Talk:Russians in Estonia

Are Russians considered to be humans in Estonia?

According to Estonian official documents Russians are not humans but mere animals - does it necessary to have link to human rights in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.173.131 (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Wrong Number

Please, correct your numbers - take it from the article Demographics of Estonia Russians in Estonia in 1989 - 474,834 Russians in Estonia in 2011 - 95,939 not 320,000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.6.1 (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You are mixing up Russians with citizens of the Russian Federation. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Soviet

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

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

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

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

On 5 July 1940, ignoring the existing laws, Vares-Barbarus dissolved the Riigikogu (Parliament) and announced a new general election. The communists and their supporters were assembled in one bloc and the candidacy of their opponents was made impossible. The official result of that farcical election was that the communist bloc received 92.9 per cent of the votes. One of the first steps of the new ‘parliament’ was to declare the establishment of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic (ESSR) and propose its incorporation into the Soviet Union. On 6 August 1940, Moscow concluded the annexation: the Supreme Soviet of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) accepted the Estonian SSR into the Soviet Union.

— The first Soviet occupation, http://www.estonica.org/eng/lugu.html?kateg=43&menyy_id=99&alam=61&tekst_id=258

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

DLX 09:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

baltic russians as 5th column of Russia

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

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

Etymology of 'raamat'

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

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

Russian cultural influences on 11th century

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

Edits by Fisenko (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

House of Representatives of Ethnic Minorities of Estonia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 17 October

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was renamed to History of Russians in Estonia around which there seems to be a consensus. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Russians in Estonia → Estonian Russians The current title "Russians in Estonia" is too abstract, it could mean anything like an American in Paris. Since there is a clear pattern how such articles are named in WP such as Baltic Germans, Baltic Russians, Estonian Swedes etc, this article should be named accordingly and according to the content Estonian Russians that also gives 110 returns at google books and 130 at google scholar.--Termer (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support, logical, consistent (in the Baltic Germans vein) and largely unambiguous. 'Estonian Russians' makes no claims of citizenship or nationality so the statistics quoted above are irrelevant. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. The corresponding article for Latvia, for which I pretty much rewrote from scratch the entire Russian empire period, is History of Russians in Latvia. I think History of Russians in Estonia would be more descriptive and useful. It also makes the title descriptive as opposed to being a label. —PētersV (talk) 04:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I think Pēters has a very good suggestion. Oth (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    • That would narrow down the scope of the article, surely there is more to the subject than just a history. --Termer (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
      • If History_of_Russians_in_Estonia#Recent_situation was split off into, say Estonian integration policies, then all that remains is the history, so I agree with Vecrumba's suggestion. Martintg (talk) 11:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Lost an edit yesterday closing windows, I wrote I thought "history" expands the topic as that encompasses early traders, Ivan's early foray (as I recall), since it's Russians both interacting with Estonia and Russians living in Estonia. We wouldn't want recent trends to overwhelm the article in any event, so something that deals with only with post-Soviet (occupation) Estonia separately would be the best, as that would also tend to change over time as it reflects the current situation. Perhaps Russians in Estonia today (?) could contain sections such as "Integration of Russians in post-Soviet Estonia" and "Current situation". —PētersV (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Since the themes are very similar, Soviet occupation through to today, I'd also offer to make that same split for the History of Russians in Latvia article. There's plenty more to add to history pre-reestablishment of independence, and such a split would allow both articles to grow. —PētersV (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
          • • I'd say anything would be better than ambiguous "Russians in Estonia" and in case a consensus can be reached that the article should be called History of Russians in Estonia we should make it happen and rename the article accordingly.--Termer (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Estonian Russians AND History of Russians in Estonia

I propose there should be two different articles. Currently the heading "Recent situation" fills a half of the article. For example in Finnish Wikipedia there is only one article fi:Viron venäläiset. I think it would be more logical this way: Main article "Estonian Russians" where there is a subarticle "History of Russians in Estonia". Peltimikko (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at the long discussion above. My similar suggestion didn't get consensus and it was left to that.--Termer (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Bäckman

I've removed Bäckman's opinion as WP:UNDUE. He is an obscure author who has not published in English, his viewpoint (which many consider to be extremist) should not be accorded the same weight as Amnesty International. --Martintg (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The language one publishes in has nothing to do with this. This is not American wikipedia and the article is not about an anglophone subject. He is well known in the three countries in question: Finland, Russia and Estonia. His views were considered important enough to be covered by a reliable source (Russia Today.) He has received a lot of media attention in the three countries mentioned, and thus I think his views are notable and relevant. Offliner (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Compared to Amnesty Internation, Bäckman is obscure, giving equal prominence to his viewpoint is undue in English Wikipedia. If he is more prominent in Finland, Estonia and Russia, then expand the appropriate article in Finnish, Estonian and Russian Wikipedia. Martintg (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If you think my version was giving too much space to Bäckman in comparison to Amnesty's, you can always expand Amnesty's view to compensate. Bäckman is well-known and his views have been given coverage in international English-language media such as Russia Today, so they should be included. Offliner (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Bäckman has no academic background researching of history or ethnic issues - only in criminology. He is just shooting his controversial opinions without academic background. Wonder why anyone in Finnish academic world has not used his researches? Because he has none! Right now Bäckman has more audience in Estonia and Russia, only because of political reasons - not because academic reasons. Peltimikko (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There many people who have no academic background at all, but are still experts in some subject. I think Bäckman's academic discipline is not too relevant here. What's important is that his views have been covered by reliable sources. We should describe his views in this article as clearly as possible and let the readers decide if they believe him or not. Verifiability, not truth. Offliner (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's try a gedanken experiment.

Let's suppose there's a man who at 3 o'clock in the morning takes a spray can and goes out to write political messages onto some high-profile building. How about an embassy? All done, he goes back to sleep.

So, now morning comes, and newscrews will cover the vandalised embassy and the political graffiti on it. They're reliable sources; they have covered (indeed, even quoted) the graffiti; does it mean that Wikipedia has to give credence to the graffiti's content? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 07:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You keep ignoring WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article". Bäckman is an obscure writer with extremist views, even his own blog hosted by the Uusi Suomi online newspaper in his native Finland was pulled offline because his views are so extreme. His view is already covered in his biographical article, it has no place in this article. --Martintg (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You keep ignoring the fact, that Bäckman's allegations of criminal discrimination have already been voiced by other reliable sources, such as international human rights organizations, Russian academics, etc. His views on the discrimination are not a not a viewpoint that is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority.[4] This viewpoint is important, and must not be censored. Bäckman provides more info and details about this viewpoint, and his formulation is informative to the reader. He is not "an obscure writer," and his views are "extreme" only in the sense that only few people dare to talk about the issues he is addressing. His blog was removed (censored) after a request from KAPO. But contrary to what you are claiming, this does not diminish his reliability or importance. It only shows that he is taken seriously by the Estonian authorities, perhaps because he is exposing some unpleasant truth. In any case, I think his opinion deserves to be included for the reasons I mentioned. Of course, he should receive the correct amount of space in relation to others. I think the Amnesty report should be described in more detail to give balance, and then Bäckman's view should be included approximately in the form as I did (a direct citation seems a good idea.) Offliner (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what? You're saying that KAPO has power to shut down blogs in Finland? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 07:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, some international human rights organizations have alleged discrimination, it is only Bäckman who alleges this discrimination is criminal. --Martintg (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

According to Amnesty, the discrimination is in violation of European Social Charter. Thus, it is criminal. Offliner (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That is nonsense, the Charter is not criminal law. The European Committee of Social Rights is the body responsible for monitoring compliance in the countries party to the Charter, and they have not issued any notices of non-compliance against Estonia. --Martintg (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I personally don't mind adding extremist and hostile viewpoints to WP articles as long as conflicting perspectives are counter balanced according to WP:YESPOV. So in case opinions of this Bäckman guy are relevant, please don't miss out the people from the opposing end like for example Alfred Kaarmann an Estonian Forest Brother who thinks that the Russians destroyed the Estonian nation. They opposed-and still oppose -Estonian independence...Many Estonians feel that Russia was and is dedicated to the elimination of Estonia" Reimagining civic education By Bradley A. Levinson, Doyle Stevick, p. 236. And for example Jüri Toomepuu said the Estonian Government made a serious mistake allowing the Russians to vote in local elections. "The United States does not let foreigners vote," said Mr. Toomepuu, an American citizen who returned here from Chicago after independence. "This was a crazy idea, and we will pay for it in years to come, with all these Russians and former Communists on our city councils." NYTimes November 12, 1993.--Termer (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think WP:YESPOV works in this case. How do you balance "Estonia is a criminal apartheid regime"? First of all it is simply factually incorrect, secondly the opposing extremist viewpoints offered above don't actually counter it, they just look like attempts to justify discrimination when in fact this discrimination doesn't really exist. Thus I'm against including extremist viewpoints for this reason, and the fact that they breach WP:UNDUE, drowning out mainstream POV. --Martintg (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

By quoting some foul-mouthed bloke thinking nasty thoughts of Bäckman out loud, I'd wager. Obviously absurd. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 07:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Avatud Vabariik

I red an interview of Jevgeni Kristafovich by IIvi Anna Masso in Uusi Suomi [5] (in Finnish). According the interview he is the leader of the organisation "Open Republic" (estonian: Avatud Vabariik, russian: Открытая Республика) [6]. The organisation works with a youth of Estonian russians, and it is more Estonian-friendly than for example Nochnoy Dozor. Also Kristafovich himself have been denied visa in Russia and he has got under the pressure of Russian media. As I understood from the article and comments the organisation and the number of members are quite small. My questions: 1) do the organisation have any political or other significance? 2) If so, could someone sacrifice him/herself and start the article either of the person nor the organisation. Peltimikko (talk) 04:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda

I'm not going to get involved in this article, it doesn't concern me, but just want to point out many of the references are linked from http://www.orthodox.ee/ which is a biased anti-Estonian religious fundamentalist Russian web-site. Everything derived from these sources should be deleted. Especially humorous are references to people from Kievan-Rus as if they were Russians, before Russians themselves came into existence. --Hatteras (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Famous Estonians of Russian origin?

It seems to me that if there is 350 000 people of Russian origin, in country of only 1 300 000 people, there should be much more Estonian Russians. In sport, politics, media, tv... Singers? Actors? Can anyone add Vasiljev, Lenna Kuurmaa... actually thats all I can remember, but there must be many, many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.79.1 (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Lenna is an Estonian with no Russian ancestry. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Lena is Russian by her father. but seems to me that you can be Russian only in sport, in Estonia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.117.239 (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What on earth are you ranting about? Lenna's father is called Rain. I don't know any Russian with that name, it is a common name in Estonian, though. She only learnt some Russian at school. Just check http://www.freewebs.com/lennakuurmaaleht/Lenna.htm . --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It could be I confused her with Katrin Siska, but Im pretty sure both are Russian. Name doesn't mean really much, especially with young generation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.82.1 (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Better come up with sources to back up your ridiculous claims. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

All I know its impossible to know is there any Russian in Eurolaul. How ever, third of your football team is Russian. Now why don't you, since you obviously know who is and who is not Russian, expand this great article with at least 10 Russians of Estonia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.82.1 (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Participation in Eurolaul or membership in the national soccer team is hardly grounds for inclusion, unless it propels them to international renown (a criterion that most present members in the list meet). I wouldn't say that there aren't more such Russians in Estonia, but none come to mind (Ksenija Balta, I believe, is Belarussian). A large proportion of the intelligentsia that came to Estonia during the Soviet occupation and have become "household names" in their respective academic circles are actually Jewish, not Russian. Any other suggestions (besides only locally significant athletes or aspiring singers)?--Vihelik (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

POV

Article fails to mention what human rights organisation and Russia describe as discrimination against Speakers of Russian.[7] I'll place a POV tag until issue is resolved.--Kathovo talk 12:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

What discrimination? We already have the article Human rights in Estonia. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. --Nug (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind I fixed it for ya.--Kathovo talk 18:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted you since not only is Wikipedia not a WP:SOAPBOX, but your edit violates WP:NPOV, since the notion of "discrimination" is contested in the sources. --Nug (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Obviously SOAP and POV have different meaning in your book, time for RFC then.--Kathovo talk 12:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

RFC human rights and legality of Soviet annexation

Several users who monitor this page refuse to include claims of human rights abuse citing SOAP as a reason. Also claim of Soviet annexation being illegal is WP:POV and WP:LABEL. Just like we can't add the labels "terrorist" to al-Qaeda or "racist" to Nazi Germany, we likewise shouldn't describe the Soviet annexation of Baltic states as "illegal".--Kathovo talk 12:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't really have the opinion on "human rights abuse" (besides that it needs to be described from more than one source/viewpoint, or it would indeed be WP:SOAP), however, Soviet occupation being illegal is not contested by neither current Western historians nor legal scholars. See Occupation of the Baltic states for a multitude of sources, including a countering viewpoint, Occupation of the Baltic states#Soviet and Russian historiography. --Sander Säde 07:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

What the Amnesty International labels as discrimination reads: Members of the Russian-speaking minority faced discrimination. Non-Estonian speakers, mainly from the Russian-speaking minority, were denied employment due to official language requirements for various professions in the private sector and almost all professions in the public sector. This reads rather odd. Can you bring an example of another country where at least a basic skill of the local language is not a requirement for employment, at least in a job involving communication? For instance, do I get a service job in Moscow without a command of the Russian language?

Legality, as opposed to 'terrorism' and 'racism', is an objective category, as it has a commonly agreed basis in the form of written law. In this case, the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 form this basis. You can read all about the application of the conventions for the Baltic case in the Occupation of the Baltic states and State continuity of the Baltic states articles, or, even better, in Illegal Annexation and State Continuity: The Case of the Incorporation of the Baltic States by the USSR by prof. Lauri Mälksoo. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a different problem in this and some other articles about the Baltic states. Illegality of those states' annexation by the USSR appears to be used to claim that it didn't happen at all, since articles are being re-written with their status described as occupied territories. That's completely illogical. The annexation might have happened illegally, but it did happen, and the three Baltic Soviet republics did not function as occupied territories. If the kind of reasoning that lead to contrary claims was applied more broadly, we should start writing that the USSR as a whole, and even RSFSR, never existed. ~~ Litawor (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Citizenship of the population of Estonia in 2010.

  Estonian: 1.148.895

  Russian: 95.939

  Others: 21.517

  Undetermined: 99.173

::If a country denies 30% of its inhabitants citizenship based on their mother tongue and gets criticised for it by leading human rights organisation then this deserves mentioning. This is on the same scale of Canada refusing Francophones Canadian citizenship.

Of course legality is objective, that's why we have lawyers and courts which represent different legal "truths". Just to mention a few contemporary examples: Is the Israeli occupation of Syria legal or not? Isn't the London based Chechen Republic of Ichkeria the legal representative of Chechenya? Just because a number of western government claim the Soviet annexation of Baltic states was illegal doesn't mean that Wikipedia should lean towards that POV.--Kathovo talk 14:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Amnesty International reports nothing on the denial of citizenship. Hence, this is your private concern backed up by nothing.

Wikipedia is WP:NOTTRUTH but verifiable facts. The legality of a campaign can and, in this case, has been verified. If you have a solid source that claims otherwise, please provide it. Until that, please find another soapbox. Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kathovo, comparison with Israel or Ichkeria is irrelevant to the Baltic states. Your claim that the "country denies 30% of its inhabitants citizenship based on their mother tongue" is just WP:SOAPBOXing, as the pie chart on citizenship (from 2010) shows your "30%" number has no factual basis in reality. --Nug (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Population data from official sources,[8] this is down from around 30% in 1989.--Kathovo talk 22:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Amnesty clearly states that Russians face linguistic discrimination in Estonia, this statement is a fact and there is no reason why it should be omitted. As for denial of citizenship there is ample evidence.[9]p23 I will re-add a POV tag, please do not remove until a resolution has been reached.--Kathovo talk 08:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I would face "linguistic discrimination" in Moscow if I tried to get a job because I don't speak Russian, you would face "linguistic discrimination" in Tokyo for a similar reason. You claimed the "country denies 30% of its inhabitants citizenship based on their mother tongue", but the facts (only 7% are of undetermined citizenship) show what you say is a lie. --Nug (talk) 09:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you are failing to understand the difference between citizenship and ethnicity.--Kathovo talk 09:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You seem to be failing to understand basic maths. 84.14% have Estonian citizenship, yet you claim 30% have been denied citizenship. --Nug (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Nuff said. An official language test is a prerequirement for citizenship in most of the countries in the world, including Finland, Germany, and Russia. No Russian has ever been denied Estonian citizenship based on his or her ethnicity. Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Check WP:ANI#Anti-Russian partisan behaviour in Russians in Estonia.

Some quotes from the report of Legal Information Centre for Human Rights:--Kathovo talk 11:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Both the structural transformation of the Estonian economy and the Estonian language proficiency are typically mentioned as the factors responsible for higher unemployment rates among minorities. Certain language requirements are criticised by experts as unbalanced and potentially discriminatory.

The UN Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination stated in its August 2006 Concluding Observations concerning Estonia: “While the Committee recognises the efforts made by the State party in the field of employment, including the action plans for 2004 – 2007 under the State integration programmes, it remains concerned at the high rate the State integration programmes, it remains concerned at the high rate that the scope of the requirement of Estonian language proficiency, including in the private sector, may have a discriminatory effect on the availability of employment to members of this community”.

A comparative study of the situation faced on the labour market by young ethnic Estonians and non-Estonians (aged 15 – 24) performed by Statistics Estonia analyst Siim Krusell was published in 2007. Analysing the 2006 data, he arrived at the conclusion that ethnic non-Estonians were in disadvantaged, especially in terms of the pay, unemployment and promotion.

At the same time a poll conducted in June 2007 showed that a large share of ethnic non-Estonians had witnessed discrimination based on ethnic origin and language, including employment discrimination (Table 29). Th e same study demonstrated that the majority of ethnic non-Estonians did not believe that the private and public sector employment, earning, and educational opportunities open to them were the equal to those open to Estonians.

The LICHR is an organisation for "promoting the concerns of Russian-speaking inhabitants", which means its statements should be verified for objectivity before publication. We have done that above. An official language skill for employment and citizenship is required everywhere in the world. Taking this for discrimination upon ethnicity can and has been interpreted as incompetent at best and malevolent at worst. Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

OK I get it now, Amnesty, LICHR and basically every other NGO that disputes the Estonian government is wrong and shouldn't be quoted.--Kathovo talk 12:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Your source Legal Information Centre for Human Rights is financially backed by the Russkiy Mir Foundation, i.e. the Russian government, they are pushing their self-interested POV. Amnesty has been roundly criticised for their report. The article is currently neutral because it does not WP:COATRACK something that properly belongs in Human rights in Estonia. Adding a controversial POV as you insist will mean that opposing viewpoints will need to be added to restore the balance, if that happens then this article will end up duplicating much of Human rights in Estonia. Wikipedia is not the place for advocating bogus claims like "country denies 30% of its inhabitants citizenship based on their mother tongue" when the fact is 84% of all residents are Estonian citizens. --Nug (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

LICHR is simply quoting reports from Amnesty, CERD, and academic research conclusions, they seem to have gained quite a good reputation as an independent NGO from various European organisations.p29 Anyhow, regardless of how it gets its financing it is clear that your world is neatly divided between "bad" Russia and "Good" Estonia. Could you please enlighten me to who has "roundly criticised Amnesty" to the point that their report on Russians in Estonia should be ignored altogether?

There is no WP:ADVOCACY nor WP:COATRACK in mentioning claims of discrimination of Russians in Estonia in an article dedicated to Russians in Estonia.--Kathovo talk 13:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Some of this falls more under Estonia–Russia relations and some Human rights in Estonia?

Nobody is/was denied citizenship in Estonia. The trouble with 1989 census is that it included Soviet military workers, career military and their family members. Not all the Russians in Estonia were without Estonian citizenship there were the ones who or who's one parent lived in Estonia in before 16 June 1940 (that then includes territories incorporated to Russian SSR in 1945) or who were married with someone with the citizenship.

The statelessness isn't forced, but for many stateless people it is their own choice the reason for them for not taking Estonian citizenship is the right of visa-free travel to Russia, which they do not want to give up, but many of the stateless residents do not wish to settle permanently in Russia either. link and Estonian alien's passport. Also all Estonian residents who had been Soviet citizens had the right for Russian citizenship, or to choose any other citizenship. Also as people born in Estonia can take the citizenship an average stateless person is rather old and around 40% of the annual decrease of the stateless persons is due to the mortality. link Children born in Estonia after 26 February 1992 whose parents of undetermined citizenship have lived in Estonia for at least five years are eligible, at their parents' request, to gain Estonian citizenship through naturalisation without the precondition of passing the citizenship examinations. link

Estonia is one of the few countries in the world where all legal residents, regardless of their citizenship, have the right to vote in local government elections Right of foreigners to vote.

I have to go back to Kathovo's first comment and I have to say that these are some wild claims. Nazi Germany is labeled racist in Wikipedia citing article: Racism, especially antisemitism, was a central feature of the regime., for Al-Qaeda is said that it is designated as a terrorist organization by (list) and Soviet annexation of Baltic states was illegal. ––Klõps (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Jumping into a fire-pit blind here. I disagree that laws are objective. They are arbitrary human constructs. Experts, lawyers and courts often disagree on what is illegal and alleging that something is against the law will always need to be accompanied by some clarification regarding according to who, which law, and in what country. However, with a strong source, we should include that something is against a specific law according to a specific person/organization.

There are some references in this discussion to "fact" and "truth" but we do not need these concepts anywhere here on Wikipedia. We are not in a position to establish what is accurate, only what is verifiable.

This edit does read as potential soapboxing, mostly because it is a very serious accusation described in a vague way. However, the same sentence at the beginning of an entire section with strong reliable sources regarding the history of discrimination in the country would become much more compelling/encyclopedic if it had context regarding specific actions/events/etc. The chief problem being that it is not specific.

It is a little hard to comment more thoughtfully because the discussion has become very dispersed. CorporateM (Talk) 01:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The basic problem imo is that no information regarding claims of discrimination is allowed here. I am kind of tied up in real life but I will come up with a paragraph regarding discrimination later this week.--09:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that law may be subjective. However, the job of us Wikipedia editors is not judge people or countries ourselves but to cite relevant court decisions and scholarly research, which has been done here.

I also agree that the discrimination claims that have been thrown around here have been very vague and general. The basic problem is not that discrimination claims are disallowed but that no objective report on concrete discrimination has been cited that would stand up the scrutiny of logic. The most common discrimination claim has been based on the language requirements, which cannot be regarded as such because language requirements are part of a normal naturalisation and hiring processes everywhere, including Russia. Kathovo, should you wish to add a discrimination upon language clause to every minority people's article in Russia because Russian language is required both for citizenship and getting a service job? Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• That would not be POV at all. Not including it would be POV. This is not some fringe minority point of view. It's the offcial position of Estonia. It's the majority position world wide. It is also the position that Estonia used to exit the USSR. Illegal and it's use here does not fall under wp:label. It's always best not to push pov when you are accusing others of pushing pov. As far as humanrights and abuse have you considered posting your changes to Human rights in Estonia.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Needs cleaning up

The article is really messy and requires cleaning up.

Dbreagornks (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Dbreagornks