Talk:Racism in Latvia

Merge

I would suggest merging any new content into Human rights in Latvia, which some of this already duplicates. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This would make HRiL significantly longer. Besides, not all expressions and sources of racism are relevant in a human rights article.Fuseau (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

See below, there are many common themes with regard to specific minorities. Individuals who discriminate against particular ethnic groups or races are putting racist attitudes into practice. I'm not convinced the result will be as long as you think. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this should be merged into Human rights in Latvia as this article appears to be somewhat of a WP:POVFORK of that article. I cannot imagine what expression of racism would not be relevant to human rights. --Nug (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfounded claims

There are no citations to back up the claims that "racism is being expressed in various ways, including racist discource by politicians and in the media, as well as racially motivated attacks." If no references are provided, there's not a single reason to keep it in the article. Kursis (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

References are provided after the next phrase, referring to both.Fuseau (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

True, although the tone in the very first sentence of the article suggests that racism amongst politicians and also racially motivated violence is a continuous, common occurence ("is being expressed"). The research paper only confirms that some cases of racism have been monitored in the given time frame. There is no evidence that this is a continuous/common occurrence. Kursis (talk)

"is being expressed" speaks about ways of racist actions, not about whether it is a continuous, common occurence.Fuseau (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"Is being expressed" does in fact indicate continuously, continuing even as we speak, an endless fountain of racism. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

1. It's just your perception. 2. Sadly you don't suggest another expression, which could be better; it's not helpful (I'm always co-operativce and ready to acknowledge that there can be different ways to express information and sometimes mine aren't the best). 3. Many months ago, "is being expressed" was already paraphrased in the lead section, which now reads "Expression of racism in Latvia include". Fuseau (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"Instances of..." might be better English, if you're fine with that. Going back to my original suggestion that this be merged with the related human rights article, you'll note that a Google books search of "racism in..." returns:

• "...the United States" = 503,000 matches
• "...France" = 18,000
• "...Germany" = 11,100
• "...Italy" = 3,430
• "...Latvia" = 1

Merging the two would unify discussion of attitudes about ethnic minorities—I'm not suggesting removing content under the guise of "merging" and "remove POV fork" material, as some are wont to do to wage content wars. On the contrary, thanks for your ongoing attention to the topic. Don't confuse me with über-nationalists who participate on WP only to scrub their nation and leaders clean of all warts. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Given the google results shown above, WP:ASTONISH would dictate a merger. --Nug (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with "instances". However, merging this article into Human rights in Latvia would demand to cut the content - the article would become too long, and not everything relevant to racism is relevant to human rights. Concerning numerical googling results - it's not a kind of WP:RS, and one should take into account language bias (if not to search sources in Latvian, German or Russian, it will be difficult to find information on very many notable topics on LatviaLA). There are, on the contrary, reliable soruces showing attention to racism in Latvia, and they are referred to in the article.Fuseau (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is 17KB, the Human rights in Latvia article is 29KB, for a total of 46KB, well under the limit of 100KB, so no content would need to be cut. What precisely is relevant to racism but not relevant to human rights? --Nug (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The limit where "Length alone does not justify division" per WP:Splitting is 40 Kb. Racist discourse doesn't always constitute human rights violations; evaluation of politican parties and politicians as racist is also far from human rights niveau.Fuseau (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks for confirming that length is not at issue here. Racial discrimination is defined by the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination as:

"...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life"

Given that the legal framework, reporting documents, evaluation of the scale and complaints about discrimination is based upon this definition, i.e. the bulk of the article, I think there is a strong case for a merger. --Nug (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Racial discrimination truly is a matter of human rights. But the topic of this article, as one can see in the title, is not only racial discrimination, but racism as a whole. And in the bottom of the article, one can equally see that there are lots of Wikipedia articles on racism in certain countries, separate from articles on human rigts in those countries. Fuseau (talk) 09:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF exists isn't a valid argument. If the basis of not merging this article is that racism in Latvia is a phenonemon distinct from Human rights in Latvia, then I think we should examine if there are sufficient sources to establish WP:NOTABILITY as a distinct and separate topic rather than in context of human rights. A search of books published on the topic reveals the following results:

Racism in the United States 530,000 books

Racism in Germany 11,600 books

Racism is Russia 1,250 books

Racism in Latvia 1 book

So on the basis of WP:NOTABILITY, there is no apparent basis for this article to exist, and thus it should be merged into Human rights in Latvia. --Nug (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

That unconvincing argument, ignoring existence of WP:RS showing notability and referred to in the article, as well as ignoring existence of non-English sources at all, was already rebutted in this very discussion in my post from 21:32, 11 December 2011. Fuseau (talk) 12:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ofcourse WP:RS exists, however it appears that these sources have been used for WP:OR to synthesis something that doesn't address the topic of "Racism in Latvia" directly. I think this article confuses discrimination with racism. Discrimination on the basis of age is ageism, discrimination on the basis of sex is sexism, discrimination on the basis of language is linguicism and discrimination on the basis of race is racism. Therefore if this article really is about racism in Latvia, then it needs to discuss both Latvian and Russian racist extremist groups within Latvia, including Russian skinheads who are most notably active in various organisations such as the Latvian branches of Russian National Unity(RNE) and the National Bolshevik Party, who target visible minorities such as Africans, Asians, Roma and Jews. --Nug (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't confuse discrimination with racism. Discrimination on the basis of age and sex is truly not connected with racism - and it is not covered by this article, accrodingly. Discrimination on the basis of language and religion, however, is included, because the anti-racist ECRI, a reliable source, has considered it to be relevant to its anti-racist mandate. Of course, information on both Latvian and Russian racist groups in Latvia, confirmed with reliable sources, should be added (NB One of the most known NBP leaders in Latvia, Beness Aijo, is of African origin himself - I'm not sure if they target Africans and other visible minorities). Fuseau (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The ECRI is not only "anti-racist" but it is also "anti-intolerance". The report referenced in this article[1] examines two specific issues, the first directly related to racism, being the chapter "The need to fight racism and intolerance in Latvia"(which is relevant to this topic), and the second related to intolerance titled "The situation of the Russian-speaking population" (which is not relevant to this topic). Nowhere in this second part is it discussed in terms of "racism". So this is classic WP:SYNTH, to merge two parts to advance the new idea that the situation of the Russian-speaking population is linked to racism, when in fact they are separate phenonemon. In fact the ECRI's high-level panel meeting on the occasion of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in Paris, 21 March 2005 (also cited in this article) on page 46 made it quite clear there is no link in its published conclusion of the case study on Latvia:

"To conclude this case study, I would say that there are tensions, verbal excesses and attempts to revive prejudice on both sides. It is not as such discriminatory to ask a minority to master the majority’s language and make entry into the public service, for example, conditional on fluent knowledge of that language. A state is even perfectly entitled to require people wishing to acquire its nationality to be fluent in the national language."[2]

So yes, there are tensions, verbal excesses and attempts to revive prejudice on both sides, but this falls far short of "racism". Unfortunately this article has serious WP:SYNTH issues. --Nug (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The report referenced in this article examines two specific issues, the first directly related to racism, being the chapter "The need to fight racism and intolerance in Latvia" which is relevant to this topic), and the second related to intolerance titled "The situation of the Russian-speaking population" (which is not relevant to this topic) 1. You forget about the first part of the report, "follow-up to ECRI's second report on Latvia". 2. Do you claim that the chapter "The need to fight racism and intolerance in Latvia" is directly related to racism only, and not no intolerance? Your claim that one of those chapters is on racism and another on intolerance is not confirmed by any source. 3. The claim that the situation of the Russian-speaking population is irrelevant to racism, is not confirmed by the text of the report itself - its just your evaluation. However, it's not so important, because anyway

the report's chapter on Russian-speaking population begins at Para. 109, and this article makes references to executive summary and Paras. up to 101 of the report only. So the statement this is classic WP:SYNTH, to merge two parts to advance the new idea that the situation of the Russian-speaking population is linked to racism, when in fact they are separate phenonemon is not only not confirmed by the report (I'll also note that racial discrimination refers to discrimination on ethnic lines also - see Racism#Legal), but also irrelevant - because the article doesn't advance the idea based on that report, it doesn't mention the relevant paragraphs of the report at all.

:"To conclude this case study, I would say that there are tensions, verbal excesses and attempts to revive prejudice on both sides. It is not as such discriminatory to ask a minority to master the majority’s language and make entry into the public service, for example, conditional on fluent knowledge of that language. A state is even perfectly entitled to require people wishing to acquire its nationality to be fluent in the national language." Not a single word about racism in this quotation. So it's not me who pushes into the article stuff not related with its topic.

yes, there are tensions, verbal excesses and attempts to revive prejudice on both sides, but this falls far short of "racism" The source given doesn't make this conclusion - it's your original synthesis. On the contrary, that source (as referenced in the article) says in the chapter on Latvia "Yet racism is a feature of daily life" (p. 44). Your synthesis is in contradiction with the source you claim to use.Fuseau (talk) 13:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The quote "Yet racism is a feature of daily life" on page 44 is made in context of racism against Africans, with the author going on to cite specific examples in that paragraph. I note that you have removed the quote regarding the view that the requirement to master the state language is not discriminatory, on the basis that the term "racism" is not mentioned in the quote. It that is the basis then we should also remove reference to "ethnic Russians who immigrated to Latvia under USSR" as a "vulnerable group" from the lede of the article, as the original document makes no explicit connection to racism with respect to that group:

"The Special Rapporteur found important areas of concern, particularly in terms of three generally vulnerable groups and communities, who nonetheless present distinct problems. The first group is composed of the ethnic Russians who immigrated to Latvia during the Soviet occupation, many of whom have yet to acquire Latvian citizenship and are living under the status of non-citizens. The second vulnerable group identified by the Special Rapporteur is the Roma community, which suffers, as in most European countries, from cultural stigma and socio-economic discrimination and live under marginalized conditions. Finally, the Special Rapporteur assessed the situation of a third vulnerable group, composed of non-European migrants who have only recently arrived in the country, and who have been subject to racist violence and hate speech, particularly in the electronic media, mostly from extremist and neo-Nazi groups. Contrary to traditional minorities, which have been present in the country for decades or centuries, these migrants pose new identity tensions that need to be overcome by the promotion of a democratic, equal and interactive multiculturalism."[3]

As you can see from that quote, only non-European migrants who have only recently arrived in the country have been subjected to racist violence and hate speech particularly in the electronic media, and hence only this aspect from the source is relevant to this article. --Nug (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Further, you also claimed "Discrimination on the basis of language, however, is included, because the anti-racist ECRI, a reliable source, has considered it to be relevant to its anti-racist mandate", yet that very same document you cite explicitly states that it is not discriminatory to require people wishing to acquire its nationality or make entry into the public service conditional to be fluent in the national language, yet you remove that clarifying point. --Nug (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The quote "Yet racism is a feature of daily life" on page 44 is made in context of racism against Africans, with the author going on to cite specific examples in that paragraph The context is wider. The quote given follows after "According to Kaspars Zalitis (..) "media don't talk about racism". It's not limited with Africans. Besides, I have no objections to expanding that quote, with or without examples provided by Camus.

It that is the basis then we should also remove reference to "ethnic Russians who immigrated to Latvia under USSR" as a "vulnerable group" from the lede of the article, as the original document makes no explicit connection to racism with respect to that group The UN Special Rapporteur on racism etc. considers all the three groups relevant for his report.

As you can see from that quote, only non-European migrants who have only recently arrived in the country have been subjected to racist violence and hate speech particularly in the electronic media First, it's not said that the others havn't been subjected to it, but, more important, this article is not only about racist violence and hate speech particularly in the electronic media, but about racism in general. The UN Special Rapporteur on racism etc. considers all the three groups relevant for his report.

very same document you cite explicitly states that it is not discriminatory to require people wishing to acquire its nationality or make entry into the public service conditional to be fluent in the national language Right. It might be suitable for an article about discrimination, however yet you remove that clarifying point is wrong, since that point didn't clarify anything in this article. If the article reflected someone's claims that language requirements for public service are discriminatory, then that point would be clarifying existence of a contrary view. Fuseau (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You state The UN Special Rapporteur on racism etc. considers all the three groups relevant for his report, however this article is not about the UN Special Rapporteur nor his report, it is about racism. He makes a clear distinction between the groups, stating "who nonetheless present distinct problems". The first group being non-citizens, now a minority within their own ethnic group, (it certainly is an odd kind of "racism" that does not apply to the majority of ethnic Russians who are now citizens of Latvia and those who were also citizens of the pre-war republic). The two other groups being Roma and non-European migrants who have only recently arrived in the country and who both suffer socio-economic discrimination and are subject to racism. No cited source asserts that Latvian citizenship and language policies are racist. The UN Special Rapporteur goes as far as noting in his assesment that "The issues of citizenship and naturalization regulations are seen by the Russian community as discriminatory practices that directly restrict the full enjoyment of their human rights", but makes no assertion that these polices are "racist". Therefore, as you state yourself, since this article is not about discrimination, then any reference to Russian-speaking minorities should be removed by your own criterion. --Nug (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

this article is not about the UN Special Rapporteur nor his report, it is about racism And the Special Rapporteur writes about racism etc., mentioning various groups concerned, including both Roma, recent immigrants and non-citizens.

No cited source asserts that Latvian citizenship and language policies are racist since that assertion is not made by the article, that statement is irrelevent. Still, the reliable source specializing in racism mention language and citizenship issues in Latvia as relevant to their mandate, so they can be covered in this article, too.

I've written that this article's topic is not only racial discrimination, but racism as a whole (09:21, 13 December 2011) and that Discrimination on the basis of language and religion, however, is included, because the anti-racist ECRI, a reliable source, has considered it to be relevant to its anti-racist mandate (13:40, 15 December 2011). Now you claim that I've stated that this article is not about discrimination. I hope the difference is understandable. So references to Russian-speaking (as well as Roma or any others - strangely you distinguish the Russian-speaking ones) minorities are relevant, if confirmed by reliable sources writing about racism.Fuseau (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Something simpler

Instead of simply deleting afrolat.lv as still dead, perhaps someone could exhibit some initiative to find out what happened to it:

Projektu atbalsta:

Īpašo uzdevumu ministrija sabiedrības integrācijas lietās sekretariāts

Sorosa Fonds Latvija

It's easy enough to write to these people to find out. I am tired of editors deleting things instead of doing legwork, and I am tired of doing it myself all the time.

As for the other conversation going on, it is a far leap from alleged discriminatory practices to institutionalized racism. And so, this article needs to focus on racism. If we can't do that, then this gets rolled into some other article. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)