Talk:Mark Sirõk

Untitled

I don't think the article deserves speedy deletion. The reason given seems to be that I called the subject a "Russophobe". As I explained in my last edit, this was a spelling mistake. I meant to write "Russophone", which has a completely different meaning, and obviously makes more sense when one reads the article.

I think the subject is notable - a human rights activist who has been cited by various NGOs. No doubt the subject will be controversial, but the article will evolve as more contributions are made and as I pad it out.

Spelling

The lad's name is Mark Sirők, not Siryk. At least have the common decency to spell names right. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 13:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This is English language Wikipedia, not Estonian Wikipedia. Please feel free to create an Estonian version of the article with the Estonian version of his name. Shotlandiya (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually there still seems to be a mistake in the name. It's "Mark Sirõk" not Mark Sirők - this article should be moved. Apparently, õ and ő are different letters. H2ppyme (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved it..H2ppyme (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Police brutality

While looking for the court's ruling, I happened to find a document citing page 22 of it. I never knew how much Sirők had to suffer when, supposedly, he was forced by police to read a history textbook written by Mart Laar for three hours. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Although if this was an Estonian neo-Nazi forced to read a Russian history book I'm sure you'd be complaining. Shotlandiya (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You surely not suggesting that Digwuren has something to do with or has some feelings against Estonian neo-Nazis? Or why should he complain in that situation? You should be careful with your remarks.

BTW, reading is generally considered as a good thing, it broadens one's knowledge. And it's very hard to force somebody to read something that he doesn't wish to read. Such an absurd complaint tells a lot about the complaining person. Põhja Konn (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

OR

The "an anti-racism campaigner, human rights ... " part obviously, as there isn't a single source, reliable or otherwise to support that.radek (talk) 23:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"rv removal of sourced info"

Re: [1]. Sourced to what? is an anti-racism campaigner, human rights - sourced to nothing alleged - sourced to nothing However, he was found not guilty. - sourced to nothing Sirők suffers from hemophilia. - sourced to "Website of those opposed to the movement of the Bronze Soldier", a source which is sooooo not in the Reliable Source category, never mind the conflict of interest. Please address these, um, criticism/stating the obvious, before restoring the material next time.radek (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hemophilia is a genetic disorder, hence health issue. Health issues are considered private and worthy of particular protection under Estonian law. Unless a reliable source associating Sirők with this condition can be found, ascribing him to suffer from it might constitute defamatory, counterprivate, or both, and should be removed under WP:BLP. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonia isn't the centre of the universe. In Germany it's illegal to display the swastika. We have it on Wikipedia. Take it to Estonian language Wikipedia if you're so concerned. It's just a stupid excuse from you to try and make this poor human rights campaigner look like a Kremlin stooge. Shotlandiya (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic minorities?

I have been unable to figure out Sirők's ethnic identity. Accordingly, I think he can not be categorised as being known as a member of ethnic minority. Should Category:Ethnic minorities be removed as misleading?

Possible candidates appear to be Estonian, Russian, and Hungarian. Gene-wise, he's probably got ancestors of multiple ethnic groups -- as most Estonians do --, but naturally, this is only a minor factor in ethnic self-identification. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nationality of Sirők?

What is the nationality of Mark Sirők? Do he have Russian, Estonian or non-citizen passport? Do he prefer ethnic group "Russian Estonian" or just "Russian"/"Estonian"? Peltimikko (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the interview, Sirők is a citizen of Estonia. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to spell his name with the Hungarian letter. Siryk is an English transliteration of the name, Sirõk with a tilde over the o is the normal Estonian transliteration. Why use the Hungarian letter if there is no Hungarian connection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.100.66.100 (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Where is Sirők on the picture? I can't find him; there are too many people. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

FIDH Latvia

FIDH Latvia is an organisation with close connection to Russian radicals in Latvia, according to available sources. It would be very inappropriate to present it as a reliable source. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case then it would be worth mentioning that on the FIDH page itself, but it would need to be properly sourced (i.e, more than just some Estonian gibberish). I suspect you only think this is the case because they portray Siryk in a good light!

Incidently, as of 19:34 on Thursday the 11th June (UK time) I believe we have reached a compromise on this article - this version is probably as good as it gets, guys. So let's leave it for a moment and give the edit warring a break.

Would you use such tactics to win an argument? I certainly wouldn't. I happened to discover it when I researched Tatyana Zhdanoka, a radical politician who is prohibited from running to electable office in Latvia and who thus had to run for the Europarliament. I was quite surprised, actually. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 13:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

To the recent arguments on Thatcher's talk page—I request again, this applies to everyone, not just those I editorially disagree with, that we keep content disputes in article talk. If unresolvable, then a RfC is the next step, not complaining and posting diffs for admins and making derisive remarks over reputable disagreements over the aims and roles of organizations. Where the Baltics are concerned, The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) certainly does function as a partisan advocacy group as its Latvian member, for example, is the afore-mentioned political party—BTW, Ždanoka is prohibited from Latvian elective office because, among other actions, she supported the continuation of Soviet power over Latvia. Support violent suppression of human rights, then name yourself an organization protecting human rights. That's about as partisan as you can get. PētersV       TALK 14:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) certainly does function as a partisan advocacy group - source? Offliner (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned, FIDH Latvia is really a political party, recall, I did not say FIDH everywhere. If you want a source that decribes Ždanoka's group as an advocacy group and not a non-partisan human rights group I'm sure that's possible, however, I'm mostly off-Wiki this weekend so it won't be right away (unless someone else obliges sooner). PētersV       TALK 00:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Just quickly, here for example, with reference to the EU elections, http://web.cvk.lv/pub/public/27620.html, in Latvian, starts out: "Regarding the political organization bloc [party] "For Human Rights in a United Latvia" ....

   For Human Rights in a United Latvia is a political party and not a human rights organization. I trust that settles the issue of partisanship. PētersV       TALK 14:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

bronze-soldier.com is not a reliable source

I think bronze-soldier.com is a not reliable source. So, it should not use at all in this article. Who are the makers of website? Organisation? Why is it not in Russian and/or Estonian? Seems the website has been used as a part of the information war for a third-party audience, or any other suggestions? Peltimikko (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not a valid source for Wikipedia by any means, not to mention, BLP. According to whois, it is registered to Ivan Bedilo in Dnepropetrovsk and hosted in Ukraine as well. Page does not belong to any organization - it is a personal web page. WP:SELFPUB applies, if insertion of the dubious unsourced material is not finished, a report should be done to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I trust the admins there will handle the matter swiftly, as current actions violate one of the strongest rule in Wikipedia. -- Sander Säde 15:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree it's not a reliable source compared to say, BBC, etc, but it is obviously a big page for ethnic Russians who face discrimination and persecution from the pro-Nazi regime in Estonia. Anything we use from it could be prefaced with the caveat that it comes from a biased source, in the same way that anything from the Estonian media should come with a caution that it comes from a country with a record of discrimination, persecution and human rights abuses against ethnic minorities. Shotlandiya (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is quite weird, as most international organizations agree that Estonia is not a country with a record of discrimination etc. Tymek (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is a minor discrimation of Russian Estonians. It is not systematic or goverment-oriented. For example sometimes in worklife, Russians and Estonian do their work in different shifts - though this has been leveling and normalising. Russians have their own television programs (from Moscow) and papers (Russians and Russian Baltics), and Estonian their own. But the younger generation takes little steps together, and people overall get along - though in a way these Russian and Estonians live two different lifes. I think Estonian government could improve its performance and find ways to connect people. But, there is one problem. Unfortunatelly Moscow needs its enemies from outside - for internal purposes. Estonia and Latvia (along Ukraine, Georgia etc) are suitable targets. Kremlin views are echoed through Russian media, and this confuses Russian Estonians. Peltimikko (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

To Shotlandiya, I would note that regarding "who face discrimination and persecution from the pro-Nazi regime in Estonia" there is yet to be produced any reputable evidence of Estonia being "pro-Nazi" in any fashion. Please refrain from such inflammatory biased comments in the future. PētersV       TALK 14:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Victims_of_Estonian_political_repression

first of all it needs to be established according to whom the subject is a "Victim_of_Estonian_political_repression". For second its still an opinion not a fact. And therefore creating such a category and adding the subject into it is a violation of WP:NPOV.--Termer (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved

I have moved this article to Mark Sirõk, as I have found no indications that his name is properly spelled with ő (not an Estonian letter); more likely is that ő and õ were confused when writing [2] the article. The two letters can sometimes look near-indistinguishable in certain fonts/styles (indeed, I have seen that the slightly more common "õ" is often substituted for the unique "ő" in Hungarian online parlance). The (working) Estonian sources provided in the article confirm the "õ" spelling. If there are any objections, please source them. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "ő" is absurd. It has been stubbornly used in English Wikipedia but I have not found any sensible reason for it. There is no connection to Hungary. However, the translitteration according to Wikipedia and international standards should be Siryk. "õ" is used only in Estonia.--128.214.2.137 (talk) 06:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)