![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The subject's notability can be supported by the wealth of references in User:Digwuren/Workshop/Estophobia. In interest of carefully following Wikipedia policies, I won't copy them here wholesale, but integration is welcome. Digwuren 15:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure you wish to do this? The implications are rather deep...-- Alexia Death 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I think this is wikdictionary term...-- Alexia Death 19:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Please redirect this protected redirect to Estonia-Russia relations as it is currently a double redirect.-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Highly POV to redirect this title into Estonian-Russian relationship. Could any admin place an RfD template here for me? Thanks, -- Irpen 08:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Since the quotatuion for this intro sentence is not online, I cannot verify it. Please provide a citation that indeed says "most particularly". In my experience it is "most particularly" used in right/nationalist/angry blogs, etc., , rather than in Kremlin controlled media. - 7-bubёn >t 18:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
"Estonia's most foreign political disagreements having been with Russia for the last three centuries" Isn't the three centuries a bit to long time? Estonia hasn't been even idenpendent for that long. I think it would be more correct to say, that most foreign political disagreements of Estonian Republic have been with Russia (or Soviet Union). -- Kyng ( talk) 09:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
ESStonia was subject to an AfD due to notability issues, which resulted in " no concensus". This article should be merged into Anti-Estonian sentiment, as it is obviously an expression of this sentiment, and most of its content is already duplicated in this article anyway, so there are POVFORK issues too. Placing it within the wider context of this article gives the expression a more encyclopedic treatment. Martintg ( talk) 02:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
A common approach of Estophobes is making accusations of Nazi-mindedness towards Estonians as a people, Estonia as a country, or particular celebrities or politicians
First off, Estophobes is not a word. I can find no reference to such a word, and we certainly don't use WP as advocacy for new words or terms which aren't in use in the real word. Also, statements such as the above are not NPOV and aren't even sourced. I have no reason to believe that there is not OR and POV editing going on here, and hence and marked the article as such. And WP can not under any circumstances be used as a reference for itself on such topics, unless it is relating to WP topics. -- Russavia Dialogue 20:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 23 January 2009. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
From the Economist article...
After a fortnight in which Estonia's enemies made clever use of the cheap jibe that the country is oozing with nostalgia for the Waffen SS by spelling the country's name as eSStonia, the president's surname as IlveSS and the prime minister's as AnSSip, it is encouraging to see a counter-attack.
-- Russavia Dialogue 01:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Some more from the Economist article left out for some reason.
What really annoys the Kremlin crowd is that Estonians (like many others in eastern Europe) regarded the arrival of the Red Army in 1944-45 not as a liberation, but as the exchange of one ghastly occupation for another. That flatly contradicts the Kremlin’s revived Stalinist version of history, which puts Soviet wartime heroism and sacrifice at centre-stage, while assiduously obscuring all the historical context. Given how the Soviet Union treated Estonia in 1939-41, it is hardly surprising that those who fought the occupiers when they returned are regarded as heroes. But they were not Nazis, nor are those who admire them now.
-- Termer ( talk) 08:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Any article on WP can't be just made out of "cheap jibe" like cited above. At minimum the article should also represent alternative perspectives pr WP:NPOV. Until it tells just about the "cheap jibe" side of the story, the article is sorry to say, nothing more or less than an example of WP:TEDIOUS.-- Termer ( talk) 05:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
My, my, what nice article we have here! Making WP:POINT much, User:Russavia?
Anyway, now let's see if we can't get this article into a properly encyclopedic form. Wouldn't want it to be a shining coprolite of hate porn, wouldn't want that all. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 08:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Because of this edit. The primary creator of this article, instead of calmly and scientifically analysing the term is doing all he can to deflect discussion towards how evil the Estonians are; to elevate the xenophobic rants of the Nashists to the limelight and to keep the sources of the term under the veil of darkness. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 09:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree, this article has turned into a coat rack. Martintg ( talk) 12:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Since when google search has become a reliable source? Please refer to any secondary sources pr WP:RS to back up such claims, or more like opinions that have originated from the Russian state controlled media.-- Termer ( talk) 04:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
What exactly is the purpose of the background section in which a link to Freedom House is provided? It has absolutely nothing to do with the term eSStonia? -- Russavia Dialogue 10:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Martintg, instead of simply whacking tags on the article, please explain what, how, where, etc. -- Russavia Dialogue 12:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
So far the article is a coatrack of the Bronze Soldier mess, which is fine by me, if the community wants it so, we can have 10's of articles on the subject. At the same time it remains WP:OR until the "term" is not defined by a WP:RS. As far as I'm concerned, the only source who has looked into it has defined "eSStonia" as a "cheap jibe". I'm open to alternative viewpoints as long as those come from secondary published sources and are verifiable. For example the statement that "eSStonia" is a "pejorative neologism" is not acceptable pr WP:OR until such a claim has been backed up by a WP:RS.-- Termer ( talk) 07:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's check out the references! It's fun!
Since this is the first lesson, we will not pick any cherry-flavoured reference. No! We will take the very first reference, [3], by Joseph Silver.
So, let's see what it says about the subject matter?
Unfortunately, the citation does not include page number, so some searching is needed. But once that is done, it turns out that this source mentions "eSStonia" exactly ...
[drumroll]
... ONCE.
On page 61, there's this paragraph:
“ | The move resulted in riots in the streets of Tallinn, Russian protests at the
Estonian Embassy in Moscow, and stirred a bustling media battle over differing perspectives on the issue. A simple statue moved some people to a frenzy—not because the shaped metal held any particular intrinsic value, but because it was a national symbol. Creative as humans are, they use what they have available: next came a sophisticated cyberattack. “Estonia’s leading news outlet could not tell the world what was going on in its own country…. Web sites around Estonia had resorted to a siege defense by cutting off international traffic.”112 Russian-language chat rooms surged with calls for further retribution, “exhorted readers to defend the motherland,” and provided instructions on how to launch attacks.113 In a fitting gesture, posts identified May 9—the Russian Victory Day celebrating victory over the Nazis—as D-Day for a large-scale attack. “‘You do not agree with the policy of eSStonia???’ demanded a user named Victoris on a Russian online forum. ‘You may think you have no influence on the situation??? You CAN have it on the Internet!’”114 |
” |
Considering other related comments, it would seem User:Russavia saw it fit to cite a FOOTNOTE. Namely, footnote 114, which contains a clarification:
“ | 114. Ibid., 3. Note the altered spelling of Estonia: “eSStonia” makes a reference to the Nazi Waffen SS units of World War II, effectively accusing Estonia of fascism. | ” |
This concludes today's lesson.
Tomorrow: picking apart reference #2. For homework, please review how to count to one -- both forwards and backwards. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 17:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
No reason to add this spelling in the intro, since it was used in a single newspaper article and only replicated in quotations, and in small numbers, too. - 7-bubёn >t 20:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as people are clearly being disruptive, here is a map for you who don't know where? Russia is.......
-- Russavia Dialogue 11:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
So the whole of Russia rose up spontaneously? Or just where Nashi activists happened to be? Martintg ( talk) 11:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
That is the difference Russavia. There are countries where Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer applies and then there are countries where views are diversified. Are you suggesting that Russia would fit into the first example and therefore we can just say in the context "Russia in general"? Please do not ignore where? and who? concerns but clearly spell it out 'who exactly says so'?-- Termer ( talk) 15:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Since my attempt to address WP:OR and WP:NPOV issues of this article have all vanished overnight, I'm not going to try to edit the article for now because it could be considered edit warring. Instead I list the problems the article currently has down below, so feel free anybody to address it.
Hope that it helps!-- Termer ( talk) 04:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
To all editors involved din this article so far:
Let's work towards a stable version. Thank you. Dc76\ talk 10:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
-if the article covers the topic? No, it's just something that scratches the surface of the Bronze Soldier controversy and only covers some of the aspects. Also, like already pointed out above, historically any 'Anti-Estonian sentiment' usually refers to 'not accepting Estonia as an independent country'; sources- >
[4].
But the current 'Anti-Estonian sentiment' in Russia goes a bit deeper than that, and that is not covered in the article at all. namely, the anti-Estonian sentiment that is intentionally escalated by Kremlin is related to s.c. Putin's "Estonia Complex". Please see the article published in The Moscow Times by Lynn Berry
Behind Putin's Estonia Complex. Basically what is this all about, Putin's father who led a NKVD sabotage battalion operating in Estonia during WWII barely made it. After running out of food the group turned to the local population -Estonians who gave them up to the Germans. Basically, the way Lynn Berry puts it: before the Estonians had betrayed Putin's father's NKVD-led group in Estonia, it proceeded the NKVD arresting the Estonian leadership and anyone else who opposed Soviet rule during the Soviet occupation of Estonia in 1940. So, that's what this article and the root of controversies is really about, and why anti-Estonian sentiment is intentionally escalated by Kremlin these days. The current prime minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin has supposedly a personal axe to grind against Estonians due to his father who was betrayed to the Nazis allegedly by some Estonian peasants. And taking it from here: Putin sees the removal of the Bronze Soldier as an insult to his father and other Russians who fought the Nazis in Estonia.
[5]--
Termer (
talk)
19:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
1) 'Anti-Estonian sentiment' usually refers to 'not accepting Estonia as an independent country'; sources- >
[6].
2) Putin sees the removal of the Bronze Soldier as an insult to his father and other Russians who fought the Nazis in Estonia. [7] and Behind Putin's Estonia Complex.
For quite a long while I've been monitoring all these "xenophobic" articles (until I made enemies with all ethnic sides, i.e., basically with the whole wikipedia), and all of them share a single huge major piece of original research I would like you to warn about: negative statements against certain governments must not be automatically classified as "anti-xeno". You must provide a reliable source which explicitly states that this and that person expressed anti-Estonian sentiment, rather than criticizes some action of a gov't: he may as well praise other actions, but this does not matter for the purpose of non-OR: a wikipedian has no right to make their own conclusion on the state of the sentiment. A very blunt example: those who criticized the U.S. invasion of Iraq were at moments accused of anti-Americanism and even ostracized by super-patriots, but were they really anti-American? (actually, the article anti-Americanism may include statement, but only in the form "yes, they were, in the eyes of hardliners and Bushists").
Closer to the topic: while the Bronze Soldier did gave rise to the surge of the Estophobia, not all criticism of the Est.gov't actions is automatically a sign of bad sentiment. - 7-bubёn >t 22:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Please do not remove citations from the article and add citation needed tags to the content that was previously cited. This is not allowed and is totally inappropriate. Please improve the article by adding good citations. Only controversial or disputed bits should be removed, and they should probably be put on the talk page for discussion and to to give others the opportunity to supply the citations needed. Some very destructive editing is going on. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Considering that SAFKA's only cause celebre is its campaign of spurring anti-Estonian sentiment, perhaps it makes sense to merge the article on SAFKA here? Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 11:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
They say that they are "anti-fascist", and the say that Estonia currently has a "fascist government", and that's the reason they are "anti-fascist". What does Finland have to do with Estonia? According to Johan Bäckman, the leader of the "anti-fascist": the Estonians and Finns are actually one nation and the Reublic of Estonia should be united with Finland where it could still have an autonomy. [9].-- Termer ( talk) 13:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
You cannot merge articles with completely different topics. You may may re-use or cross-reference the texts. - Altenmann >t 18:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Please stop deleting. As it's EN:WP, a translation is provided, that's the point of a translation. PetersV TALK 03:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
What about a translation of the source? We English speakers have no way of telling if it's reliable or factual. Shotlandiya ( talk) 10:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Why should I go to the effort - this is English Wikipedia!! Shotlandiya ( talk) 21:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Sander Säde, in wikipedia proper balance is achieved in a way exactly what you did: adding missing balance. You cannot demand from a person to write everything. After all, a single person does not know everything. Even if a person is not willing to write everything, it is still OK: wikipedia is based on contributions of many. You have to work patiently and not comment on intentions of your opponent. After all, with all this wikipedia anonymity, may be his grandfather was a gypsy rounded up by Nazi in Estonia, and he has rights to have hard feelings, just as you may have hard feelings for killing post-WWII Estonian resistance. Still, all of us put various pieces of mosaic, about various notable facts and opinions. Mukadderat ( talk) 16:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed the paragraph regarding the SWC allegations from Anti-Estonian_sentiment#Accusations_of_sympathies_with_Nazism, as I don't see how this is on the topic of anti-Estonian sentiment. -- Martintg ( talk) 02:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Nothing was "explained." That "eSStonia" surfaced, for example, is not "sensationalist," and there is no reason to delete it as such. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 19:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
(od) Oh, please about the "altered" consensus. No editor whom you consider to be opposed to your generally dim view of Estonia editorial viewpoint has countered your points on anything other than reputable sources fairly represented in a balanced manner. Ignoring past consensus is just your can opener for opening up every past editorial dispute which has been settled into stable articles. If you go on a campaign to re-introduce your POV similar to prior episodes, such as Estonians commonly sexually abusing their children, the results will be the same.
As for "if it's not "anti-Estonian" for two prime ministers of Estonia two call Estonia's actions during the Bronze Soldier dispute stupid or provocative against Russia", I'm sorry, that's like saying Russia denouncing Latvia's citizenship laws is "not anti-Latvian" if two Latvian politicians side with the Russian denouncement. When you come up with some legitimate point based on reputable sources and not your personal craftings, I'll be glad to discuss.
VЄСRUМВА
[TALK]
13:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Imho the whole paragraph is of such quality that it should be removed form the article.
Most of the first part is unreferenced since February 2009, the only referenced one being the bit about the Levada centre survey. By itself it of course does not confirm anything and its relevance to the topic itself should be proven (e. g. if I think that country Ch. discriminates against its T. minority it doesn't mean that I've got anti-Ch. feelings).
The first sentence of the second part is also unreferenced; the second one seems to be very well referenced but it's an illusion. First, sources [16] and [17] are of Russian origin, so it's the personal opinion of the editor who inserted them here that they display any anti-Estonian sentiment, someone else might think that they faithfully depict the situation in Estonia. There are no sources presented that would point to them as to the examples of anti-Estonian sentiment.
So only a Postimees article is left (btw this means that attribution would be nice) but, judging from the google-translation, it nowhere says anything to confirm the preceding passage Such accusations have become more frequent during times of political disagreements between Russia and these countries, and waned when the disagreements have been resolved. Maybe such assertion is made in the article and google just could not translate it (help from an Estonian-speaking editor here would be appreciated).
So I propose to remove the section altogether and (if needed) start it from scratch using reliable sources and attributing them properly. Alæxis ¿question? 21:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with Russavia and argree with Termer about the inclusion of the section. The discrimination of minorities and the ideological constructs created to support it are the main reasons for Anti-Estonian sentiment. However, I do not think the claims exclusively originate from Russia and Russian authorities as is now implied. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 16:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I have removed this section from the article the other day as it really has nothing to do (as written) with anti-Estonian sentiment, but rather has to do with Russophobia. Therefore, its existence in this article (as written) is quite novel - it appears to present that those who claim that there is Russophobia in Estonia are in fact demonstrating anti-Estonian sentiment. This removal was challenged, and Petri posted above that he disagrees with its removal, and gives his reasons for that. I too believe that to explain so-called anti-Estonian sentiment, one needs to delve into background, but the problem is that it is pure WP:COATRACK as presented.
Having said that, I have gone back and had a look at the information that Termer has reinserted into the article, and after reading the 3 sources (one source is actually used twice), the information has again been removed because they fail verification. In the article it was written:
Most claims of anti-Russian sentiment in Estonia and Latvia regarding supposed political or economic discrimination against the large Russian minorities in these countries are made by Russian authorities, media and activists. Such accusations have become more frequent during times of political disagreements between Russia and these countries, and waned when the disagreements have been resolved.
Not a single word (ok, concept) which was in our article was contained within any of the 3 sources. This article doesn't support the assertions of this article. This article, which is an edited translation of this English language article is on Nashi. This article is on discrimination of Russians in Estonia and Latvia, and clearly mentions OSCE pressure on those states to change their laws; which kinda flies in the face of the "most claims of anti-Russian sentiment...." assertions in this article (to which we could also add Estonian groups, Amnesty, etc.)
That explains the removal of this material, and even if returned to the article, it really does need context, because to have a section dealing with Russophobia in an article on anti-Estonian sentiment is coatrackish. -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 02:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
When discussing Anti-Estonian sentiment one start from beginning, Germanic racism against Estonians. The neighboring Finns used to be considered related to the so-called " Mongolian" race – by Swedes as well as the Encyclopædia Britannica (See User:Petri Krohn/Finland 1911#Ethnology). I guess the Estonians were judged similarly, if not by the Swedes, then the Germans.
Also noteworthy is the Nazi German "race pyramid", see Racial policy of Nazi Germany#Germanization between 1939 and 1945. I am not at all sure that Estonians would have been – in the end – much above life unworthy of life -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 03:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
There are MAJOR problems with this article, and it needs to be fixed. Some of these problems were fixed by myself in August 2010, and some are long existing problems. I will make note of the problems, and if there are no serious objections, I will make the changes, and I urge editors to provide input here as well.
Taken all of these issues together...
-- Russavia Let's dialogue 14:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't like Estonians IHateMrBall ( talk) 09:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The subject's notability can be supported by the wealth of references in User:Digwuren/Workshop/Estophobia. In interest of carefully following Wikipedia policies, I won't copy them here wholesale, but integration is welcome. Digwuren 15:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure you wish to do this? The implications are rather deep...-- Alexia Death 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I think this is wikdictionary term...-- Alexia Death 19:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Please redirect this protected redirect to Estonia-Russia relations as it is currently a double redirect.-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Highly POV to redirect this title into Estonian-Russian relationship. Could any admin place an RfD template here for me? Thanks, -- Irpen 08:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Since the quotatuion for this intro sentence is not online, I cannot verify it. Please provide a citation that indeed says "most particularly". In my experience it is "most particularly" used in right/nationalist/angry blogs, etc., , rather than in Kremlin controlled media. - 7-bubёn >t 18:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
"Estonia's most foreign political disagreements having been with Russia for the last three centuries" Isn't the three centuries a bit to long time? Estonia hasn't been even idenpendent for that long. I think it would be more correct to say, that most foreign political disagreements of Estonian Republic have been with Russia (or Soviet Union). -- Kyng ( talk) 09:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
ESStonia was subject to an AfD due to notability issues, which resulted in " no concensus". This article should be merged into Anti-Estonian sentiment, as it is obviously an expression of this sentiment, and most of its content is already duplicated in this article anyway, so there are POVFORK issues too. Placing it within the wider context of this article gives the expression a more encyclopedic treatment. Martintg ( talk) 02:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
A common approach of Estophobes is making accusations of Nazi-mindedness towards Estonians as a people, Estonia as a country, or particular celebrities or politicians
First off, Estophobes is not a word. I can find no reference to such a word, and we certainly don't use WP as advocacy for new words or terms which aren't in use in the real word. Also, statements such as the above are not NPOV and aren't even sourced. I have no reason to believe that there is not OR and POV editing going on here, and hence and marked the article as such. And WP can not under any circumstances be used as a reference for itself on such topics, unless it is relating to WP topics. -- Russavia Dialogue 20:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 23 January 2009. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
From the Economist article...
After a fortnight in which Estonia's enemies made clever use of the cheap jibe that the country is oozing with nostalgia for the Waffen SS by spelling the country's name as eSStonia, the president's surname as IlveSS and the prime minister's as AnSSip, it is encouraging to see a counter-attack.
-- Russavia Dialogue 01:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Some more from the Economist article left out for some reason.
What really annoys the Kremlin crowd is that Estonians (like many others in eastern Europe) regarded the arrival of the Red Army in 1944-45 not as a liberation, but as the exchange of one ghastly occupation for another. That flatly contradicts the Kremlin’s revived Stalinist version of history, which puts Soviet wartime heroism and sacrifice at centre-stage, while assiduously obscuring all the historical context. Given how the Soviet Union treated Estonia in 1939-41, it is hardly surprising that those who fought the occupiers when they returned are regarded as heroes. But they were not Nazis, nor are those who admire them now.
-- Termer ( talk) 08:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Any article on WP can't be just made out of "cheap jibe" like cited above. At minimum the article should also represent alternative perspectives pr WP:NPOV. Until it tells just about the "cheap jibe" side of the story, the article is sorry to say, nothing more or less than an example of WP:TEDIOUS.-- Termer ( talk) 05:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
My, my, what nice article we have here! Making WP:POINT much, User:Russavia?
Anyway, now let's see if we can't get this article into a properly encyclopedic form. Wouldn't want it to be a shining coprolite of hate porn, wouldn't want that all. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 08:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Because of this edit. The primary creator of this article, instead of calmly and scientifically analysing the term is doing all he can to deflect discussion towards how evil the Estonians are; to elevate the xenophobic rants of the Nashists to the limelight and to keep the sources of the term under the veil of darkness. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 09:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree, this article has turned into a coat rack. Martintg ( talk) 12:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Since when google search has become a reliable source? Please refer to any secondary sources pr WP:RS to back up such claims, or more like opinions that have originated from the Russian state controlled media.-- Termer ( talk) 04:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
What exactly is the purpose of the background section in which a link to Freedom House is provided? It has absolutely nothing to do with the term eSStonia? -- Russavia Dialogue 10:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Martintg, instead of simply whacking tags on the article, please explain what, how, where, etc. -- Russavia Dialogue 12:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
So far the article is a coatrack of the Bronze Soldier mess, which is fine by me, if the community wants it so, we can have 10's of articles on the subject. At the same time it remains WP:OR until the "term" is not defined by a WP:RS. As far as I'm concerned, the only source who has looked into it has defined "eSStonia" as a "cheap jibe". I'm open to alternative viewpoints as long as those come from secondary published sources and are verifiable. For example the statement that "eSStonia" is a "pejorative neologism" is not acceptable pr WP:OR until such a claim has been backed up by a WP:RS.-- Termer ( talk) 07:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Let's check out the references! It's fun!
Since this is the first lesson, we will not pick any cherry-flavoured reference. No! We will take the very first reference, [3], by Joseph Silver.
So, let's see what it says about the subject matter?
Unfortunately, the citation does not include page number, so some searching is needed. But once that is done, it turns out that this source mentions "eSStonia" exactly ...
[drumroll]
... ONCE.
On page 61, there's this paragraph:
“ | The move resulted in riots in the streets of Tallinn, Russian protests at the
Estonian Embassy in Moscow, and stirred a bustling media battle over differing perspectives on the issue. A simple statue moved some people to a frenzy—not because the shaped metal held any particular intrinsic value, but because it was a national symbol. Creative as humans are, they use what they have available: next came a sophisticated cyberattack. “Estonia’s leading news outlet could not tell the world what was going on in its own country…. Web sites around Estonia had resorted to a siege defense by cutting off international traffic.”112 Russian-language chat rooms surged with calls for further retribution, “exhorted readers to defend the motherland,” and provided instructions on how to launch attacks.113 In a fitting gesture, posts identified May 9—the Russian Victory Day celebrating victory over the Nazis—as D-Day for a large-scale attack. “‘You do not agree with the policy of eSStonia???’ demanded a user named Victoris on a Russian online forum. ‘You may think you have no influence on the situation??? You CAN have it on the Internet!’”114 |
” |
Considering other related comments, it would seem User:Russavia saw it fit to cite a FOOTNOTE. Namely, footnote 114, which contains a clarification:
“ | 114. Ibid., 3. Note the altered spelling of Estonia: “eSStonia” makes a reference to the Nazi Waffen SS units of World War II, effectively accusing Estonia of fascism. | ” |
This concludes today's lesson.
Tomorrow: picking apart reference #2. For homework, please review how to count to one -- both forwards and backwards. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 17:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
No reason to add this spelling in the intro, since it was used in a single newspaper article and only replicated in quotations, and in small numbers, too. - 7-bubёn >t 20:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as people are clearly being disruptive, here is a map for you who don't know where? Russia is.......
-- Russavia Dialogue 11:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
So the whole of Russia rose up spontaneously? Or just where Nashi activists happened to be? Martintg ( talk) 11:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
That is the difference Russavia. There are countries where Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer applies and then there are countries where views are diversified. Are you suggesting that Russia would fit into the first example and therefore we can just say in the context "Russia in general"? Please do not ignore where? and who? concerns but clearly spell it out 'who exactly says so'?-- Termer ( talk) 15:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Since my attempt to address WP:OR and WP:NPOV issues of this article have all vanished overnight, I'm not going to try to edit the article for now because it could be considered edit warring. Instead I list the problems the article currently has down below, so feel free anybody to address it.
Hope that it helps!-- Termer ( talk) 04:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
To all editors involved din this article so far:
Let's work towards a stable version. Thank you. Dc76\ talk 10:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
-if the article covers the topic? No, it's just something that scratches the surface of the Bronze Soldier controversy and only covers some of the aspects. Also, like already pointed out above, historically any 'Anti-Estonian sentiment' usually refers to 'not accepting Estonia as an independent country'; sources- >
[4].
But the current 'Anti-Estonian sentiment' in Russia goes a bit deeper than that, and that is not covered in the article at all. namely, the anti-Estonian sentiment that is intentionally escalated by Kremlin is related to s.c. Putin's "Estonia Complex". Please see the article published in The Moscow Times by Lynn Berry
Behind Putin's Estonia Complex. Basically what is this all about, Putin's father who led a NKVD sabotage battalion operating in Estonia during WWII barely made it. After running out of food the group turned to the local population -Estonians who gave them up to the Germans. Basically, the way Lynn Berry puts it: before the Estonians had betrayed Putin's father's NKVD-led group in Estonia, it proceeded the NKVD arresting the Estonian leadership and anyone else who opposed Soviet rule during the Soviet occupation of Estonia in 1940. So, that's what this article and the root of controversies is really about, and why anti-Estonian sentiment is intentionally escalated by Kremlin these days. The current prime minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin has supposedly a personal axe to grind against Estonians due to his father who was betrayed to the Nazis allegedly by some Estonian peasants. And taking it from here: Putin sees the removal of the Bronze Soldier as an insult to his father and other Russians who fought the Nazis in Estonia.
[5]--
Termer (
talk)
19:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
1) 'Anti-Estonian sentiment' usually refers to 'not accepting Estonia as an independent country'; sources- >
[6].
2) Putin sees the removal of the Bronze Soldier as an insult to his father and other Russians who fought the Nazis in Estonia. [7] and Behind Putin's Estonia Complex.
For quite a long while I've been monitoring all these "xenophobic" articles (until I made enemies with all ethnic sides, i.e., basically with the whole wikipedia), and all of them share a single huge major piece of original research I would like you to warn about: negative statements against certain governments must not be automatically classified as "anti-xeno". You must provide a reliable source which explicitly states that this and that person expressed anti-Estonian sentiment, rather than criticizes some action of a gov't: he may as well praise other actions, but this does not matter for the purpose of non-OR: a wikipedian has no right to make their own conclusion on the state of the sentiment. A very blunt example: those who criticized the U.S. invasion of Iraq were at moments accused of anti-Americanism and even ostracized by super-patriots, but were they really anti-American? (actually, the article anti-Americanism may include statement, but only in the form "yes, they were, in the eyes of hardliners and Bushists").
Closer to the topic: while the Bronze Soldier did gave rise to the surge of the Estophobia, not all criticism of the Est.gov't actions is automatically a sign of bad sentiment. - 7-bubёn >t 22:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Please do not remove citations from the article and add citation needed tags to the content that was previously cited. This is not allowed and is totally inappropriate. Please improve the article by adding good citations. Only controversial or disputed bits should be removed, and they should probably be put on the talk page for discussion and to to give others the opportunity to supply the citations needed. Some very destructive editing is going on. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Considering that SAFKA's only cause celebre is its campaign of spurring anti-Estonian sentiment, perhaps it makes sense to merge the article on SAFKA here? Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 11:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
They say that they are "anti-fascist", and the say that Estonia currently has a "fascist government", and that's the reason they are "anti-fascist". What does Finland have to do with Estonia? According to Johan Bäckman, the leader of the "anti-fascist": the Estonians and Finns are actually one nation and the Reublic of Estonia should be united with Finland where it could still have an autonomy. [9].-- Termer ( talk) 13:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
You cannot merge articles with completely different topics. You may may re-use or cross-reference the texts. - Altenmann >t 18:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Please stop deleting. As it's EN:WP, a translation is provided, that's the point of a translation. PetersV TALK 03:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
What about a translation of the source? We English speakers have no way of telling if it's reliable or factual. Shotlandiya ( talk) 10:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Why should I go to the effort - this is English Wikipedia!! Shotlandiya ( talk) 21:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Sander Säde, in wikipedia proper balance is achieved in a way exactly what you did: adding missing balance. You cannot demand from a person to write everything. After all, a single person does not know everything. Even if a person is not willing to write everything, it is still OK: wikipedia is based on contributions of many. You have to work patiently and not comment on intentions of your opponent. After all, with all this wikipedia anonymity, may be his grandfather was a gypsy rounded up by Nazi in Estonia, and he has rights to have hard feelings, just as you may have hard feelings for killing post-WWII Estonian resistance. Still, all of us put various pieces of mosaic, about various notable facts and opinions. Mukadderat ( talk) 16:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed the paragraph regarding the SWC allegations from Anti-Estonian_sentiment#Accusations_of_sympathies_with_Nazism, as I don't see how this is on the topic of anti-Estonian sentiment. -- Martintg ( talk) 02:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Nothing was "explained." That "eSStonia" surfaced, for example, is not "sensationalist," and there is no reason to delete it as such. VЄСRUМВА [TALK] 19:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
(od) Oh, please about the "altered" consensus. No editor whom you consider to be opposed to your generally dim view of Estonia editorial viewpoint has countered your points on anything other than reputable sources fairly represented in a balanced manner. Ignoring past consensus is just your can opener for opening up every past editorial dispute which has been settled into stable articles. If you go on a campaign to re-introduce your POV similar to prior episodes, such as Estonians commonly sexually abusing their children, the results will be the same.
As for "if it's not "anti-Estonian" for two prime ministers of Estonia two call Estonia's actions during the Bronze Soldier dispute stupid or provocative against Russia", I'm sorry, that's like saying Russia denouncing Latvia's citizenship laws is "not anti-Latvian" if two Latvian politicians side with the Russian denouncement. When you come up with some legitimate point based on reputable sources and not your personal craftings, I'll be glad to discuss.
VЄСRUМВА
[TALK]
13:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Imho the whole paragraph is of such quality that it should be removed form the article.
Most of the first part is unreferenced since February 2009, the only referenced one being the bit about the Levada centre survey. By itself it of course does not confirm anything and its relevance to the topic itself should be proven (e. g. if I think that country Ch. discriminates against its T. minority it doesn't mean that I've got anti-Ch. feelings).
The first sentence of the second part is also unreferenced; the second one seems to be very well referenced but it's an illusion. First, sources [16] and [17] are of Russian origin, so it's the personal opinion of the editor who inserted them here that they display any anti-Estonian sentiment, someone else might think that they faithfully depict the situation in Estonia. There are no sources presented that would point to them as to the examples of anti-Estonian sentiment.
So only a Postimees article is left (btw this means that attribution would be nice) but, judging from the google-translation, it nowhere says anything to confirm the preceding passage Such accusations have become more frequent during times of political disagreements between Russia and these countries, and waned when the disagreements have been resolved. Maybe such assertion is made in the article and google just could not translate it (help from an Estonian-speaking editor here would be appreciated).
So I propose to remove the section altogether and (if needed) start it from scratch using reliable sources and attributing them properly. Alæxis ¿question? 21:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with Russavia and argree with Termer about the inclusion of the section. The discrimination of minorities and the ideological constructs created to support it are the main reasons for Anti-Estonian sentiment. However, I do not think the claims exclusively originate from Russia and Russian authorities as is now implied. -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 16:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I have removed this section from the article the other day as it really has nothing to do (as written) with anti-Estonian sentiment, but rather has to do with Russophobia. Therefore, its existence in this article (as written) is quite novel - it appears to present that those who claim that there is Russophobia in Estonia are in fact demonstrating anti-Estonian sentiment. This removal was challenged, and Petri posted above that he disagrees with its removal, and gives his reasons for that. I too believe that to explain so-called anti-Estonian sentiment, one needs to delve into background, but the problem is that it is pure WP:COATRACK as presented.
Having said that, I have gone back and had a look at the information that Termer has reinserted into the article, and after reading the 3 sources (one source is actually used twice), the information has again been removed because they fail verification. In the article it was written:
Most claims of anti-Russian sentiment in Estonia and Latvia regarding supposed political or economic discrimination against the large Russian minorities in these countries are made by Russian authorities, media and activists. Such accusations have become more frequent during times of political disagreements between Russia and these countries, and waned when the disagreements have been resolved.
Not a single word (ok, concept) which was in our article was contained within any of the 3 sources. This article doesn't support the assertions of this article. This article, which is an edited translation of this English language article is on Nashi. This article is on discrimination of Russians in Estonia and Latvia, and clearly mentions OSCE pressure on those states to change their laws; which kinda flies in the face of the "most claims of anti-Russian sentiment...." assertions in this article (to which we could also add Estonian groups, Amnesty, etc.)
That explains the removal of this material, and even if returned to the article, it really does need context, because to have a section dealing with Russophobia in an article on anti-Estonian sentiment is coatrackish. -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 02:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
When discussing Anti-Estonian sentiment one start from beginning, Germanic racism against Estonians. The neighboring Finns used to be considered related to the so-called " Mongolian" race – by Swedes as well as the Encyclopædia Britannica (See User:Petri Krohn/Finland 1911#Ethnology). I guess the Estonians were judged similarly, if not by the Swedes, then the Germans.
Also noteworthy is the Nazi German "race pyramid", see Racial policy of Nazi Germany#Germanization between 1939 and 1945. I am not at all sure that Estonians would have been – in the end – much above life unworthy of life -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 03:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
There are MAJOR problems with this article, and it needs to be fixed. Some of these problems were fixed by myself in August 2010, and some are long existing problems. I will make note of the problems, and if there are no serious objections, I will make the changes, and I urge editors to provide input here as well.
Taken all of these issues together...
-- Russavia Let's dialogue 14:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't like Estonians IHateMrBall ( talk) 09:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)