of Russian journalists held in Latvia to bring the plight of Russians into plain view—where even Russian Duma deputies attending stated flat out that the actual situation was nothing as it was being represented by (so-called) Russian rights activists in Russia or in the Baltics. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to take a crack at it. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Presence of different views in the lead section is not bad - bad is, when one of POVs ispushed.

Amnesty International has many features showing it to be an expert in human rights. And as everyone can see starting from the lead section of Criticism of Amnesty International, it has been criticized by Russia for its position. Are those "outside observers" who attack AI for criticizing Estonia equal authorities in human rights?Fuseau (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Amnesty International's report has been panned as "bad piece of work, ahistorical and unbalanced" by people who are experts on Estonian politics and history. This organisation has historically been focused upon the plight of political prisoners, however it has strayed into an area that is not been traditionally its area of expertise, being linguistic rights. This report has been characterised as a waste of limited resources when just a short drive from Estonia, in Belarus and in Russia, there are real human rights abuses, including two classic Amnesty themes: misuse of psychiatry against dissidents, and multiple prisoners of conscience. --Nug (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Evidence for competence of those critics in human rights wasn't provided.Fuseau (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It is notable that the latest AI 2011 report[25] makes no mention of Estonia, obviously since the controversial departure of Irene Khan they no longer think it is an issue. --Nug (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That's irrelevant hypothesis-building about "why there is no information". One can guess different and even contradictory things. Editor's guessing, however, is not a reliable source. Fuseau (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean that either viewpoint should be removed, just that they should be integrated with each other better; right now the phrasing seems a bit redundant or contradictory. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we just include the phrase that different viewpoints exist, and then cite both with sources indicated? It's not just AI that is concerned, there is a number of reputable organizations whose position differs from that of the US dept of state and the HRW.FeelSunny (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I checked the current heading, and it looks terrible. "HRW, UN HRC, OSCE found no evidence [...] of discrimination [...], while others, such as Amnesty International in 2009, have raised concerns [...]. UN HRC, UN CERD, EU FRA, AI, HRW all raised concerns about possible violations or discrimination". Looks like both the UN HRC and HRW "found nothing" but "raised concerns". Furthermore, UN CERD, EU FRA, AI, only "raised concerns", but we talk about these all in the end for some reason.FeelSunny (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

All of these organisations "raise concerns" for all countries that come under their purview, that is their function. However these organisations also state they "found nothing" in terms of systematic or policy based discrimination, so there is no contradiction here. In fact if you read many of these reports in detail, one is struck by the amount of praise given at efforts by the government in dealing with unwinding legacy of 50 years of totalitarian rule. One of the biggest problems in this article is how some editors want to emphasis the "raise concerns" part while diminishing the positive aspects of these reports. --Nug (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Nug, first on HRW: they actually very much "raise concerns" as well. Yes, that's their function, and this fact is absolutely not a reason to not report these concerns. So, the HRW's report says: "Estonia's "ius sanguinis " Citizenship Law seems to violate several international conventions." "Citizenship laws that exclude otherwise deserving individuals would create categories of people who would be the victims of systematic discrimination, banned by Article 27 of the International Covenant". All the report is devoted to the 1992 citizenship law, and here's the characteristic of it - "violate several international conventions", "would create [...] systematic discrimination". This is the one and only HRW's conclusion regarding the law. I really propose we to add this core conclusion of the HRW report on Estonia's citizenship law to the article, and edit the misleading description of the report in the introductory part of the article.

Second, on other institutions, from "saying they found nothing" and other - could you please source your claims with exact quotes from these reports as I did with the HRW report above? Thanks. FeelSunny (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

So you are claiming that HRW are writing misleading descriptions of their own document when they write "we uncovered no systematic, serious abuses of human rights in the area of citizenship"? I think their own description is an indicator of the weight they assign to each aspect of their report, that you would cherry pick phrases from the body of the report exemplifies the problems of allowing your POV to colour your reading of the document. --Nug (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. I say they "found the Estonian citizenship law seemingly discriminating", not "HRW are writing misleading descriptions". And I quote the report, and want this reflected in the article. HRW report was dealing with one and only major matter - the Estonian citizenship law. This is how they characterized it. Please refrain from accusing me of "cherry picking". And, I have to remind, you have not yet provided a single quote supporting your claims about other reports.

P.S. In the discussion above Nug himself points that "non-neutral" POV of Russophones on discrimination of Russophones should not be given "undue weight". Here, on the other hand, he claims that a non-neutral POV of US DofS should become a first phrase of the article - not giving an attribution even. FeelSunny (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

HRW states Estonian citizenship law seems discriminating, they didn't say Estonian citizenship law is discriminating, that is a significant difference. HRW goes on to note that some 100,000 ethnic Russian did automatically receive citizenship under the current laws, and note that is almost a third of the 345,000 ethnic Russians currently living in Estonia in total. So obviously a significant proportion do not believe they have been discriminated against, and surveys have shown this. However we have the viewpoints of advocacy groups repesenting the interests a minority within a minority presented as fact that the entire ethnic Russian population is being discriminated against, which is clearly not the case. --Nug (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

As a compromise, I propose, instead of picking what point to reflect from the HRW report, we just note in the lead they in 1993 "found no serious whatever", but claimed "the citizenship law seems discriminating against Russophones"? FeelSunny (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope, you are cherry picking a phase out of the body of the text and elevating it to the level of conclusion. The conclusion is clear, there is no systematic abuses of human rights in the area of citizenship. It would be like elevating flat-earth fringe theories with "even though the earth was found to be round it seems flat". Nug (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Nug, what is the main matter of the report? The Citizenship law. How the report characterizes it? As "seemingly discriminatory". If this is "cherry-picking", then the report is made of cherries. FeelSunny (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Evaluations by foreign ministries in the lead section: NPOV in presenting

Should evaluations of human rights situation in Estonia given by US Department of State (more positive) and Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (more negative) be:

• Removed from the lead section altogether
• Presented in one place and with the same wording (for example, "According to...")
• (Current situation) US opinion is in the first phrase, reference to the source is in the reference only, the wording is "Human rights in Estonia are generally respected by the government, while there are concerns in some areas, such as (...)". Russia's opinion is in the end of the lead section, with the wording "The foreign ministry of Russia alleges also that acute human rights issues, in particular (..) remain unresolved"
• Other suggestions. Fuseau (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The viewpoint of Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs with respect to Estonia's human rights cannot be relied upon as it is highly politicised. According to Thomas Ambrosio, Russia's persistent criticism of Estonian human rights is a way of diverting attention away from its own grave democratic and human rights abuses by way of criticising others.[26] --Nug (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Even if some statements are made as a way of diverging attention from something else, it doesn't prove the statements to be wrong. The reports of US DoS are also criticized in many ways, for example as follows: "the reports are full of distortions and accusations of the human rights situation in more than 190 countries and regions including China. However, the United States turned a blind eye to its own terrible human rights situation and seldom mentioned it" by China, and Human rights in the United States show many problems, too, but that's not a reason to refrain from using US report here; similarly, there is no reason to hide Russia's opinion. Possibly the politicized character of diplomatic reports as such is a reason not to put their evaluations in the very first phrase of this article or in the lead section at all - equally Russian and US evaluations.Fuseau (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You are giving equal weight to a Communist state owned news agency to that of a scholarly source. In any case why do you believe that Russia's opinion is somehow an equal counter-weight to the USA's in today's world? It is well known that Russia's opinion of the Baltic states is neither rational or unbiased, given the history. It would be like giving Iran's viewpoint of Israel and the Holocaust equal weight. --Nug (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Opinion of Russian foreign ministry is highly politicized and unreliable. It has next to no connection to reality, same as other similar releases from Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. World more or less universally ignores those releases and they hardly make it further than RT.

As for the US, Jeraphine already answered that a month ago, "it's generally accepted that the US and other leading Western countries have authority over concepts like "democracy" and "human rights". Whether I personally like this or not is not even important. These Western organizations' opinions about us are important and relevant to this article."

--Sander Säde 07:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

A comment as sourceless as the one mentioned in it, by Jeraphine.

--Fuseau (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

A comment as useless as this RFC. You also may want to figure out that comments in Wikipedia do not require sources. --Sander Säde 17:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Given it is documented the Russian Foreign Ministry outright lies and has a huge axe to grind regarding Estonia and Latvia in particular, this is a biased POV-laced RFC as it postulates a question which--at the heart of its formulation--places lies on an equal footing with more reputable evaluations and scholarship. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

So much attention from the veterans of the famous Eastern European Mailing List, and so few argumentation... "comments in Wikipedia do not require sources", if one doesn't wish to make a convincing argument. "lies on an equal footing with more reputable evaluations" - strangely no source confirming the quoted statement of Russian MFA to be lies is given (by the way, the part quoted in the article is just an evaluation, not a factual statement, and it would be very amazing to prove an evaluation to be lies). Probably you could find some source disagreeing with that evaluation - but that's normal; or you could find some source showing some other Russian MFA statements to be false, which would be irrelevant and provoke similar questioning of US DoS... But you tried neither, possibly understanding that such attempt to analyze those facts will lead to inevitable conclusions - instead just labeling of a viewpoint not coinciding with Estonia's policy as lies.Fuseau (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Russia's flawed and unreliable viewpoint with regard to former Soviet Union is discussed in Thomas Ambrosio's Authoritarian backlash: Russian resistance to democratization in the former Soviet Union [27]. --Nug (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

@ Fuseau, I am merely tired of trotting out all the old detail all over again with new editors that insist on being persuaded the Russian MFA is a biased, unreliable, inaccurate (being kind) source on the Baltics. We can always start with the MFA's position paper filed with the United Nations that the Latvian Waffen SS were criminals convicted at the Nuremberg trials.

Your "but what about the U.S. XYZ" is the usual Soviet-style and now Russian-style misdirection to not deal with the issue of the RMFA's grossly prejudiced PR campaign regarding the Baltic states, Estonia and Latvia at the top of the list. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

We can be of any opinion about statements by US DoS or Russian MFA. Wikipedia, however, should fairly present all significant viewpoints. My reference to existing criticism of US DoS reports is just an example of criticism which doesn't render opinion insignificant. The same is with Ambrosio's views on Russian MFA position. If you consider that to be a misdirection, please express the same critical approach to US DoS, if you wish to follow WP:NPOV.Fuseau (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The reference you presented is not of the same standard as Ambrosio's scholarly work, it is from the official Chinese agency. --Nug (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

1. An official point of view of a country is also a significant viewpoint, which doesn't mean that I always agree with it, be it China, Russia, US or Estonia. 2. There are also scholars criticising US reporting. So, Natalia Narochnitskaya evaluates them as follows: "forcing upon others with almost totalitarian means their own interpretation of many humanitarian human rights, the US are limiting freedoms characteristic for the Western society at home. Such respectful for Washington (when speaking about other countries) organisations as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, do permanently criticize American authorities for violations of human rights inside the country (..) The violations of rights of Russian-speaking population of Estonia and Latvia don't get attention in the US, either (навязывая почти тоталитарными методами свое толкование многих гуманитарных прав человека, США сворачивают свойственные именно западному обществу свободы в собственной стране. Такие авторитетные для Вашингтона (когда речь идет о других странах) организации, как «Хьюман райтс уотч» и «Международная амнистия», постоянно критикуют американские власти за нарушения прав человека внутри страны (..) Не замечают в США и нарушения прав не получившего гражданства русскоязычного населения Эстонии и Латвии)" [28]. Same criticism as directed by Ambrosio towards Russian diplomacy. You might object that her PhD is not in human rights, but Amrosio's is neither.Fuseau (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Layout improved by Fuseau (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Natalia Narochnitskaya? You got to be kidding me. She holds extremist views with respect to the Baltic states that even Putin or Lavrov won't even touch. You can read about her extremely radical viewpoint here. --Nug (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Her POV is a POV of a scholar, not less than Amrosio's. Sadly you're eager to use a scholar's criticism to downplay coverage of Russian MFA's POV, but you do not follow the same argumentation with coverage of US DoS POV.Fuseau (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You appear not to understand WP:FRINGE and the need to attribute WP:DUE weight. Natalia Narochnitskaya is also a politician who believes that the Baltic states were a historical part of Russia illegally separated from Russia in 1920 when the "semi-fascist Baltic regime" and the Bolsheviks signed the Tartu Peace Treaty, that is about as fringe as it gets. --Nug (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact you disagree with a scholar doesn't make her opinion fringe. Besides, her views on Tartu Peace Treaty are irrelevant in this article.Fuseau (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that other scholars, such as V. Morozov, describe Narochnitskaya as a "radical writer" holding the "most extreme" viewpoints with regard to Estonian issues, means we must be guided by Wikipedia policy WP:FRINGE. --Nug (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• RFC response: restore lead as of this revision. The Russia's opinion, though biased towards Russian minority of Estonia inhabitants, is still a viewpoint of major importance for the scope of this article, and as such should stay. Given that not so many bodies are actually entitled to state public opinion on the matter, all the other external bodies' opinions should also be represented as they are the basis of the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

That version would need work, as it leaves the RFMA's contentions, the least reliable of all, as the "last word" and with no qualifiers. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That version truly would need work, but for another reasons: first, it smear Russian MFA's POV with the loaded verb "alleges", second, it gives much more weight and no in-text reference to US DoS POV.Fuseau (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

So you think it is more important that we don't "smear" Russian MFA POV, but it is perfectly okay to smear the Estonian people and government? --Nug (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

All significant viewpoints should be presented neutrally. Wikipedia shouldn't praise or smear anyone; fair reflecting criticism or praise pointed towards a goverment is not smearing or praising, whether you consider that criticism justified or not: it's informing Wikipedia readers about points of view expressed (and what you mean by smearing Estonian people is incomprehensible). Smearing happens, however, when POV of one foreign ministry of a country with interests in the region is presented with the verb "alleges" and POV of another foreign ministry of a country with interests in the region is presented as truth.Fuseau (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

When you state "All significant viewpoints should be presented neutrally" you forgot "with due weight according to reliable sources". Given scholarly sources criticise the Russian MFO's viewpoint as consistently exaggerated and misleading specifically in relation to Estonia, in other words inaccurate, "alleged" is an appropriate summary term. Now I am sure some governments subject of the US state department human rights reports will complain as your official Chinese news agency source proves, but until you provide an independent scholarly source that claims these US reports are consistently exaggerated and misleading then attribution is unnecessary, per Wikipedia policy. --Nug (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

1. An official POV of a state is also significant (I'm forced to doubt whether you've paid attention the link I've referred to since it's not just "official Chinese news agency", but the State Council of PRC). 2. You were given by me a scholarly source criticizing US soft position on human rights in Estonia, too, 37 minutes before this your comment, in this very discussion. I'm forced to doubt if you paid attention to my response to your comments, but I'm currently improving the layout (not content) of my earlier comment so that it will be even more difficult not to see it.Fuseau (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see your previous comment as it wasn't indented. My response is above. --Nug (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree to a large extent with Fuseau's assessment of the POV problems inherent in this article. The first sentence in the lead is based upon the US Department of State, yet the assertions are not attributed to those who hold the view. the first sentence should read: "According to the United States Department of State, human rights in Estonia are generally respected by the government, while there are concerns in some areas, such as detention conditions, police and child abuse."

Russian viewpoint on the issue is given a brief byline, even though Russian concerns are the most prevalent on this issue. These viewpoints needs to be given more weight in the article, and also in the lead.

Just last year, the UNHCR lamblasted a number of nations over what it says is "shameful that millions of people are living without nationality - a fundamental human right."" Estonia is amongst the top nations in the world with a significant stateless population.

As to assertions of the Russian MID's opinion not being reliable, all opinions need to be given weight according to the prevalence of the opinion. The Russian MFA opinion, as the body representing Russian interests outside of the country, is as reliable as the US Department of State. As editors who are supposed to edit in an NPOV way, we should resist attempts to sideline notable opinions from articles, as seems to be suggested above. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 15:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Russian MID's opinion and that of the US Department of State are both notable and should have proper weight in the article as such. Of course, both countries have certain political interests in the Baltic countries and may be biased this or that way, but come on, these are not some dubious studies or marginal private views but top national level official sources, obviously notable - they express political attitudes of major states towards situation in Estonia. So let's just properly attribute those official opinions and let the readers judge for themselves. GreyHood ^Talk 15:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Attribution is only required for biased opinions, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, no one has provided a scholarly source that claims the US opinion on human rights in Estonia is biased, while I have provided this source[29] that explicitly states that Russia's opinion of the human rights situation in Estonia is extremely biased and even intentionally misleading. As such its inaccurate viewpoint is unreliable per WP:RS (and also irrelevant IMO) for an encyclopaedic article on this topic, and yet nevertheless it is mentioned in the body. But what is being proposed here is to give equal and thus WP:UNDUE weight to such a documented highly biased and intentionally misleading viewpoint through insertion into the lede, and that is unacceptable. --Nug (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

A "scholarly source" written from obviously anti-Russian positions wouldn't have more weight than the official Russian point of view. Afterall, the official Russian position is not only a point of view on the story, it is a part of the story with human rights in Estonia and as such should be mentioned anyway. GreyHood ^Talk 17:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Pray, why is every source criticizing anything in Russia immediately "obviously anti-Russian"? Thomas Ambrosio is a well-respected scholar with an interest in authoritarian regimes. Can you back up your claim of his racism or is it just the same vein of attitude we've seen so very many times here on Wikipedia?

Also, we are mentioning Russian position - same as in all such controversial articles, we have an unproportionate amount of text dealing with Russian/Soviet positions. No one wants to remove the claims of Russian FM, the question is just how to present it. The quality and objectivity of the memo is... comparable to the rest of similar memos from Russian Foreign Ministry.

--Sander Säde 18:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What racism? I specify: anti-Russia. Using the words authoritarian and regime is enough manifestation of that position since those words are of negative connotation.

And btw, so far I see only the claim attributed to Ambrosio that "Russia's persistent criticism of Estonian human rights is a way of diverting attention away from its own grave democratic and human rights abuses by way of criticising others". But that doesn't mean that that criticism is of low quality or far from reality. GreyHood ^Talk 19:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Pointing out the Kremlin purposely misrepresents the situation in the Baltics to serve its own political ends isn't being "anti-Russia". If your plumber lies about fixing your pipes, it isn't being "anti-plumber" to point it out. Ambrosio states that the Kremlin consistently exaggerates and its statements are largely misrepresentations, therefore per Wikipedia policy, due to their inaccuracies official Russian statements are an unreliable source on the specific topic of human rights in Estonia. --Nug (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The author stands on an obvious anti-Russia, or if you like, anti-Kremlin or anti-Russian government position. It's not like he is a neutral observer, he promulgates certain political views. This means that we should not take his statements on Russian claims too seriously and generalise them. If the author shows, with facts, some particular Russian statements to be not true, just insert that to the article.

Russian MID is a reliable, at least in the sense that it reliably explains Russian view and attitude to the situation with human rights in Estonia. Which is naturally of concern to Russia given that Russia is a neighbor country and how many ethnic Russians are in Estonia and how the issue affects Russia-Estonia relations. This major, official, relevant point of view should be presented in the article on a decent scale. If there are facts contradicting to that point of view, they just should be presented alongside. GreyHood ^Talk 22:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

How on earth do you get the sense that the author is "obvious anti-Russia" and how do you know he is not a neutral observer? Is that person who plainly states the Emperor is not in fact wearing any clothes, "anti-Emperor"? Yes, Russian MID is a reliable source for for its own viewpoint, but its viewpoint with regard to Estonia carries little weight in an encyclopaedic article on human rights in Estonia due to its misrepresentation, and we must present viewpoints with due weight. Therefore it has no place in the lede as that gives it undue weight. --Nug (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The person who states that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes when in fact he wears some - or to put the comparison as closely as possible to the real situation, the person who states that the Emperor's clothes is not "democratic" fashionable enough, when in fact it is a matter of taste rather than fact - is anti-Emperor.

Russian opinion is obviously relevant to the situation and as such it is a perfectly encyclopedic fact. It is a part of the story, that Russia objects to what it sees as discrimination of minorities in Estonia, including ethnic Russians, and it is a major factor in the situation which obviously should be mentioned and given significant attention.

And it seems to me, that in such cases, when we have not just some allegedly exaggerating and misinterpreting scholarly or journalistic view, but a diplomatic position of a major country actually involved in the case, not some standalone observer country, we should not dismiss or diminish such positions anyway. GreyHood ^Talk 23:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The viewpoint of a standalone observer country would be more preferable as it is unlikely to be biased, and thus their statements would be deemed a reliable source. This article is about human rights in Estonia, not about the historical complexes of neighbouring countries, for that we have the article Estonia–Russia relations and even Russian influence operations in Estonia. --Nug (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

US POV is not one "of a standalone observer country". Estonia and the US are both NATO members. So there is no ground to give US preference over Russia.Fuseau (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What's NATO got to do with anything? Turkey's NATO membership does not spare it from adverse human rights reports of grave human rights abuses[30] such as unlawful killings, torture, beatings, and abuse by Turkey's security forces (though the way Moscow complains it seems expecting soviet era immigrnts who reside in Estonia to exercise their free choice in citizenship is more cruel than any police beating, torture or ex-judicial killing of other countries). --Nug (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Mine is that US criticism of Turkey is too mild, but neither opinion is relevant to the article. And the article is about human rights in Estonia, not Turkey or Russia.Fuseau (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You didn't reply to his question about the NATO. --Sander Säde 13:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I regret if that wasn't clear enough from my previous comment. If US were a "standalone observer country", the question if it makes US opinion more reliable would deserve serious discussion. However, Estonia is an ally/satellite (depending on POV) of the US, per NATO membership. Thus the US aren't just an "standalone observer", and the possible argumentation that its "observer's" POV is more reliable than that of Russia, would be flawed.Fuseau (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You gotta be kidding us all here, User:Sander_Säde. US is an officially militarily allied state, this is officially non-neutral. US builds CIA prisons in Baltics and use Baltics for covert CIA "prison flights". This is exactly what is described here, WP:Reliable sources may be non-neutral, and this policy says: On controversial topics, Wikipedians often need to deal with sources that are reliable but non-neutral. The best solution to this is to acknowledge that a controversy exists and to represent different reliable points of view according to the weight that reliable sources provide. Intelligent readers will weigh the opposing sides and reach their own conclusions. FeelSunny (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Laughable. Get rid of your Cold War era mentality, please - or at least, get some reliable, non-partisan, scientific sources to support your claims. --Sander Säde 17:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Special:BookSources/0230614183 is one such academic source which clearly links American Russophobia and it's foreign policy, including its dealing with the Baltic issue - in fact, it has an entire chapter devoted to this issue. Some selected quotes:

Isolating Russia, Estonia felt, was a good strategy for sabotaging Russia’s rapprochement with Europe, blocking the construction of a Russia-Germany pipeline bypassing Estonia, and diverting the world’s attention from Estonia’s discriminatory treatment of ethnic Russians.

Rather than trying to mediate the conflict,Washington opted to support one side and condemn the other, ignoring the historical complexities as well as the mistreatment of ethnic Russians in Baltic states.

Even though many Eastern Europeans and Baltic states collaborated with Hitler, it is Russia that is supposed to be tried for its historical role. Even though European great powers accepted the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the United States contributed to solidifying the postwar international order in Yalta, Russia alone was held responsible. Even to the Russia-unfriendly Economist, it seemed clear that the occupation claim, if upheld, served to “justify Estonian and Latvian policies on citizenship” and “open the way for financial compensation and territorial claims against Russia.”88

Second, the Lobby sought to present the Baltics as leaders of democratic development in the region relative to Russia’s declining freedoms and barbaric behavior.89 Freedom House has consistently rated Estonia and Latvia as “free,” giving them—on par with the United States and other advanced democracies—the highest possible evaluations for their proportional representation and civil liberties.90 For instance, some human rights organizations expressed concerns about the treatment of ethnic Russians, many of whom are denied voting rights and remain under the highly dubious status of Estonia and Latvia’s “stateless” or “non-citizens.”91 Yet when Rene van der Linden, the chairman of the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly (PACE), called on Baltic governments to pay attention to the situation of the Russian-speaking minority, the Eurasia Daily Monitor immediately denounced him as falling “into line with Moscow’s anti-Estonia propaganda,” demonstrating his “failure as head of a democracy-promoting organization to address Russia’s rejection of Vergangenheitsbewaeltigung [coming to terms with the totalitarian past].”92 The latter reference is to Estonia’s parliamentary support that was, of course, obtained partly due to isolation of the large Russian minority. Another issue was the historical treatment of Jews. The New York Times reported that Lithuania’s Museums of Genocide Victims applied the term “genocide” only to “what Russians did to Balts, not to what Nazis and their local collaborators did to Jews” and that it all but ignored “the Baltic people’s role in the Holocaust.”93 In addition, some prominent Baltic officials, such as Estonia’s defense minister, supported former Nazi’s SS veterans as freedom fighters94 and encouraged the revival of pro-Hitler’s sentiments.95

Is this academic enough for people? Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 18:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

From what I can see, Tsygankov makes no mention of US State Department human rights reports, so this book is irrelevant to this discussion. As Ambrosio noted in his book Authoritarian backlash: Russian resistance to democratization in the former Soviet Union, Russian discourse consistently flips seamlessly between discussion of Estonia's citizenship policies (which are in fact milder than Russia's) and alleged Nazi support (which is constantly refuted), with the intended and misleading implication that Tallinn's current policies are associated with the racist policies of the Nazi regime. Here we see this seamless logic fallacy presented within one paragraph in Tsygankov's book. --Nug (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "Washington opted to support one side and condemn the other, ignoring the historical complexities as well as the mistreatment of ethnic Russians in Baltic states" speaks clearly enough on the situation. And it is the US State Department that wields Washington's foreign politics, while the organisations like Freedom House are instruments of American foreign politics.

The claim that Estonia's citizenship policies are milder than Russia's looks strange, 1) given the fact that migration growth was negative in Estonia in the last 20 years with 10% of population having left the country, while in Russia migration was positive, and 2) given the fact that there are no "non-citizens" social institute in Russia.

As for the supposed association of discrimination of ethnic minorities (denying them citizenship) with racism and nazism, could you please explain in more detail, why exactly is it logic fallacy? GreyHood ^Talk 11:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that "the organisations like Freedom House are instruments of American foreign politics" was a subtle sarcasm aimed at Russian ultranationalists, skinheads and conspiracy theorists. Otherwise, it reduces the value of any statements you've ever made or will make to zero. --Sander Säde 07:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Freedom_House#Russia - please read it. Also please read Polity IV for more scholarly analysis -- to say that Russia is as unfree as Yemen or Iran or North Korea or Eritrea is an absolute joke, and it is not lost on scholars. This report from Polity IV is an interesting scholarly analysis; rather than a tool of US foreign policy as is Freedom House, NED, etc. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 08:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Tsygankov makes no mention of US State Department human rights reports, so this book is irrelevant to this discussion. As Ambrosio You're inconsistent. When Tsugankov criticizes US approach in general, not referring to the specific DoS document quoted in this article, you consider it to be invalid. When Ambrosio does the same with Russia's approach, you consider him valid for downplaying Russia's POV.Fuseau (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Tsugankov criticizes US approach in general with this vague "Rather than trying to mediate the conflict, Washington opted to support one side and condemn the other", of course a positive human rights report from the USA would be seen by Moscow as supporting one side, that is no surprise. However Ambrosio is very clear and explicit of his criticism of Russian MFO statesments as a reliable source because they "consistentlty exagerate and misrepresent" the situation. --Nug (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)