Jump to content

Talk:Human rights in Estonia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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)


Some more sources

(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. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 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)

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)

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 [5], 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)

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 [6]). In its 2006 report regarding Estonia, they acknowledged the positive aspects of the situation with human rights, but they raised a number of concerns ([7]).

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. [8] 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)
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))
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)

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)

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 [9]. 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 [10] 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. [11] - about the Foundation. [12] - 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_rights_in_Estonia/Archive_1&oldid=1089889102"