This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Russian influence operations in Estonia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 May 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 August 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
An anonymous editor keeps adding blatantly unencyclopædic text, never discussing. Should we request semiprotection? Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 07:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I find it a bit disconcerting that Russavia has now began to edit war with himself on this article. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 08:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The whole article is written in a very biased way.
I've tried to add some balancing material, but the whole article is still biased and in breach of WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, etc. I added a mention of the Amnesty report, which confirms some of the discrimination claims. It was immediately countered by an Economist opinion piece about Amnesty's work. Usually, Amnesty is a very respected organization. Here, giving the single Economist review as much space as the Amnesty report itself is WP:UNDUE. It's a economical paper, so it's expertise in human rights matters is questionable. Just compare this treatment of Amnesty's report to how such reports are treated in articles about Russia's human rights - in the latter ones, Amnesty's opinion is stated as a fact, and is definitely not immediately countered by a negative review by a single newspaper. Offliner ( talk) 01:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Russavia, please take a look at list of words to avoid. "Alleges", especially when used to cast doubt on a veracity of a claim, is on there. "According to" is sufficient. radek ( talk) 20:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I deleted this section because its text says nothing it is related to Estonia. I admit that the section may be badly phrased or edited that it lost sense, but it its present state it looks clearly irrelevant. Please don't revert without addressing concerns stated in edit summary. Mukadderat ( talk) 20:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The section mentions " Aleksei Semjonov or Dmitri Klenski" I see Klenski but don't see Semjonov in European Parliament election, 2009 (Estonia). Can someone write articles about them, since they seem notable in politics of Estonia? Mukadderat ( talk) 17:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I became very curious of the subject and read around. In particular I have found that KaPo reports are extremely informative and may serve the basis of several new wikipedia articles. I was attracted to them because one sentence in the discussed sentence sounded very dubious: alleged activities of Russia to make Russian official in EU. It is legally impossible since Russia is not member of EU. Therefore I decided to find the mentioned report, rather than the newspaper piece cited in wikipedia page. The report in English is readily available (swf) at KaPo webpage: http://www.kapo.ee/eng_yldinfo.html Yearbook 2008] (most recent) I would praise the openness of this state security organization. The text in question literally says as thus: "...in the Baltic states they [Russia's compatriots] are planning access to the European Parliament with the one of the aims to acquire of the official language to Russian". From this phrasing it is unclear whether the allegation says about status of Russian in EU or in the Baltic States. From the logical common sense I think that the latter is more probable. I admit that the English translation is not very good. I would like to ask Estonian-speaking wikipedians to read the Estonian text of the Yearbook and check whether it is less ambiguous. Mukadderat ( talk) 20:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Whatever the outcome, the sentence must be changed: if it is not directly related to Estonia, in does not belong to this article, if it is, then it must be fixed accordingly. Mukadderat ( talk) 20:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest to think about a better title, something like Efforts of Russia to influence Estonia:
Also, the article is almost orphan. Please wikilink it. It is not even linked in Estonia–Russia relations. Speaking of the latter, its content must be syncronized/cross-merged with this one, possibly according to wikipedia:Summary style. Mukadderat ( talk) 20:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any response to my comments. Mukadderat ( talk) 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Russian influence operations in Estonia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 May 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 August 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
An anonymous editor keeps adding blatantly unencyclopædic text, never discussing. Should we request semiprotection? Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 07:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I find it a bit disconcerting that Russavia has now began to edit war with himself on this article. Διγουρεν Εμπρος! 08:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The whole article is written in a very biased way.
I've tried to add some balancing material, but the whole article is still biased and in breach of WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, etc. I added a mention of the Amnesty report, which confirms some of the discrimination claims. It was immediately countered by an Economist opinion piece about Amnesty's work. Usually, Amnesty is a very respected organization. Here, giving the single Economist review as much space as the Amnesty report itself is WP:UNDUE. It's a economical paper, so it's expertise in human rights matters is questionable. Just compare this treatment of Amnesty's report to how such reports are treated in articles about Russia's human rights - in the latter ones, Amnesty's opinion is stated as a fact, and is definitely not immediately countered by a negative review by a single newspaper. Offliner ( talk) 01:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Russavia, please take a look at list of words to avoid. "Alleges", especially when used to cast doubt on a veracity of a claim, is on there. "According to" is sufficient. radek ( talk) 20:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I deleted this section because its text says nothing it is related to Estonia. I admit that the section may be badly phrased or edited that it lost sense, but it its present state it looks clearly irrelevant. Please don't revert without addressing concerns stated in edit summary. Mukadderat ( talk) 20:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The section mentions " Aleksei Semjonov or Dmitri Klenski" I see Klenski but don't see Semjonov in European Parliament election, 2009 (Estonia). Can someone write articles about them, since they seem notable in politics of Estonia? Mukadderat ( talk) 17:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I became very curious of the subject and read around. In particular I have found that KaPo reports are extremely informative and may serve the basis of several new wikipedia articles. I was attracted to them because one sentence in the discussed sentence sounded very dubious: alleged activities of Russia to make Russian official in EU. It is legally impossible since Russia is not member of EU. Therefore I decided to find the mentioned report, rather than the newspaper piece cited in wikipedia page. The report in English is readily available (swf) at KaPo webpage: http://www.kapo.ee/eng_yldinfo.html Yearbook 2008] (most recent) I would praise the openness of this state security organization. The text in question literally says as thus: "...in the Baltic states they [Russia's compatriots] are planning access to the European Parliament with the one of the aims to acquire of the official language to Russian". From this phrasing it is unclear whether the allegation says about status of Russian in EU or in the Baltic States. From the logical common sense I think that the latter is more probable. I admit that the English translation is not very good. I would like to ask Estonian-speaking wikipedians to read the Estonian text of the Yearbook and check whether it is less ambiguous. Mukadderat ( talk) 20:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Whatever the outcome, the sentence must be changed: if it is not directly related to Estonia, in does not belong to this article, if it is, then it must be fixed accordingly. Mukadderat ( talk) 20:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest to think about a better title, something like Efforts of Russia to influence Estonia:
Also, the article is almost orphan. Please wikilink it. It is not even linked in Estonia–Russia relations. Speaking of the latter, its content must be syncronized/cross-merged with this one, possibly according to wikipedia:Summary style. Mukadderat ( talk) 20:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any response to my comments. Mukadderat ( talk) 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)