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

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

The result was merge to Human rights in Estonia. Many conflicting arguments of varying merit in this discussion. The key deletion argument is WP:POVFORK, which hinges on both the title of the article and its contents. The arguments for retention don't focus on this, although they address it occasionally - instead there are arguments that it is verifiable from sources, that other articles like this exist (which is not a satisfactory argument for retention) ot that all the issues are cleanup issues. There appears to evidence of canvassing the debate as well, which muddies the waters somewhat. Ultimately, the balance of the arguments indicates a consensus that this article not exist in its current form on Wikipedia. That leaves me two options: merge/redirect or outright deletion. Deletion policy indicates that I should merge/redirect in order to preserve content - this close is therefore merge and redirect to bulk out the small amount of content at Human rights in Estonia#Allegations of discrimination. A redirect must be left for GFDL attribution preservation. I know this close will not please some of you - feel free to discuss this with me civilly at my talk page. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia[edit]

Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is a pure content fork of History_of_Russians_in_Estonia#Allegations_of_discrimination and Anti-Russian_sentiment#Baltic_states, containing identical content as those mentioned sections. It is a POV fork created and supported by a number of Russian nationalist editors, as the title asserts discrimination as a fact when it is at most an allegation, and cherry picking of sources and text from the two articles mentioned to support that POV. As can be seen in the following search, this is the only article within Wikipedia prefixed with "Discrimination of ethnic minorities in ....". Martintg (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:POVFORK. ThuranX (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is plenty of information on discrimination in Estonia, not only against Russians, but against other ethnic and religious groups. Having just recently found this freshly-made article, I have already added more information about Estonia's discrimination issue. Please take care to note that article's title does not even deal only with the Russian minority; accordingly, there is considerable material for expansion, which I myself am going to see to. This is still a work in progress. PasswordUsername (talk) 04:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Estonia is such an egalitarian society that it discriminates everybody equally. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 05:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on. You perfectly know what did PasswordUsername mean. There is discrimination not against Russians only, but against other Russophone ethnic minorities, too. FeelSunny (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a content fork. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 05:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is much more information, verifiable and from reliable sources, on discrimination. Both from Estonia, Finlandia, Russia, EU, other sources. Much more than can hold a small section called like "allegations of some people about discrimination in The Free Estonia", in a small article on Russians in Estonia. There is a big problem with Ethnic minorities, not only Russians, in Estonia. And other credible organizations, like Amnesty, like UN in general, UNDP know that. Where is this data, for example? Where is this one? Quotes from the UN: The Committee is concerned that some television programmes may portray discriminatory images of the Roma community, The Committee is concerned that persons belonging to Russian-speaking minorities are disproportionately represented in the population of convicted prisoners, The Committee reiterates its previous concern that article 48 of the Constitution recognizes the right of membership of political parties only for Estonian citizens, high rate of unemployment among members of minorities, in particular Russian-speaking minorities, limited proportion of Roma children who attend school, very few acts of racial discrimination have been prosecuted and punished in the State party, there are a large number of minorities in Estonia, in particular Russian speakers, the Committee is concerned that only 4.8 per cent of Estonian television has bilingual programming, current official definition of national minority, provided under the Law on Cultural Autonomy of National Minorities of 1993, excludes noncitizens, the absence in the State party of a national human rights institution established in accordance with the Principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights, the Committee remains concerned about the absence of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, in particular legislation and regulations in the civil and administrative fields etc., etc. Do you want all this to be incorporated in one 20 lines paragraph? What people voting for deletion do, is just Gaming the system, and everybody here know this. And these continuing games perfectly deserve some attention from the administrators of English WikiPedia. FeelSunny (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So far the only reference to a cited report based on institutional findings without a hyperlink is for the statement that "The European Commission conducted close monitoring of Estonia in 2000 and concluded that there is no evidence that these minorities are subject to discrimination." PasswordUsername (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow it does not surprise me. FeelSunny (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in current form, per WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK. Handpicking one-sided sources, including fringe positions, excluding relevant (and sourced) comments from the original section. Even the name of the article is a clear violation of NPOV, the underlying principle of all Wikipedia - not "Allegations of discrimination...", but "Discrimination of...". The article as it is now needs to go, however, there could be an article about allegations - perhaps Allegations of discrimination of Russophones in Estonia (as strangely enough, the article does not mention the discrimination of Setos, Jews, Tatars, Finns, Latvians or other non-russophonic national groups in Estonia). Also, FeelSunny needs to be reprimanded for gross violation of WP:AGF and an attempt to intimidate other users. -- Sander Säde 10:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your last post with "needs to be reprimanded" towards me looks much more like intimidation than my "continuing games perfectly deserve some attention from the administrators". I would advise you to practice what you preach. On your "strangely enough, the article does not mention the discrimination of Setos, Jews, Tatars, Finns, Latvians" - feel free to add this information, if you find a source describing it. As to the other accusations of your post - would you please provide examples? FeelSunny (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure more than a few of Setos would happily claim that the fact that Estonia signed a new border treaty with Russia without insisting that Petseri/Pechora be returned to Estonia under the Tartu Peace Treaty is a case of anti-Seto discrimination. After all, the current border does split the historical Seto lands into a Russian side and an Estonian side. And Dajan Ahmet has himself said repeatedly that he wouldn't be allowed to play Vargamäe Andres because of the way he looks -- a clear case of ethnicity-based employment discrimination. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While we're on the subject, a Seto reader was published today, after a 80-year pause (source). ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 19:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The end of your post reads to me "if you vote delete, you will be banned from Wikipedia". Therefore, it is really hard to fail to see it as a not even thinly veiled attempt to intimidate your content opponents. As for "feel free to add" - kinda hard to do, as I don't seem to have any materials about it. So, I must admit they don't seem to be discriminated against.
Also, speaking of materials - if we create and edit controversial articles such as this, would it please be possible to use both modern materials (not 2005 with studies done in 2001..2002) and also include further comments on sources - for example, the article by James Hughes should not be mentioned without Rejoinder to James Hughes, Amnesty International study was extensively commented by The Economist, UN observations has also Positive aspects with progress made and so forth - excluding those sources and comments makes the article seem to be a classical POVFORK, created to further one's beliefs, which may or may not have anything to do with reality.
And just completely my personal opinion - in articles such as this, we should avoid citing journals and magazines from countries that are not in top 100 of Worldwide Press Freedom Index as a primary source - ie. these should be only as secondary sources, supporting a primary source. -- Sander Säde 14:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply On your "FeelSunny needs to be reprimanded" - would you please explain this first before asking for any answers from me? On your claims about the article: we cite UN, I beleive it's somewhere over any top 100 Freedom Index composed by anyone. We use 2006, 2007 and 2008 sources, from any other state but Estonia and Russia, I dare to mention. Which are perfectly neutral, I dare to add. Again, if you feel the article lacks the opposite POV, feel free to add this. Lack of your favorite POV is absolutely not a reason for deletion, check the WP policy you are citing here and there. Accusations of WP:Forking are wrong, as your own previous post shows how much there is material which is not there in small sections of other articles. Overall, all these flaws in your position and positions of other users of your type show to me just how much does your position towards the matter of the article influences your behaviour towards the article of WP itself. This is definitely beyond any good will borders. PS. Please see Estonian_Jews#The_Holocaust to get something new about the history on discrimination of ethnic minorities in your country. Expanded, this info could also be included in the article. FeelSunny (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Colchicum (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a significant subject, and we have a number of very high-quality sources such as Amnesty International and academic sources. The main reason why I created this page was because discussion of this subject seemed out of place in Anti-Russian sentiment and History of Russians in Estonia is already large enough, and should concentrate on history and not on the present-day discrimination. Also, when I was adding material about this subject to those two articles, User:Martintg (the nominator) kept removing my additions citing WP:UNDUE. Creating a separate article will allow for a more thorough discussion of the subject. Note that this article now contains material that is not present in either of those two articles. I think the article title is correct; I don't think anyone denies that there is at least some amount of minority discrimination in Estonia. Offliner (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article was recently started, it's a day old, it has validly cited sources and is rather well written. The only valid counter-argument I see for deleting it, is that the other side isn't being provided. However those that want it deleted aren't even trying to provide the other side. This article, that has great potential, is trying to be shot down right away, for nothing except POV reasons. It's 1 day old. Give it a month. Provide the other side's viewpoints. And then talk about deleting it. Also, it's similar to this fine article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States. All the arguments used for the deletion of this article, can apply to the US article; but that article was given a chance to thrive, and it turned into a damn good article. Why not give this article a chance? If you can point me to any wikipedia article that was written in a day or in a week, I will bow to that article. So please, give it a chance! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is impossible "to provide other side" in a POV fork, and it is a fatal flaw. What part of WP:POVFORK do you guys fail to understand? Colchicum (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, POV fork mainly of Anti-Russian sentiment listing all the same sources alleging discrimination. PetersV       TALK 22:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A content fork and a POV subject/title. One could create Human rights in Estonia instead.Biophys (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to give it time to improve. I see nothing POV neither in content nor in title. The discrimination is notable, well documented. So just keep all the statements referenced and provide opportunity for the other side to express its view to avoid being blamed for POV. (Igny (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
It tells:"The myth of occupation is a form of hate speech against the Russian population in Estonia. The only purpose of this myth is to accuse Russians of being criminals and murderers. This is racist propaganda against the Russian minority.". Nothing POV? Is not this article represents a racist propaganda?Biophys (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. (Igny (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Please delete this blatant and POV-ridden content fork. Ostap 03:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, that the article is still under construction. It was a valid content fork before the material did not really fit into the History of Russians in Estonia and Anti-Russian sentiment as I've explained. And now it has much more material than those two already, so it is a new article and not a fork. If you think it's unbalanced, you are welcome to fix it. It's impossible to get everything right so quickly. The article was taken to AfD a mere hour after it was created. Allow it time to develop, and fix any problems you notice instead of deleting everything. Offliner (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is the equivalent of "Do you still beat your wife", the whole structure of the article is irredeemably biased to a particular view point which is impossible to balance. It is a classic WP:POVFORK. As Biophys said above, an article about Human rights in Estonia would be a more balanced way to cover this topic. --Martintg (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the whole structure of the article is irredeemably biased to a particular view point which is impossible to balance - have you even tried? The structure can be changed. Why not launch a discussion on the talk page instead of just deleting everything? Offliner (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then shouldn't you guys be arguing about changing the title's topic, rather then deleting it? Also, a loaded question is, and must always be, a question. I thought that was implied in the title, loaded question. This article isn't a question. Nothing has been said in the article's discussion page. And yet everyone wants to delete it, without even giving it a chance. Also, how is it a POV fork? Can someone explain that to me? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When an encyclopædia has an article titled "X", the article's title is the question, and the article's body is the answer. The question is, "What about X?" So, what about you not having stopped beating your wife? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 07:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case the UN, Amnesty, and miriad of researchers from Europe and the US tell you that you beat your wife, you'd really better stop beating her. So - no loaded questions, and this discussion all goes to gaming the system again. FeelSunny (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked how it's a POV fork, and you responded with something that's very different! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a valid subject and indeed is studied at PhD level in top British universities. But we need to be careful of POV disputes as it is likely to attract comment from the fringes of Russian nationalism and Baltic Russophobia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shotlandiya (talk • contribs) 09:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:40, June 2, 2009 (UTC)
Fairly laconic:) FeelSunny (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, not like me at all, I know :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:05, June 3, 2009 (UTC)
  • Note/Question - Earlier I've asked how this article is a POV fork. I've yet to recieve an answer from the myriad of people shouting "POV fork!" Also, it's not a loaded question, because the article's title isn't a question! In order for it to be a loaded question, it has to be a question! Why is this so hard to comprehend? The title is extremely similar to the Racism in the US article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article was created as a rehash of all the same allegations, prominently featuring the Amnesty International report which has been pilloried in the press and a German journalist known to support the Kremlin line. Both without the balancing present in the original article where they also appear, hence POV, hence fork. PetersV       TALK 22:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no. "The Council of Europe has noted that "the Roma community in Estonia is still disproportionately affected by unemployment and discrimination in the field of education."[13] The European Commission conducted close monitoring of Estonia in 2000 and concluded that there is no evidence that these minorities are subject to discrimination.[14]" I haven't seen that allegation anywhere on Wikipedia. In addition to Amnesty International and a certain German Journalist, the article cites UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the UNDP, the Euro-Center for minority issues, the European Center for minority issues, the International Federation for Human Rights, the Dutch Ambassador to Estonia, even the pro-Estonian US Dept. of State. And that's not including the Russian sources, such as Moscow News, Levada Center, Russia Today and RIA News. For instance, not only does this article document the discrimination against Roma, but also the marital violence against women in Estonia and points out that Estonia didn't criminalize marital rape. The article that you are arguing its "forking" from, doesn't contain any of the above mentioned fact. Also, the article is extremely well cited, and if you think the article is POV, put up a neutrality dispute.
Also POV forking requires, and here I qoute Wikipedia: "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it." There have been no extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing here. Nor in the original article by Offliner and FeelSunny. Hence it's not a POV fork according to Wikipedia's very own defenition. Furthermore: "The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article; in some cases, editors have even converted existing redirects into content forks. However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article's title. If one has tried to include one's personal theory that heavier-than-air flight is impossible in an existing article about aviation, but the consensus of editors has rejected it as patent nonsense, that does not justify creating an article named "Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight" to expound the rejected personal theory." There is no concensus dodging here. In fact the people editing the article are asking for your opinion to come to a concensus. Withholding your side of the story while crying "POV" won't get you anywhere on Wikipedia. We're not Fox News. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like wiki-lawyering to me. People have already mentioned creating an article Human rights in Estonia would be the neutral approach, but this is being ignored. I'm certainly not going to waste my time editing this content fork which basically cherry picks sources to suit the POV being presented. --Martintg (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So when someone else says something logical that you don't agree with, and you cannot offer a rebuttal, you complain about wiki-lawyering? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re "The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article" would exactly describe the Anti-Russian sentiment portions and allegations, as I indicated, reproduced sans counterpoint. Anything else is built on a house of POV intentions regardless of whether individual points may have merit. The only thing being withheld the last time I looked is the Baltic side of the story. And I see no point to "un-POV'ing" this by reproducing here what's already needed to be added to Anti-Russian sentiment, one of the sorrier concoctions of WP:SYNTH to be found. PetersV       TALK 01:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the article, there are sources that talk about discriminating against women and discriminating against the technologically inept "Roma" ethnic group. How's this related to racism in Russia? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a "Racism in Russia since 2000" article. Curious how many people here want to keep that one, but delete this one. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, there is a Racism in Russia during the 2000s article – and, curiously enough, Biophys – 1, Ostap – 2, Διγουρεν (all in favor of deleting Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia) have contributed to it without any deletion nominations. Anyway, I'm personally for changing Racism in Russia during the 2000s to Racism in Russia (it's now just a redirect to the former) – let's expand that one as well. PasswordUsername (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a title like Racism in Russia is not a judgmental title as there may or may not be racism in Russia, unlike the alleged discrimination in Estonia. After all, what this is all about, some Russian chauvinists still think that the only language in the region that everybody should speak should be Russian. And the requirement to learn Estonian in case you want to have a job in the public sector is considered discriminating. The irony is, most of the Russians in Estonia speak Estonian fluently already. But the Kremlin crowd keeps playing the old and outdated record at the time when the EU has not found any pattern of discrimination in Estonia.--Termer (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article. This article was not creted with good faith and it is rather an aspect of the various disputes between the Russian and the Estonian users. Discriminations of ethnic minorities may occur in all the 192 states of the world. Even in Europe, Estonia is not one of the most problematic countries. They are even in Europe some countries (e.g. Greece) where even the existence of ethnic minorities is not officialy recognized and nobody ever came to the idea to write an article about the Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Greece. Why does nobody create articles like Russian minority in Estonia or Russian langauge in Estonia or Ethnic minorities in Estonia and insert the allegations concerning the discrimination in the proper section of such an article? --Olahus (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree, "allegations of.." anything should simply be a section in a "History of X in Y" article, e.g., History of Russians in Estonia, History of Roma peoples in Estonia, History of women's rights in Estonia, et al. That the article title is the only such article I am aware of that does not start with "Allegations of" screams POV. PetersV       TALK 14:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well referenced from reputable sources. Hence it is notable subject. Since there is much information, merge into somewhere is not necessary. However I looked in category:Discrimination and I see that probably the article must be renamed into a neutral title: Human rights in Estonia. Timurite (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why simply rename if the topic is notable? Discrimination is the key point here: the phenomenon may or may not fit into the human rights-related articles, depending on the criteria – just as Wikipedia already has separate articles for Racism in the United States and Racism in Russia during the 2000s. (I can understand that Estonian editors might have reservations about the topic, but the solution is to help work on the material in order to fix its perceived flaws, rather than go into pretending that racism or discrimination in Estonia do not exist.) However, I agree that Estonia needs its own human rights article. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand feelings every Estonian editor on this page. I myself feel ashamed because of those neofashist groups acting in my country. However, the difference is: in Russia you will never see an institutionalized discrimination. This is the point of this article: there is a discrimination on the linguistical level in Estonia. Because if you are born in the country, and live there for 40 years, and then one day you become a non-citizen because you speak the wrong language - this is discrimination. You do not need to speak English to be a US citizen, neither Russian to be a Russian one, but it's not the case with Estonia. Be born in France, and live there for 6 years, and you get a citizenship. Even if your father came from Mozambique illegaly. But in Estonia, if your grand-grand father wasn't there in 1939, and you have lived in Estonia for 25 in 2001, you still need to prove you deserve the privelege (not a right) of getting a citizenship. And you definitely do not, if you do not speak Estonian. Does that sound at least a little bit disturbing to all those Estonian citizens on board? FeelSunny (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DEL#REASON, content forking is a valid reason for deletion regardless of notability and verifiability. That aside, discrimination against foreign citizens and non-citizens is a normal thingTM and exists in every single country (otherwise the notion of citizenship doesn't make sense), discrimination against foreign languages is also widespread, though it is not universal. How many secondary schools in Russia provide state-funded education in Estonian? How many bureaucrats in Russia will handle requests in English, let alone Estonian? Are foreigners able to take part in the government in Russia? I guess, unlike in Estonia, in Russia they are unable even to vote in local elections. And discrimination against the Romani community may not be a good thing, but is certainly much more pronounced elsewhere. There is nothing notable here except for the dangerous size of the alien community, thanks to the Soviet policies of the past (and, as many sources confirm, this - rather than some perceived racism - is precisely the reason why Latvia and Estonia, unlike Lithuania, haven't granted them citizenship automatically, although their naturalization laws are still fairly liberal for a European nation). But (1) this is already covered elsewhere (2) it is not clear whether it has much to do with ethnicity. But this is not a forum. Ethnic minorities in Estonia would be almost ok (unlike the current loaded title), but many sources say about language minorities and foreign citizens/non-citizens rather than ethnic minorities, so Human rights in Estonia, properly balanced, is the best solution. And I am not an Estonian editor, as you know perfectly well. Sincerely, Traitor of the Motherland, a.k.a. Colchicum (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"because of those neofashist groups acting in my country" - sorry, what country are you talking about exactly? Estonia has a handful of skinheads and some imported fascists (Johann Bäckman's friend and a translator of his books, Risto Teinonen, for example). However, we have a neighbouring country that can is a proud home of more than half neonazis in the world. So... sorry, Estonia really does not have nazis. Never had and I seriously doubt we ever will, as nazis are as disliked as communists here. -- Sander Säde 20:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Colchicum - didn't you really understand the main point of my last message? Discrimination is when you in 25 get a non citizen status when half of your school class get the citizen status automatically at the same day. Can you give me another example of such a country?
Sander Säde, don't get started, I was talking about Russia, not Estonia. FeelSunny (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, sorry, my bad - was too sleepy. Where is Suva with the coffee when you need him? -- Sander Säde 21:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RE:FeelSunnyDiscrimination is when you in 25 get a non citizen status when half of your school class get the citizen status automatically at the same day. Can you give me another example of such a country? Any country in the world. If you're foreigner/immigrant you need to apply for the residence permit/citizenship of the country you'd like to live in. And all Soviet time immigrants in Estonia were eligible for the Russian citizenship as well. So it has always been up to everybody themselves, either apply for the Estonian or Russian citizenship. Just that why to bring such personal dilemmas to wikipedia and why to call this "discrimination", that everybody needs to choose their citizenship according to their free will, I have no idea.--Termer (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are some Third World countries that don't find immigration much of a problem. Unfortunately, these are generally countries that very few people would want to immigrate into in the first place. And even if you can vote in such a place, you can bet that the vote doesn't count for much. I sincerely hope FeelSunny wasn't saying that Estonia is such a Third World country. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 07:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely hope you do not think 8 % of Estonian non-citizen population are immigrants? FeelSunny (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not about what I think. The 8 % of the "Estonian non-citizen" = citizen of the former Soviet Union who moved to Estonia during the Soviet occupation and their descendants are immigrants according to the Estonian nationality law that is based on the principle of jus sanguinis that's common in Europe. Since the Soviet Union doesn't exist any more, those ex-Soviet citizens would need to choose a citizenship of any existing country including Estonia, Russia etc. and apply for it according to the relevant existing citizenship laws. Again, why are such personal dilemmas like choosing a citizenship brought to Wikipedia remains an unanswered question.--Termer (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For all those talking about forking and POV as a reason to delete the article: please consult this section of WP:Fork to see why an article you think is a POV can not be a fork at the same time. Please also apply this rule to the article next time you tell this a fork, a POV, and should be shot at sight. FeelSunny (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The text you linked includes "the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally". This article is anything but neutral. Please see WP:POVFORK. -- Sander Säde 21:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please give one example of a non-neutral presentation of a source. FeelSunny (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the sources given above. Even in this discussion there are at least four sources presenting opposite POV/criticism to the sources that article uses. And no, before you tell me to add those, this is not my duty. It is the duty of the editors of the article to make sure the topic is covered according to the NPOV principle. Right now all the sources in the article are cherry-picked to represent a certain POV. -- Sander Säde 09:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if you want to rename the article, then rename it. If you think it's biased, then show your side of the story. But you're asking for it to be deleted without giving it a chance. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you de-POV a POV fork then ... you get back the original, in which case there is no reason for the ex-POV-fork to exist. Which is why POV forks are to be deleted.radek (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That pretty much sums it up, which is why I suggest deletion of this and creation of an appropriate article (suggested by others as well). PetersV       TALK 15:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, funnily enough, every single one of these is a redirect, not an article. I think that sort of invalidates the point you were trying to make. -- Sander Säde 13:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)][reply]
Thanks FeelSunny for taking the time and making it so clear that "Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia" needs to be redirected to Human Rights in Estonia, exactly like the examples given by you all redirect to appropriate articles.--Termer (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, examples provided clearly demonstrate that such article titles aren't used in wikipedia.--Staberinde (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think I'll continue then. Category:Discrimination in the United States, Category:Racism in the United States, Stereotypes of East Asians in the United States, Stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims, Stereotypes of Native Americans, Sexism in India, Ethnic issues in Japan, Anti-Bihari sentiment in India, Fascism in New Zealand, Radical nationalism in Russia (eh, a clone of the Racism in Russia during the 2000s?? - well, big country, two articles, huh?), Fascism in Canada, Racism and discrimination in Ukraine, Male–female income disparity in the United States, etc. So, we can imply there exists gender and ethnic discrimination in India, fascism in New Zealand, Canada, Russia, rascism in Ukraine, rascism, discrimination and gender inequality in the US - but we may not tell there exists a discrimination in Estonia, when EU says the Estonian law on citizenship is unprecedented (excluding Latvia's). How come Estonia is so different from all other nations? FeelSunny (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(discussion moved to the talk page)

And why all of the sudden do we move the conversation away from the AfD? I think it's quite clear based on this latest exchange that "Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia" is both POV in scope and an invitation to WP:COATRACK, while the appropriate article is "Human Rights in Estonia" which starts out with a history of human rights in Estonia (I think we can agree to limit this from independence on), then can include a section on current alleged misdeeds and current suggestions for perceived needs for improvement (both point and counterpoint as appropriate). I would consider this issue settled. I would NOT rename this article to Human Rights in Estonia. I suggest this article be deleted per original nom and the appropriate article be created from scratch. I am sure those wishing to contribute to allegations of inappropriate acts by the Estonian authorities or Estonian society will recreate their content, hopefully this time with the appropriate reputable opposing viewpoints as well. PetersV       TALK 15:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like your logic - just delete the article you do not like. Delete, not merge, and then start from scratch. Guess what? WP saves all the changes, so no "from scratch" is really possible. FeelSunny (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Human rights in Estonia created. Peltimikko (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. My second option is to redirect Human rights in Estonia after it assumes the correct structure. Mukadderat (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Justified by the sources. and "Human rights..." covers a much wider ground. Thesources show that this particular part of it is real enough to provide for a NPOV article. DGG (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since "Human rights.." indeed covers much wider ground and would include also alternative opinions on the subject like for example according to Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Estonia: "The government generally respected the human rights of citizens and the large ethnic Russian noncitizen community". "Human rights.." would also cover for example Russification of Estonia [2], [3], Discrimination of Estonians [4], Soviet deportations from Estonia not to mention European Court of Human Rights cases on Occupation of Baltic States etc. So perhaps should we keep it simple and have just 2-3 analogue NPOV articles on wikipedia, Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia, Protection of ethnic minorities in Estonia and how about Discrimination of ethnic majority in Estonia etc? Is that going to solve this complex and controversial subject? All suggestions welcome!--Termer (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would indeed welcome median decision: every article which has considerable amount of sources should be here, as a distinct object of consideration. I am quite sure that all this fuzz above is not caused by the wish to clear up WP, and they show it periodically mentioning twin articles on fascism in Russia, etc. FeelSunny (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I got lot of sources saying that Estonia is a fascist country. So, shall we make an article? Please people, the number of sources does not mean that the issue is real. Human rights in Estonia is enough. Peltimikko (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are they sources from Amnesty International, Peltimikko? Human rights organizations and scholars? PasswordUsername (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all Amnesty International is a political organization, not a WP:RS by itself, meaning Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources. Since Amnesty International simply currently repeats the statements coming out from Kremlin, it remains to be seen what kind of political agenda is behind it. Goming back to third-party, published sources, there are enough available at google scholar [5] and books [6] that speak about the alleged discrimination in Estonia. So once it's cited as "allaged discrimination" by such sources, how exactly is this article getting even close to WP:NPOV?--Termer (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS.Here are some citations giving an an alternative perspective Immigration and emigration in historical perspective By Ann Katherine Isaacs, p 188 :

The question of alleged discrimination of the Russian-speaking population in the newly independent Baltic countries has served as a pretext to try to lock the region within a Russian sphere of influence...Russian hopes of maintaining direct control over the baltic states proved ineffective. At the same time Moscow's atemts to take political advantage of the issue of the Russophone minority were successful. Russia used virtually every international forum to present its claims of the violations of human rights in Estonia and Latvia etc.


--Termer (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Firstly, look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russian_influence_operations_in_Estonia, and notice the way that advocaters are voting. Voting keep for something that is on the fringes, but voting delete for something for which ufortunately there is a long and documented history of systematic discrimination against ethnic minorities in Estonia, particularly against the Russian community. Yes, we have an article on Russians in Estonia, but the history of Russians in Estonia goes back hundreds of years, in no small part due to Estonia being a part of the Russian Empire. Russophobia also covers anti-Russian feelings amongst a variety of groups (yet it is still missing a lot of information). This is not a WP:POVFORK, but a content fork on a notable topic. AfD is not an avenue to solve content disputes. --Russavia Dialogue 21:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As of the creation of Human rights in Estonia this is now a double fork (and POV on top). I've suggested quick delete to get this over with. As for Russophobia, it inappropriately redirects to Anti-Russian sentiment--I've already discussed there the need to separate Russophobia and Allegations of anti-Russian sentiment into their own articles to eliminate the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH conflating two distinct subjects. PetersV       TALK 21:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time for quick delete[edit]

As Human rights in Estonia has already been created, an appropriate subject (and with the same allegations included as part of content critical of Estonia), I move this AfD go to quick delete. PetersV       TALK 18:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO!! Why are we still arguing about whether or not to keep the article? PetersV       TALK 21:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess not matter how loud you scream, it is time for another quick no consensus. (Igny (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
This discussion hasn't even gone on for a week. People are coming up with ideas on how to save and/or merge the article, on how to improve it, on how to have it served Wikipedia's community better. We don't move at the speed of light, we're not paid. I remember a discussion lasting a whole month. And you want this done in a week. It's not Stalin's five year plan to be completed in four years. A month of discussion is more than reasonable. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The content in this article is aready covered in Human rights in Estonia, so it remains a POVFORK. --Martintg (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No consensus is no longer viable, this discussion started before Human rights in Estonia was created, the appropriate place for allegations regarding human rights violations. PetersV       TALK 01:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may be a hard decision for an admin. I would keep the article to keep the edit history. And you can have your way by building a consensus to make it a redirect to whatever you want. (Igny (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep/merge. This is obviously notable and sourceable, what remains is integrating it or improving it. Those are clean-up issues. If it's a content fork then merge to parent article, clean-up and rebirth it. if it's an improvement issue than improve it -neither requires deletion. -- Banjeboi 08:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it's sourced, but all POVFORKS are. The problem is that the central notion defined by the title is not a widely held viewpoint, but viewpoint that is contested in the literature. This article cherry picks only those sources that support the claim of discrimination while ignoring other sources that provide a rebuttal. --Martintg (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You just suggested a way how to improve it. Just add your sources with rebuttals. (Igny (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep If Amnesty International and the United Nations said it exists, then why do you doubt it? It has references, and is a legitimate topic for an article on its own. Dream Focus 12:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
why do you doubt it? Again, there are conflicting verifiable perspectives on the subject as evidenced by reliable sources. Please see the sources cited above, lets say the publication by European Network of Excellence, the cliohres.net -a Sixth Framework Programme Network of Excellence organized by a group of 45 universities. [7].--Termer (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the United Nations said it exists? The United Nations Human Rights Council 48th Session Documents on Estonia: Report on the situation of human rights in Estonia and Latvia: Although the members of the Mission found no evidence of discrimination along ethnic or religious grounds, it confirmed the impression of prior observers that there is, on the part of the Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian communities, considerable anxiety about the future...--Termer (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also both the OSCE mission in Estonia and the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities have have declared that they cannot find a pattern of human rights violations or abuses in Estonia. This is also the view of European Centre for Minority Issues. But you wouldn't know it by reading this article. That's how POVFORKS work. --Martintg (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also adding all the relevant opinions, rebuttals and alternative views is how improving WP articles works. You would not improve this article by deleting it. (Igny (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
It is a waste of time attempting to NPOV a POVFORK, as can it never achieve the required level of balance, that is why POVFORKS are deleted. --Martintg (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How come I provide sources from 2004-2006 where they say discrimination exists, and you provide 1 link for both UN, AI and others, and then it's from 1993 anyway? Is it the way you understand verifiability? Then you're wrong. FeelSunny (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The latest 17/03/2008 United Nations Human Rights Council Report of the Special Rapporteu says under the "Views of the Russian-speaking community" (The POV of the Estonian Russians) that the most important form of discrimination in Estonia is not ethnic, but rather language-based.
ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR says: (the POV of the United Nations Human Rights Council report) that The Special Rapporteur noted the existence of political will by State authorities to fight the expressions of racism and discrimination in Estonia. Estonia, particularly through historical interactions with its neighbours, also developed a tradition of tolerance, multiculturalism and openness that still permeates Estonian society. Despite the existence of scars from the more recent historical experience of the Second World War, this tradition of tolerance and multiculturalism needs to be strengthened in the deployment of efforts to eradicate racism and discrimination.
And regarding the Rome people Despite its small size, the Roma community in Estonia, as in most European countries, suffers from stigmatization and structural discrimination that manifests specifically in the realms of education, employment and cultural stereotypes.--Termer (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have to reiterate that per WP:DEL#REASON, content forking is a valid reason for deletion regardless of notability and verifiability. Some users here seem to miss this, and the discussion in general became largely irrelevant. Colchicum (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a clear violation of Wikipedia's most fundamental principle. As mentioned above, the article undoubtedly falls under WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK, and considering that even the name of the article is a transgression of NPOV: Article naming, I don't see how the earlier calls for improvement can possibly apply. — Rankiri (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but merge some of its content with other Estonia-related articles (possibly Ethnic minorities in Estonia) in a NPOV manner. --KoberTalk 20:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject of discrimination can be sufficiently covered in the Russians in Estonia article and Anti-Russian sentiment. The Human Rights in Estonia subject just further eliminates the reason for this article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Discrimination_of_ethnic_minorities_in_Estonia&oldid=1137790125"