Talk:Human rights in Estonia

POV edits

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

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

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

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

Your very first justification "1. [10] - I repaired the link to the UN that was previously broken, cited the UN document. You reverted the edit, deleting the working link to the UN document and all verbatims." is misleading. No, you added a sentence that incorporate particular terms that appear to have been cherry picked from a document and given prominence as the lead sentence of a section which suggests there is an element of tendentiousness to your edits. Most of your other edits were of the same vein, so it was simpler to just revert. Please be mindful of issues of WP:ADVOCACY and please adhere to Wikipedia policies. Thank you. --Nug (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems that FeelSunny does not even understand what is wrong with his edits. Compare [11] these two ledes. One is sourced and neutral - but FeelSunny's version starts off by insinuating that there is something wrong and international "human rights organizations and agencies" need to constantly discuss it. Many of the other edits are in the similar vein, as detailed by Nug above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion about each edit

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

Edit 1

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

Edit 2

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

Edit 3

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

Edit 4

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

Edit 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit 7

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

Edit 8

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

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

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

• The Russian viewpoint is very much in the minority, look at this latest report from the UN[12], all other countries praised the efforts of Estonia, only Russia stands alone with the claim "Estonia’s human rights policy was a failure." --Nug (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Edit 9

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

Others

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

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

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

Lead section

Currently we have both this:

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

and this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is notable that the latest AI 2011 report[13] makes no mention of Estonia, obviously since the controversial departure of Irene Khan they no longer think it is an issue. --Nug (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The viewpoint of Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs with respect to Estonia's human rights cannot be relied upon as it is highly politicised. According to Thomas Ambrosio, Russia's persistent criticism of Estonian human rights is a way of diverting attention away from its own grave democratic and human rights abuses by way of criticising others.[14] --Nug (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Russia's flawed and unreliable viewpoint with regard to former Soviet Union is discussed in Thomas Ambrosio's Authoritarian backlash: Russian resistance to democratization in the former Soviet Union [15]. --Nug (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

1. An official point of view of a country is also a significant viewpoint, which doesn't mean that I always agree with it, be it China, Russia, US or Estonia. 2. There are also scholars criticising US reporting. So, Natalia Narochnitskaya evaluates them as follows: "forcing upon others with almost totalitarian means their own interpretation of many humanitarian human rights, the US are limiting freedoms characteristic for the Western society at home. Such respectful for Washington (when speaking about other countries) organisations as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, do permanently criticize American authorities for violations of human rights inside the country (..) The violations of rights of Russian-speaking population of Estonia and Latvia don't get attention in the US, either (навязывая почти тоталитарными методами свое толкование многих гуманитарных прав человека, США сворачивают свойственные именно западному обществу свободы в собственной стране. Такие авторитетные для Вашингтона (когда речь идет о других странах) организации, как «Хьюман райтс уотч» и «Международная амнистия», постоянно критикуют американские власти за нарушения прав человека внутри страны (..) Не замечают в США и нарушения прав не получившего гражданства русскоязычного населения Эстонии и Латвии)" [16]. Same criticism as directed by Ambrosio towards Russian diplomacy. You might object that her PhD is not in human rights, but Amrosio's is neither.Fuseau (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Layout improved by Fuseau (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Unsurprisingly, you do not provide neither the source of that evaluation, nor any data on who V. Morozov is and why he is reliable in Estonian issues. Even if he is a scholar in a relevant field, one should read WP:Fringe: "Other things usually should not be called pseudoscience on Wikipedia: 4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process". Fuseau (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attribution is only required for biased opinions, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, no one has provided a scholarly source that claims the US opinion on human rights in Estonia is biased, while I have provided this source[17] that explicitly states that Russia's opinion of the human rights situation in Estonia is extremely biased and even intentionally misleading. As such its inaccurate viewpoint is unreliable per WP:RS (and also irrelevant IMO) for an encyclopaedic article on this topic, and yet nevertheless it is mentioned in the body. But what is being proposed here is to give equal and thus WP:UNDUE weight to such a documented highly biased and intentionally misleading viewpoint through insertion into the lede, and that is unacceptable. --Nug (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's NATO got to do with anything? Turkey's NATO membership does not spare it from adverse human rights reports of grave human rights abuses[18] such as unlawful killings, torture, beatings, and abuse by Turkey's security forces (though the way Moscow complains it seems expecting soviet era immigrnts who reside in Estonia to exercise their free choice in citizenship is more cruel than any police beating, torture or ex-judicial killing of other countries). --Nug (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Ad hominem attacks.Fuseau (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have read it and the whole Criticism section is garbage in a bad need of cleanup. Right now, it is just random sentences scraped together from any source possible, in some cases completely out of context. As for Russia, pretty much all freedom and democracy indexes rank Russia the same, so... What do you expect from a country where ruling party gets 98% support in elections in areas that hold no love for Russian rule (well, at least this time they got the math right - previous (duma?) elections had pro-Putin parties getting over 100% votes in some areas). Also, Russavia, isn't your interaction ban still active? --Sander Säde 09:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sander, this report[19] is an interesting read. It rates Russia an "anocracy", which apparently is regime where power is not vested in public institutions (as in a normal democracy) but spread amongst elite groups who are constantly competing with each other for power. Examples of anocracies in Africa include the warlords of Somalia and the shared governments in Kenya and Zimbabwe. The report goes on to state: "Some anocracies have been able to manage conflict between deeply divided social groups for substantial periods of time through the use of restrictions on political participation as in Russia, Malaysia, and Venezuela. This also appears to be the strategy adopted recently in Fiji to limit political influence by ethnic-Indians" (See page 11) This same report rates Estonia a democracy. So here we have the foreign ministry of an anocracy telling us Estonia has a "democracy deficit". LOL. --Nug (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

From from the country specific report on Estonia[20]: "Despite the contentious relationship between Estonians and Russians, international human rights organizations acknowledge that the Government generally respects the human rights of its citizens and the large “non-citizen” community." I'll cite this report in the lede.--Nug (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no source given to evaluate that Center fr Systemic Peace as reliable source in human rights.Fuseau (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent point. So, can you now please provide some sources supporting your claim that Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a reliable source in human rights? --Sander Säde 13:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

1. You didn't reply to the source request on CFR reliability. 2. You didn't make a claim that US DoS is a reliable source in human rights, while insisting on its preferable treatment, and neither did I about Russian MFA (or US DoS), while insisting on equal treatment - do not misrepresent my claim, please. However, both US DoS and Russia's MFA POV are reliable sources when writing about respective POVs of both countries on any issues, including human rights, and their POVs significant as POVs of countries active in the region; thus they deserve (equal) coverage in this article, despite existing criticism, including by scholars, of both POVs.Fuseau (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I was not asked for sources. I asked you for sources. Instead of providing these sources, you attack me.

As for the reliability of US DoS, 30 seconds of search gave me, for example, this scientific review. Tens of thousands of scholars have used DoS human rights reports in their work - and, by the way, same, albeit in lesser scale, is also true for the Center for Systemic Peace.

The question behind this RFC has become moot anyway, as the new lede uses DoS only for the negative, that should be acceptable for you in any case.

--Sander Säde 14:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I was not asked for sources the request for sources made by me 12:51, 17 January 2012, and to which you responded (without giving a source), was meant for everyone I asked you for sources for a claim I didn't make, at least now. you attack me I did kindly ask you not not misrepresent what I claim.Fuseau (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

here we have the foreign ministry of an anocracy telling us Estonia has a "democracy deficit" The problems of Russia do not prove that its criticism (or praise) toward other countries is wrong or right (of course, the same applies to US and others). See And you are lynching NegroesFuseau (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC) I've seen lots of misunderstandings (to say the least) in this discussion. To avoid one in the interpreting my pointing to the example of the incorrect way of evading criticism known as "And you are lynching Negroes", I'll add a direct link to an article on a logical fallacy: Tu quoque. Pointing to human rights problems in Russia is not a valid way to justify ignoring Russia-provided information on human rights problems in Estonia Fuseau (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This is becoming tedious. Sander has provided a scholarly source that confirms that the US State Department reports on Human Rights are widely used and respected, and thus are a solidly reliable source on human rights. I have provided a scholarly source that confirms that the Russian MFA statements on Estonia are consistently exaggerated and misleading and are published not out of any real concern for the welfare of Russian speaking residents in Estonia but rather as a cynical Tu quoque exercise aimed at diverting attention away from Russia's own human rights issues, and thus these statements are unreliable and useless for this article. And yet you expect us to consider both sources equally. I get the distinct impression that either you do not understand WP:DUE or that WP:YOUDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Nug (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

1. I have provided a scholarly source that confirms that the Russian MFA statements on Estonia are consistently exaggerated and misleading And I provided a scholarly source confirmin US DoS statements on Estonia to downplay the problems. 2. Russian MFA statements on Estonia are (..) a cynical Tu quoque exercise aimed at diverting attention away from Russia's own human rights issues That's what I spoke about. Even if Russia's criticism of Estonia is an attempt to use Tu quoque, it doesn't mean that criticism of Estonia to be wrong (while that counter-criticism is not a valid argument for refuting criticism of Russia).Fuseau (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

And yet, you fail to bring a single scholarly source that shows Russian MFA being even remotely trustworthy when it comes to human rights issues - or Estonia. Why is that?

Also, you didn't provide a "scholarly source confirmin US DoS statements on Estonia", Russavia did - are you his/her sock? I doubt that, as Russavia has far less typos and logical fallacies, but you can never know.

US DoS is right now used only for the negative - "while there are concerns in some areas, such as detention conditions, police and child abuse". If you think that US DoS position cannot be used in such a prominent position, let us simply remove that part from the lede and call it good.

"it doesn't mean that criticism of Estonia to be wrong (while that counter-criticism is not a valid argument for refuting criticism of Russia)" - I really don't understand what you mean there. According to your argument, it doesn't also mean that Russian criticism is correct - in fact, considering that the biggest human right watchdogs have no bone to pick with Estonia, beyond mild comments, indicates very strongly that Russia's MFA's position is incorrect. Therefore, to give it equal footing with human rights organizations and Department of State, would be assigning an undue weight.

--Sander Säde 16:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

And yet, you fail to bring a single scholarly source that shows Russian MFA being even remotely trustworthy when it comes to human rights issues I don't "fail" as that's not necessary to include fairly presented POV of Russian MFA in the article. See below.

Also, you didn't provide a "scholarly source confirmin US DoS statements on Estonia", Russavia did May be if you took a more serious look at this very section of discussion, you would see that I did provide (one more) scholarly source and you would not express strange suspicions.

According to your argument, it doesn't also mean that Russian criticism is correct Yes, of course. WP doesn't need to prove Russian or US POV to be correct in order to include it in the article without attacking words like "allege" - Wikipedia just has to cover all significant viewpoints in a neutral way. To exclude US or Russian POV, it would be necessary to show not criticism of them, but their non-notability, which is hardly possible.

considering that the biggest human right watchdogs have no bone to pick with Estonia, beyond mild comments Mild or not mild, who are the biggest watchdogs.... It's a question of rather subjective evaluation.

to give it equal footing with human rights organizations and Department of State, would be assigning an undue weight About DoS - it's perfectly reasonable as both are diplomatic sources and both are criticised of a biased view on Estonia. About human rights organisations - their views should be reflected separately, and not only the more positive views, but also the ones very critical on Estonia, like Amnesty International. Fuseau (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you are presenting any new arguments here. Some governments and politicians (particularly those who hold radical viewpoints like Narochnitskaya) will always be critical of adverse DoS reports, but you cannot hold that to the same level as criticism by politically unaffilated scholars. In fact, scholars have positively assessed DoS human rights reports has widely used and respected, unlike Russian MFO statements (unless you can find a scholarly source that gives such a positive assessment). --Nug (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The reasoning doesn't need to be new to be relevant. Any scholar critical or supportive of US (or Russia's) POV on human rights issues can be labeled as politicized, but it doesn't make the US (or Russia's) POV irrelevant in the article. As I stated, diplomatic POVs of involved countires are significant (note I don't claim them to be correct - neither US, nor Russia's) independently of whether they're praised or attacked by some scholars.Fuseau (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

However Ambrosio is very clear and explicit of his criticism of Russian MFO statesments not the ones cited in this article. Fuseau (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I am responding to a RFC not having previously read this article. The article strikes me as biased. I think that an articles on a country's human rights record should be politically unbiased. As a result I think that both US and Russian opinion should be just that opinion. There could be a heading international opinion that could set out both sets of views. Whilst reading the article I checked the Human Right Watch website and they do not list Estonia as country where they are currently working. http://www.hrw.org/browse_by_country I also looked at the European Court of Human Rights website and looked at the country summary. http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/C2E5DFA6-B53C-42D2-8512-034BD3C889B0/0/FICHEPARPAYS_ENG_MAI2010.pdf The case of Alver v Estonia 8 November 2005 was one of "conditions of detention amounting to inhuman or degrading treatment" [[Isthisuseful (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)]]

However scholars have assessed US DoS human rights reports as a widely used and respected source on the topic, while other (politically unaffiliated) scholars have assessed Russian MFO reports has highly biased and misleading. Apples and oranges. --Nug (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

So, in order to come to some conclusions, do we all recognize here that the US DoS is a non-neutral source when it comes to Baltics, as per sources named and quoted above? And, here are some more sources claiming the U.S. government (and DoS is part of it, and follows and forms it's policy) has a very clear policy on Baltics: [21] FeelSunny (Latvia will express its gratitude for the unwavering support of its true friends like the United States of America, Secretary of State Albright played a key role in convincing the Latvian President Guntis Ulmanis to support the liberal naturalization law, USAID [which is a U.S. governmental program - F.S.] and the Open Society Institute jointly funded the Baltic-American Partnership Fund (BAPF). BAPF is a US-based public-private partnership, and its mission is to strengthen and sustain civil society in Estonia, Strobe Talbott: my old friend Lennart Meri, who had risen to the presidency of Estonia, US policy tended to group the Baltic States together and support was shared out evenly between Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, friendly relations that have been continuously maintained between the United States of America and the Republic of Estonia, etc.) Once again, the DoS is part of the US government. (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. The sources presented by those who claim the US DoS is a non-neutral source when it comes to Baltics have not presented anything substantial. All that has been presented is the viewpoint of a Russian politician with a doctoral degree. Your quote is just personal WP:OR, whereas this[22] is an academic assessment confirming the reliability of DoD human rights reports. --Nug (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Nug, you gave a link to a page protected by Google for copyright reasons after several access sessions. Please copy the content here, if you want someone to see it. In the meantime, could you please explain, if the head of the DoS is directly involved in the legislative activity of a Baltic state; influences the president of a Baltic nation to promote an important law directly connected with the human rights situation in the nation, does it still leave the DoS neutral, when it comes to human rights in the Baltic region? If somehow it is still not enough for you, could you please name the fact that would persuade you that the DoS is not just a neutral observer there? FeelSunny (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This is your personal synthesis that because "Secretary of State Albright played a key role in convincing the Latvian President Guntis Ulmanis to support the liberal naturalization law" that it follws the DoS human rights reports for Estonia are non-neutral. --Nug (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Nug, this is in no way a synthesis of "DoS human rights reports for Estonia are non-neutral", and I'm not claiming this at all. What I say is, DoS itself is not neutral when it comes to Estonia. US DoS deep involvement in the country's affairs, as an ministry of an allied state, and a ministry that directly influences human rights policy of Estonia, makes the DoS a perfectly non-neutral source.FeelSunny (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside, as US DoJ is used only for the negative in the article, I take you want to remove said negative opinions, FeelSunny? I must say I don't support that, as they are still rather reliable source, which is widely used by scientists and journalists worldwide. --Sander Säde 19:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Remove Russian opinion from lead but include in body. Retain the DoS assessment in lead. Russian position on human rights has never been seriously considered by the internatiknal community. Arguably, the worst human rights abuser is Russia's neighbour Belarus, but you will hard pressed to find any cricicism of these abuses in Russian official reports. The same goes about human rights abuses in China, Iran, Syria, Qaddaffi's Lybia and Cuba. US DoS opinion might not be entirely neutral, but it is widely respected. - BorisG (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Updating this article

Shouldn't this article be updated and have the 'Outdated as of' template? Most of the reports are from years spanning 2007-2012, which is almost 17-12 years ago. More reports have been conducted since then. From what I've seen, the most up-to-date source with the retrieved date attribute is 2014. EestiEnthusiast (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)