Jump to content

Talk:Anti-Russian sentiment/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9

Poll by the International Gallup Organization

The way how information on poll of the International Gallup Organization is presented, is very stranged. The poll carried out in more than 30 countries (including Russia), but in this article only results of selected countries presented. It's not cleared why only these countries has been selected, so it leaves room for doubts if this secetion presents NPOV. I think, that the correct way to handle this section is:

  • to insert results of all countries, where poll was carried out;
  • to make a primary reference to the original survey carried out by the International Gallup Organization, not secondary reference to the newspaper. The newspaper didn't published full survey, and we don't knew what are the reasons they selected from the results of survey the information they selected.

Also, the footnote No 5 (The number should be corrected to account for the fact that ethnic Russians, who constitute a significant fraction of population in Latvia and Estonia, are more likely to have a positive view towards Russia) is actually very russophobic. The Russians living in the Baltic countries are residents of these countries and most of them have citizenship of these countries. However, this fotenote suggests that we can't taking account their opinion because they are ethnical Russians! I have a feeling that that kind of russophobic remark is inserted by some real xenophobe, and it should be removed as ethnic bias.80.235.66.37 09:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Er, I am sure the person who wrote that was not a xenophobe. He just wanted to warn about a possible statistic misunderstanding. What he wanted to say was: "be careful when comparing the figures from A en B (could be Poland and Finland, but of course I am only saying that as an example) with the figures of Latvia and Estonia, because of ... " Meaning indeed that ethnic Latvians and Estonians will be more russophobe than the country figures suggest. Oh, and NOT all the "Russians" (many of them are not ethnic Russians, but rather Russian-speaking inhabitants) have citizenship, and it may be that these polls did not check whether the people answering have that citizenship. Surely, "Russians" not having citizenship are known for their positive view of Russia. Have a look at how Latvia and Estonia vote at Eurovision contests. Many people in Latvia and Estonia will vote for the Russian entry, even if is plain crap. The telephone system of course does not check citizenship. --Pan Gerwazy 01:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no statistics (at least publicly available) how answered to this poll Estonians and Latvians, and how "Russians" (I'm accepting they are not all ethnic Russians). However, if I understand correctly, although there is not split of poll results by ethnic origin, there is suggestion that one would have to interpret there figures, because "ethnic Latvians and Estonians will be more russophobe than the country figures suggest". That kind of opinion giving estimations about ethnics based on no figures is definitely what we could call xenophobia. If I may recall, the poll was about, what the population of given countries feel about the G8 countries, not about what ethnic Latvians, Russians, Finns and Poles feels about. You have to be correct about this and be careful not to mix these two things, because wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda issue.
By the way, concerning citizenship I said "most of them" (meaning more than half), not "all of them". I agree that citizenship was irrelevant for answering the poll's questions, my point was that you can't just say we will not count their answers because they are not ethnic Estonians and Latvians.
The gallup's results should really be explained better. Oh and "The percentage of population with a negative perception of Russia was 62% in Finland" seeing that this percentage is so high, would be great to see the reasons for this explained in the article as it is with some other countries. 193.166.223.5 11:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The reasons include many things. By quoting president Risto Ryti: "The Finnish people is again under a brutal attack, again by the same enemy, that in the past 500 years, have overall for 100 years tried to kill, smash and exterminate the Finnish people. ... The only goal of the Soviet Union, today, is to destroy Finland's independence, and to make the Finnish people their slaves." (This is a free translation by me..). The Russification of Finland has affected the opinions a lot, "the first period of oppression 1899-1905". Then Finland was under finlandization. These are probably the most important reasons for negative opinions about Russia. This poll gives quite serious numbers about the world's thoughts. And the recent politic murders / Putin aren't going to help the opinions either. Time to change some foreign policies? :) --Pudeo (Talk) 16:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
No one has proven that the murders are political and that Putin are behind them. This is like saying that the CIA killed Kennedy. There's no need to hate or fear Russians. When you look at the tough job that Putin has, he is really doing a good job. Jallor 00:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"loss of imperial status"? how about loss of COUNTRY?

"The history of the long and bitter Russo-Polish rivalry for the lands of the ancient Kievan Rus, as well as the loss of Polish imperial status contributed to the broad Russophobia throughout Polish society" - I thought it would be more like 100 years of being a Russian province? A province of "Russian Empire", no less (was there ever any "Polish empire"?). --HanzoHattori 20:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Could have been fixed in a sec. (done) Any other reasons for your tag? `'mikka 20:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. --HanzoHattori 17:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


modern Russian imperialism

What is that? I dont think that you can really talk of Russian imperialism. Lets see- is it the Russian Federation that has military bases all over the world? Or maybe Russian planes bombed Yugoslavia and Iraq back to the stone age? I am sorry but I dont think this is even politically correct. You can talk about an American imperialism but Russian imperialism doesn't really make sense since the country has not made any moves to invade another country or bomb it into stone age. (Dont talk about Chechnya , it is a legitimate part of Russia and even in its defacto independent years it wasnt recognised by anyone but Taliban)

the sentence in question deleted as someone's unreferenced speculation. `'mikka 01:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Russian sentiment due to Soviet occupation?

It may be worth mentioning that much of Anti-Russian sentiment comes from establishment of Communist regimes in Eastern Europe after WWII and supression of Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and Prague Spring. I also knew some people from South Korea who blamed us, Russians for separation of their country. Fortunately, these Koreans were Christians who forgive their enemies, so we actually became friends. Biophys 00:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC) To tell the truth, I felt guilty for occupation of Poland and other countries. Strange, is not it? Biophys 00:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Then you better visit your doctor, since Western Belarus was occupied by Poland for more than 10 years and no one in Poland feels guilty. Poland occupied Czech city of Czeszin after Munich pact and still maintains it without any feeling of guilt. I never heard about occupation of Poland by Russians. Probably you refer to liberation of Poland from fascists? As long as I see only Poles were running their country since 1945. Which occupation you talk about?Vlad fedorov 07:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Poles such as Rokossowski. "Why ROkossowski is minister of war? Because it is cheaper to dress one Russian in Polish uniform than all Poles in Russian uniform". Civil war, or rather fighting against NKWD and Polish communist units ended in 1948, with last units fighting up to 1956. Also, Poland _does not_ mantain Zaolzie. Also, I see no point in feeling guilty because of regaining Eastern Poland, or what is now western Belarus. My family was expelled from there, and yet there are still whole villages speaking exclusively in Polish. Szopen 08:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course there are Polsih speakers there, because we, Belarusians, do not belarusizise them, do not convert them violently to Orthodox religion and do not shot them if they talk on Polsih and not on Belarusian, unlike Poles. It is Poles and Russians who were exterminating each other on the territory of Belarus 'having 'friendly' fire' at Belarusians.Vlad fedorov 10:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Ohh.. Pole Rokossowski 'occupied' you? Which occupation you talk about, occupant? Please complain or extend this topic in Poland article. Can you name me Belarussian who occupied Poland? Jakie zabory? As for villages speaking exclusively in Polsih in Brest region, you better see the doctor too or give the name of the village in which people speak Polish. Now we have another example of Pole living somewhere in Poland who distantly, not living in Belarus, tries to persuade me that me, belarusian is actually speaking Polsih. Dzieki panu, lecz niech pan idzie do... Cieszynu, naprzyklad... Even people in hutors (хутор) don't speak Liach language. Yes we have some words from Pole language, but Polish has words from Russian. For example Poles speak 'jezyk' like Russians and we Belarusians say 'mova', unlike Russians and Poles. Everybody remembers mass murders of ethnic belarusians dusguised like struggle with communism, and death squads of Bulak Bulachovich and Dovnar Zapolski. My granda and grandma are from Stolin (under Pinsk) - the former residence of Radzivils, I spend whole my youth in Brest region. Old people were telling us about how Poles were skinning people alive. Polish population in time of occupation of Western Belarus, best time of polonization, accounted only 20 %, I don't even touch the present. By the way, Poles have got a present from tyrant Stalin - Bialystok, which is an ancient Belarusian city. How about present occupation, Mr. Liach?Vlad fedorov 10:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
My family was expelled from Belarus. I'm takling about Owsiadow, near Grodno.
That is the fate of occupants. You came with sword and you are gone with sword.Vlad fedorov 16:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Right now there are about half million of Poles in Belarus. According to http://www.zakopane.pl/festiwal_2006/index.php?tekst=16, 30% of Grodno inhabitants are Poles. As for occupation of Bialystok and other Polish cities, well, what can I say.

"As for Grodno - yes, probably it accounts such figure, but only for the city. The whole Grodno region has just 10 % of Poles.

Also, I admit that when I was kid i wasn't learning Russian on purpose. In my class people who had goo dmarks from Russian were looked down by others.

Ja bardzo dobrze razmawiam po polsku. And nobody in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus looks down on me because I could talk Polish. That's why Poles suck not only antisemitism with mother milk, but russophobia too right from the school. Israeli prime-minister was absolutely right about you.Vlad fedorov 16:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Right now I think I made a mistake, since knowing one language more would be nice... Szopen 14:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Too late... Hysteria, which comes in form of Russophobia, is anomaly of human psychiatry. If you were studied from youth propoganda textbooks depicting russians only as enemies, you can't cure it momentarily. It's just like democracy 'seeded' by american bombs in Iraq or Jugoslavia. You can't become democratic at one breath.Vlad fedorov 16:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I talked with several people from Poland. They did not feel this way. Some even show me photo albums and told the stories about their relatives arrested and sent to Siberia.Biophys 17:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Some of them could speak Russian very well, but they did not want, because that was language of "occupiers". Of course, I was born much later than WWII and remember only Soviet occupation of Afganistan. But I am really sorry and want to apologize for everything that had happened in the past and is happening right now, including this discussion. Biophys 00:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
It is Poles who were occupants. They have occupied Western Belarus and Galicyja, and it is Poles who occupied Cieszyn and Bilaystok. I don't feel any pity for occupants who were kicked out of Belarus and Galicyja. Poles speak Russian language not because they like it, but because obviously it is the most easy language to study for them. I've been studying at Warsaw University and know that Poles pay russians to pass exams on Russian, especially on advanced level. They are just lazy bones, that's why they don't speak Russian. Even applying that logic to English, the Great Britain and the US are well-known for their genocide and occupation policies in colonies, extermination of Indians and other stuff like Iraq. Why these hypocritical Poles talk English or talk Latin and at the same time do not want to speak Russian? This is called Polsih nationalism, fascism, nazism. The language and culture of ethinc group is not responsible for anything. I speak Polish very well and don't feel any hate towards that language.Vlad fedorov 13:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
You are not Russian, Biophys. You may feel sorry, living in the US, for anyone including 60 000 000 of native Indians exterminated by colonists.
Already mentioned, albeit briefly (so that you probably didn't noticed it). However any expansion of this part requires sourcing. `'mikka 01:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A significant Anti-Russian sentiment was also in US (fortunately in the past), which has been expressed in the famous phrase: "Russians are coming". Americans were afraid because they often did training exercises in preparation for the coming nuclear war. Some even made personal shelters, like in the movie "Blast from the Past". Maybe this also worth mentioning. Biophys 01:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was because of conflation of the word "Russians" and "Soviets". Let's not go into there, like "Russian Bear" etc. I remember these times when a basketball team from Armenian SSR was in the USA, the newspapers tried to make jokes in headers "Russians are coming...". Silly, but irrelevant to this article. `'mikka 01:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
You are right, they all were talking about citizens of the Russian State (old Russian Empire, Soviet Union, etc.) who are responsible for the policies of this state, rather than about Russians as an ethnic group. That was not racism. But the sentiment against Russia or Soviet Union as a country is probably also a subject of this article, although I do not have a nerve to contribute. There is a web site [1] that says: "The main reason La Russophobe hates Russians is because they are destroying themselves, in particular their innocent children. Russians are doing that, not Soviets. After all, the root cause of Sovietism is Russians, just as the root cause of crime is criminals." That seems to be exactly about the Anti-Russian sentiment. Biophys 05:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
"The root cause of Sovietism is Russians". Now that's a nice BS? Why on earth would it be Russian? A theory concieved by two Germans, a revolution made mainly by intellectuals of Jewish descent and all of it reinforced by a Georgian... Where do you see Russians in it? If Lenin was not supported by Germany all way long (the famous train episode is fairly significant), things might have gone either way. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
By now, Communism and/or Soviet nostalgia have become integral parts of Russian chauvinism. Initially, Russian nationalists (e.g White Guard) disapproved of Communism as minorities' (and masonic plotters') handiwork. But later, as Commies remained in power for decades, won the so-called Great Patriotic War, used terror against the non-Russians... Communism became accepted by most of the Nationalists. Russia's Communism of today (Zyuganov, Anpilov!) has more to do with Mussolini's Fascism or Hitler's National Socialism than with the initial Cosmopolitan Communism of Marx and his comrades. Wlasow 10:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry but when I see things like "Masonic plotters", the diagnosis is pretty clear just about at once... <_< -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Nice that you could give a diagnosis for yourself... I mean, considering whom I found the supporters of the so-called masonic&minority nations' plotters' thesis Wlasow 20:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

what about all the nations that were invaded by Russia and have now to deal with this hostorical fact ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.76.248.32 (talk) 22:39, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

La Russophob

I have created a stub about La Russophob blog [2] because it seems to be relevant to the subject of this article. But the stub was marked for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Russophob as not notable. So, everyone is welcome to tell his/her opinion or improve this stub. Biophys 20:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is "La Russophobe" with an e. Google the two and see what comes up most. Jallor 23:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Biophys ne parle pas francaise. His ignorance is well-depicted by articles on Vladimir Putin and Boris Stomakhin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.184.225.28 (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
Thanks. My mistake. But this article will probably be deleted. Next time I will make it right. But I did not write much about Putin, because Putin is unimportant. He is not Stalin. Just imagine that Putin suddenly dies. What will change in Russia? Absolutely nothing.Biophys 16:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The same would be in Russia if Biophys would die too. Absolutely nothing, except for a few happy people in Wikipedia.Vlad fedorov 08:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, sounds like a compliment.Biophys 23:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC) But I am not going to discuss anything with you from this moment.Biophys 06:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Biophys, engaging in "what if"s is, generally speaking, a bad idea, and speculating about political future is even more so. As for the blog, well it does not meet WP notability criteria, so the AFD will decide... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree. History is unpredictable, so may be I am wrong, and Putin is Stalin of the future. We will see. Biophys 23:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Please stop useless trolling. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The same words could be very accurate, regarding Graf's campaigns: [3] Constanz - Talk 18:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Observance of Wikipedia policies that classify unsupported removal of tags as vandalism and allow reverts of such changes is hardly trolling. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, wrong link by me perhaps! I should have linked Occupation talk page instead. Constanz - Talk 18:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Idle chat

From now on all idle chat will be removed. I understand that the topic is calling for political rants, but please stick to the discussion of the article content. `'mikka 20:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

Some fellow editors asked explanation, why I tagged this article with {{weasel-section}} tag. Actually Wikipedia guidelines for avoiding weasel words and the article about weasel words give very comprehensive overview of this style problem, but anyway, I will mention some points.

  1. The attitude towards Russia and Russians in many former Soviet countries remains negative. This could be true or could be not, but you can't write encyclopedic article this way. Actually, how much is many in this case? Who says that attitude is negative in many countries? You may think many, but somebody else think only few or some. So, you have to avoid using that kind of statements if you not citate somebody (in this case the sitation has to be correct and clearly understand as citation of somebody).
  2. Many Azerbaijanis resent Russians because of Russia's support and solidarity with Armenians during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. - see point 1.
  3. All the Baltic States consider their past adjoinment to the Soviet Union to be an act of occupation and hold modern Russia as directly responsible Where this came from and what it has to do with mordern or ancient Russia? It's related to the Russia only in way that Russia is considered the Soviet Union's successor state in diplomatic matters.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia But for some reason you deleted "as successor of the Soviet Union", which explains why Russia, and continues to push "modern", which is irrelevant in this context
  4. The fact of World War II Soviet Victory has been a very controversial issue... Who says that fact of Soviet Victory (by the way, when I last checked wiki article about World War II, it said something about Allied forces, including the Soviet Union) is controversial? If this sentence is related to the previous sentence, its more correct to talk about the consequences of World War II for the Baltic countries. And this is controversial issue because there are different interpretations if the Baltics were occupied or adjoined the Soviet Union voluntary.
  5. is best summarised by the Latvian president. Who said this? Kuban kazak? Please see the guidelines why you have to avoid that kind of statements.
  6. who, in a televised interview remarked on a derogatory stereotype of Russian behaviour. Again, this is an opinion and you have to say who said this is an aderogatory stereotype.
  7. In addition, with the sole exception of Lithuania, denied automatic citizenship to Soviet-time migrants upon the break-up of Soviet Union. What added value has in addition? See guidelines for explanation. Also, there are only three Baltic states and if Lithuania excluded, remain only Estonia and Latvia. Why not say clearly Estonia and Latvia as it was in the last version before yesterday. Instead of this, right now there is some kind buzzling construction with all and sole exception. It gives feeling that wordiness was used for POV pushing.
  8. Replacing upon restoring their independence with upon the break-up of Soviet Union without giving any reason. Break-up of Soviet Union may remain, but "restoring their independence" is one of the key points to the Baltic citizenship laws.
  9. Many Russians see this as an act of discrimination and even apartheid as non-citizens are severely restricted in their basic rights. Again many. This time with the references, so it could be replaced by some (which is also weasel word per se) or to say that according to Sergey S. Yuriev, President of the Law Assembly. And as this is opinion, not a fact, it has to be stated as an opinion, not as an fact. By the way, this reference is from 1996, so it's not very up to date.
  10. Many Georgians see the Russian government as the ultimate culprit behind the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict‎ and the Georgian-Ossetian conflict, - see point 1.
  11. Many western Ukrainians, - see point 1.
  12. However many Ukrainian citizens, - see point 1.

I will replace {{weasel-section}} tag. Please don't remove it before improving this article. At least, this is an encyclopedic article, not an essey or an article from Komsomolskaya Pravda. 80.235.67.128 16:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Russophobia example

In case readers are wondering what this "russofobia" thingy is, here is a prime example. I found this as the only reference in the article on Ernst Leonard Lindelöf, a Finnish matematican. The reference if from the MacTutor History of Mathematics archive:

Notice, who they do not even use the O-word. Enjoy! -- Petri Krohn 02:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I always thought my grandfather was born in Helsinki, Finland, not in Helsingfors, Russian Empire. -- Petri Krohn 02:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

POV dispute - Baltic States

The section attempts to hide the fact that a significant number of Russians (around 10% of the total population) obtained automatic citizenship due to their pre-1940 citizenship. This is a significant number compared to the 10% and 18% non-citizens in Estonia and Latvia respectively.

Also the section attempts to hide the fact that Russia is only held responsible as the successor state to the Soviet Union, and many of the issues are related to practical things, such as the non-return of property seized by the Soviet Union and held in Russian hands, such as the Estonian presidential regalia and Tartu University museum collection, for example. Martintg 22:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well is that not a POV in its own right? First of all this section is about Anti-Russian sentiment, so what you are trying to add is irrelevant material that belongs elsewhere, how is regalia relevant to Estonia's policy on denying Russian people citizenship rights? Unless of course it is an act of vengeance, but then we are moving way into WP:NOR for any of these and other hypothesis to play any role.
With respect to 10% — Source, and a reliable one that is credited and approved. Even so, this section is not about Baltic Russians, but about the anti-Russian sentiment in the Baltic countries. --Kuban Cossack 22:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
According to the 1934 census in Estonia, 8.2% of pre-1940 citizens were ethnic Russians [4], as of 2nd February 2007, 8.7% are non-citizens [5]. In the case of Latvia, the 1935 census recorded 10.5% of pre-1940 citizens were ethnic Russian [6], while today 18.3% of Latvian residents are non-citizens [7]. Note that only 66% of non-citizens are actually ethnic Russian, i.e. 12.1% of the total population. So the pre-1940 population of ethnic Russians in these countries is almost greater that the percentage of non-citizens.
Sure the article is about anti-Russian sentiment, but don't fabricate evidence of anti-Russian sentiment based upon hiding the facts that do not agree with your POV, nor should this article be used to fuel Russian xenophobia either, hence my strong objection to the Baltic states even being included in this article. Martintg 01:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
In fact I am deleting the entire section listing particular countries, it confuses legitimate issues of international relations with Russophobia, and section is entirely WP:OR anyway and a possible vehicle for incitement to ethnic hatred. Martintg 03:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Fatima deal

Maybe that's how many took it then, but the Catholics I knew all took the "errors, etc" as meaning Communism. Even in 1917 seeing it as meaning Radical politics was not implausible as Russia since the 1870s had been known for Radical atheist and nihilist groups. (And a demeaning attitude Orthodoxy didn't necessarily specify Russian Orthodoxy anyway or specific to Catholic views either. Protestant pilgrims looked down on Orthodoxers in Palestine and saw Eastern Europeans as superstitious. This part seems a bit skewed)--T. Anthony 11:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Too bad I have not seen this before

I'm amused by the unencyclopedic, often POVed content of this article. Having read only two sections, I left more than 5 <fact> tags. What's waiting for me at the bottom? :((( Ukrained 15:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

E.g., how this:

Also it might not be always easy to separate actions unpopular in Russia caused by rational political concerns of its neighbors from the actions caused by an irrational Russophobia.

is encyclopedic? Ukrained 15:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Amusing example of POV-writing:

Political blocks such as GUAM were created exactly to limit Russian influence in the ex-Soviet republics.

I like the "exactly" word most of all :) I can easily guess the hand of our little friend whose real names both start with S. Ukrained 15:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh really I am your friend now? How sweet of you... Anyway please don't insert fact templates left and right, there are clear cases when examples of the disputed point is given later on. Don't purge relevant links such as Yedinoye Otechestvo. Thanks to its efforts several Orthodox Churches have been protected from Filaret's onslaught and Russian was just made a regional language in Odessa. If you consider that group marginal...shows me how much you know about Ukrainian politics. --Kuban Cossack 17:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Some rant:)) That site is sponsored by Russian govt., maybe even officially. Clearly POV-citation. As for it's role in inner Ukrainian affairs... total rant. What group? Are you talking of a group, or about a website? BTW, whether Ukrained is expert in Ukraine's politics or not, I certainly am.AlexPU 13:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Achieving Russian as an official language in Odessa is some rant? My oh my...Some expertise, you remind me of Rydel. Anyway I removed the irrelevant UPA passage, but please source this allegation of social boundary of russophobia in Ukraine. --Kuban Cossack 19:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
C'mon, what about Odessa? Is it mentioned on the page? What "language"? ALL lang. decisions by local council are unconstitutional and already ruled out by courts and prosecutors. Wanna talk more about my expertise? Or yours ;)? Basically, if you wanna talk, stop deleting templates! Or I'll talk to you through talk templates only. Then we'll discuss russophobia itself.AlexPU 19:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Alex, we have already seen and talked about your "expertise" here. Your boasting about your so called "expertise" in Ukrainian politics could have been impressive if it was not accompanied the edits that show the grasp of the topic comparable to the especially notorious deputies from the Party of Regions That you merely deleted my entry where your ignorance was contrasted to your wildish claims did not change affect your expert reputation. This is all on top of the fact that any claims made by Wikipedians about their expertise are to be dismissed on the spot (see Essjay controversy. Make yourself famous outside Wikipedia and we will all refer to you works as per WP:RS. In here, keep your ego down. --Irpen 01:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Unconstitutional or not, it seems in Ukraine there are quite a controversy on what is unconstitutional which is why local courts have overturned Yushenko's appeal and Russian remained a state language in Kharkov, Donetsk and a few other regions so much for it being ruled out, and now, thanks to Yedinoye Otechestvo who organised an aktsiya following tens of thousands of people signing a petition - Russian language is official in Odessa. I congradulate them, and something like that is certainly not marginal by any means. --Kuban Cossack 22:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

People, just look at this dude! He's bugging me with some off-Wiki political rant here, but keeps removing my warranted "fact" templates from the article. I.e., he's censoring the text without discussion! D'you think I should respond to this guy again?AlexPU 22:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Or is it the factual triumph: Русский язык в Одессе утвержден вторым государственным And I quote: Накануне сессии в городе прошла двухнедельная акция "Я говорю по-русски", инициатором которой выступила организация "Единое Отечество". Было собрано почти 200 тысяч подписей за двуязычие в Одессе.. So there is some rant of a marginal organisation. Which puts the rest of your edits in question, and as for repeated insults against Irpen...--Kuban Cossack 22:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


Dear Kuban kazak, first of all, please stop reverting my edits without discussion and vandalizing the page without logging in. Next, all my fact tags are clearly motivated, so I'm going to insist on them. If you delete them again without compromising on text, I would mark the whole article as disputed. As you might guess, many non-Ukrainian editors would support me in that move. As for your off-WP political claims here, I make little use of them, sorry. From what I can see, that "Otechestvo" is not a reliable secondary source. While some other sources on the page are. Again asking you to become civil and cooperative. Happy edits, Ukrained 17:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I want to add to this dialog is that political discussion should indeed be kept down. Discuss the language decisions of regions councils and they consitutionality at forums such as MaidanUA, anti-orange forum or whatever. Please discuss the articles and not politics in general. Also, endless claims about self-professed "expertize" should not be made (especially in the evidence to the contrary) and if made, should be ignored. Happy edits, --Irpen 01:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

To Irpen: I'm kindly asking you to stop stalking and countercampaigning of AlexPU. Do it once again, and I'll report you. Should your friends save you from block - and I'll start countercampaigning YOU to create some balance.

To Sashok: My dear little "friend", please use English, and only English, when discussing controversial issues.

To AlexPU: My friend, your hot temper prevents you from assessing Sashok adequately. Or his friends, to be exact. You see, the partisan "source" they're trying to spam in is not in English. So Sashok may be trying to promote it by tricking innocent editors who don't speak Russian.

I'd like to stress it: Kuban kazak is adding ext lnk to the Website of a partisan political organization that openly calls for domination of Russian language in Ukraine, annexing Ukraine to Russia, persecuting Ukrainian nationalists etc. Correct me if I'm wrong since I'm no expert in politics. In other words, the unreliable primary source is being spammed in. Ukrained 09:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

To Ukrained: I am not stalking anyone since those articles are long since on my watchlist but you are welcome to report anything anywhere you wish. Your threats are unimpressive. I invite scrutiny to any spot were you, your self-claimed "political analyst" friend and myself interacted. I am afraid you won't like the outcome of any investigation you request but be my guest all the way. As for sources, I invite you to bring them to the claim you make. Please do not bring Ukrainiphobic nonsense anymore about Ukrainian's Russophobia being proportional to their level of education. Those were unsourced anyway, and your appeals to common knowledge has been repeatedly shown to be falrse. But this is just plain nonsense. Happy edits. --Irpen 09:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The profile of that organisation is actually similar to UNA-UNSO, except it is not violent in its actions. In such a case it is suitable to use it for referencing key points, just like you would reference UNA-UNSO when dealing with Ukrainian nationalists, but not using the content of its publications as references. Finally the dispute is about the existance of this organisation not about what they publish, and given the scope of their activity it is suitable to use it as an example of a pro-Russian organisation in Ukraine in the same way you might use UNSO as an example of a nationalist organisation in Ukraine.
Finally my user name is Kuban kazak (Mr. Kuban kazak to you) so please withhold using the term Sashok, after all it was my report on WP:AN/I that Khoikhoi saw and blocked you for calling me that (ref). Unless of course you might be a masochist and WANT to be blocked again...:) --Kuban Cossack 11:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Kuban kazak, thank you for your new threat, I'm really impressed by well-connectedness of your friends, as well as by your eagerness in disclosing those connections. This helps updating my dossiers a lot :) Ukrained 12:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And I still don't understand why you continue to disprove of Yedinoye Otechestvo. I think it was discussed at length above.--Kuban Cossack 12:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I still don't understand how are you hoping to spam in that partisan POV reference? It WAS discussed enough to forget it (to leave it for pleasures of marginal Russophiles). Spamming and POV-pushing will be reverted on a permanent basis, as required by WP rules. Ukrained 13:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I explained it above (see comment on 11:54 19 April 2007), and if you call it a marginal organization which managed to get 200 thousand people to support in making Russian a regional language in Odessa... then your revert is a gross violation of WP:POINT and such censorship will be reverted as required by WP rules. --Kuban Cossack 18:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Kuban kazak, I suggest you to study WP:Verifiability carefully, especially WP:Verifiability#Sources_of_questionable_reliability, as well as Wikipedia:Reliable sources.--AndriyK 18:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
What is it that you need to verify? The existence of the organisation or the 200 thousand people that supported them? Both can be found in the comments above. Here is the source [8] --Kuban Cossack 18:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Mentioning an organization in the news does not imply reliability of the information on its web resource.--AndriyK 18:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
And as said above, it is not the information it carries, but it itself is presented as an example of Ukrainian organization that is obviously Russophilic and stands for a full union with Russia. Do you question that? Do you want visit their website and find evidence of that? It is a non-marginal organisation and it stands as an example of a pro-Russian side of Ukraine, why is wrong with that? --Kuban Cossack 18:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
In this case it's original research. Your own classification of organizations and estimation of their importance is not appropriate. You have to find a reference to some scoolarly studing the pro-Rusiian organization and giving estimating popularity of their ideas.--AndriyK 19:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
What the hell are you on about? Would you like a third opinion on this? --Kuban Cossack 21:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Turkmenistan

In my opinion, Turkmenistan section shows no visible relevance to Russophobia at all. It describes general human rights issue in the country, without any well-known ethnic- or country-motivated distinction. Should be rewritten in full or deleted (with a link in "Sea also" section). Ukrained 17:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Me second. It could be of Ukrainophobia as well. There were many Ukrainians in Soviet Central Asia.AlexPU 13:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't object to describing Russophobia in Turkmenistan. I even suspect there's much of it there. But don't mess Russophobia with general issues. BTW, this way is politically dangerous for you Russians. If you label general human rights abuses (and normal practices in Baltic States or Belgium) with "Russophobia", you would effectively push the point that the whole planet hates Russia, just because :))).AlexPU 19:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
What are you on about? For you, judging by some of your comments and simultaneously painting yourself as a an expert it is irrelevant what is or is not normal, and what does Belgium have to do with this? Please stay on the topic.--Kuban Cossack 22:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You amateur, the "Severstal" was trying to buy a Belgian steel company. You stay on topic of your own article :), instead of pushing some nuisances about state language. But I don't care anymore. You're a simple propagovandal and I'm ceasing attempts to communicate with you (other than with templates).AlexPU 22:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Or I do not care... and actually is the Severstal incident that notable? Compared to apartheid policies of limiting Russian language in Russian speaking schools to 40% and no more normal? Imagine if someone did that to American schools around the world? And please given by the tone of some of your comments and edit patterns You just make such propaganda changes fucking again, and I'll fulfill my threat about Russian articles!, some of the insults in the heading above apply to you MUCH more than they apply to me. --Kuban Cossack 22:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Arcelor a Belgian steel company? Have a look at the wikipedia article on it. Note that the Dutch version on Arcelor categorizes Arcelor both as "French company" and as "Luxembourgish company". The biggest shareholder of Arcelor was the government of Luxembourg. Your reference to Belgium can only mean you wanted to involve Belgian language legislation. Too bad that the percentage of French speakers in Belgium is slightly lower than 40% - which makes it comparable to the percentage of Russain speakers in a number of countries mentioned here. Naughty, naughty ... --Pan Gerwazy 09:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sashok, if you'd like to discuss AlexPU's editing history here, I should discourage you from that. Cite him more, and I'll cite YOU, or Grafik, or Ghirla (I have a large up-to-date library of your diffs). You don't need it, believe my word. And more, I'm asking you to edit your last comment in this section. To maintain civility and AGF, you know... Happy edits, Ukrained 08:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ukrained, you were an extremely prolific diff creator lately, as practically every talk page entry in the last two-three months shows. So, just keep this down please. --Irpen 08:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

GUAM

To the best of my expert knowledge, GUAM is emphatically non-anti-Russian institution. I can supply many diffs on that. And it's practically inactive BTW. The authors of this page are witchhunting and crusading against the West.AlexPU 14:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Social russophobia

Well if people insist on it then please reference it, on how in Ukraine people hate Russia more as one climbs the career ladders. I for one can be quite certain that with the exception of Tyagnibok and the like, as well as the head of Channel five. BTW here is sweet article я постоянно занимался историей Малороссии, всегда страстно любил Украину не только как страну с тучными полями, с прекрасным климатом, но и со славным историческим прошлым, с людьми, вся идеология которых разнится от московской; но тут разница между мною и украинскими кругами та, что последние, любя Украину, ненавидят Россию; у меня этой ненависти нет. by Pavlo Skoropadsky. --Kuban Cossack 22:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


"Our article"

Pan Gerwazy explained one of his revertion saying "our article on Russian School Defense Staff does have sources which say thousands". What means "our article"? According to the basic rules of Wikipedia, you can't own the article, so no article can be mines, yours or ours. Or do you mean "our" as a member of this Defense Staff? Belgian who is living in Moscow and fighting in Latvia? Anyway, its also against accepted practise to make cross-references, so if you like, please add a correct reference into this article.213.219.80.106 15:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear anonymous, "our article " meant of course the wikipedia article. Our meant "of us", Wikipedian editors. There was no WP:OWN there. Oh, and I replaced "protests" by "protesters" but somehow, in a further edit war, someone made that "protests" again. Glad to see you have had a look at my user page, by the way. And fell into the Moscow trap. As for the rest of your allegations, please remember WP:NPA. Thank you. --Pan Gerwazy 21:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Compensation claims

For pushing his POV, User:Kuban kazak added reference about compensation claims. The title of the referred article says "Latvia demands $100 million for occupation from Russia", but the text describes only Parliamental discussions. As of today, no claim is presented. However, if you like this so much, you probably support also adding information about report of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation.[9] 213.219.80.106 16:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


Anti Russian Imperialism

It is interestesting to see that anti russian imperialism is seen by russian as anti russian sentiment .... An easy way to diabolize everyone which don not agree with state imperialism —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.199.46.32 (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Actually, I think most people will agree that "anti-russian sentiment" is a nicer word (Wikipedians would say "more neutral term") than "anti-russian imperialism". That is why some people may have thought that you were trolling.--Pan Gerwazy 21:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"...dislike of politics in Russia"

Ladies and gentlemen, I removed that dubious passage from the intro: it's confusing and needs deletion or rewriting. What was it supposed to mean? That someone dislikes the fact that Russia, as a country and society, has its own politics happening :)? Ukrained 12:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Dislikes different policies of Russia, you can dislike a country by its foreign attitude, you must quite familiar with that (judging from some of your e-mails I received a while ago.)--12:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuban kazak (talk • contribs) 12:21, 20 May 2007
Okay, let's talk about our E-mail correspondence: you were threatening to do what, in real life, refresh my memory? Want screenshots of your letters to me published on my talk? Look, I consider disclosing and discussing private E-mails as non-gentleman behaviour, but if you insist...
Now back to your one-sided mostly subjectless article (actually an attack page) and your comments. I suggest you to implement your last post into the article text instead of discussing my off-WP likes and dislikes. Happy edits, Ukrained 12:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent page move to "Russophobia"

(discussion moved from talk pages)

Please don't increase the number of POV titles in wikpedia. Not all dislike of Russians is called Russophobia. The latter is nothing but a politically loaded neologism. `'юзырь:mikka 19:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Russophobia is a term which adequately describes dislike of Russians, and is more oftenly used to describe dislike of Russians than any other term. Of course, it is not a phobia in medical sense, but that should be known to anyone already. I don't think that "anti-Russian sentiment" is less loaded. Nikola 19:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The whole point of the "Anti-Russian" article title is that "Russophobia" is an emotionally loaded term. And I doubt that it is "more oftenly used". Googe will not help you, because "anti-Russian" is four times more often, and I don't think we have time to make exact comparison of contexts amobg hundreds of thousands of google hits. `'юзырь:mikka 19:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Anti-Russian sentiment might also be loaded to some. People who want to be offended will be. Following the same logic, should we also move Russophilia to "Pro-Russian sentiment"? Nikola 20:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. You have to know that there is no logic in the matters of language. "Russophiles" was normal term since 19th centrury, with definite meaning. "Russophobia" is an indiscriminate neologistic political slur. The suffix "-phobia" implies "irrational/stereotyped/unjustified fear". In many cases covered in the article anti-Russism was either well-justified or purposefully generated for political reasons, and to term it "phobia" is a disservice to the notion and unnecessary narrowing of its scope. I would also know the context where the term "Anti-Russian sentiment" may be coinsidered as loaded. `'юзырь:mikka 00:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Russophobia is not a neologism. I found an early use of the word in "Life of Lord Lawrence" by Reginald Bosworth Smith, published in 1901. I also don't see how it could be indiscriminate political slur. Stating that negative sentiment against an entire people can be justified borders on racism. Either way, same things could be said about antisemitism, yet I don't think that that article will ever be moved to "anti-Jewish sentiment". Having different title absolutely doesn't prevent the article from being expanded, especially as it would start with "Russophobia or Anti-Russian sentiment is...".
Since you haven't waited for this discussion to finish before moving back, I'll move it back too. Nikola 19:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Since you didn't ask people opinion before moving long existing artciel, I have all rights to restore the original name, but since Russian wikipedians don't cate, I don't really care either. By the way, don't twist my words ("Stating...") . `'юзырь:mikka 21:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Compare with Anti-Polish sentiment. --Lysytalk 20:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see that you asked for opinion before moving the article. I also didn't mean to imply that it is you who state such things. Nikola 22:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Nikola, are we talking here Russianphobia or Russophobia? Some would have the phobia towards Russia as a state, the government, not as a people living there. One should never equal people with their government. --Whiskey 20:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This is the major problem with all these ethnic phobia wikipedia articles written by biased people: deliberate or unconscious either conflation or unilateral understanding. As you say the article must be split in two or more topics, but unfortunately in real life things overlap. `'юзырь:mikka 21:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, since the alternative isn't anti-Russia sentiment, I suppose no. These articles are of course troll magnet but they describe valid topics and have to exist nontheless (or else we might delete article on Bush). Nikola 22:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree with юзырь:mikka. By far, not all that is being mentioned here is a case of Russophobia. Now, if that is so, we must needs use the "light" term, which will automatically make the title NPOV. You may prefer to be "precise", but then you will have to delete material, so that you do not every time have to state that "some people will interpret this as Russophobia". Note that "precision" can have exactly the opposite effect of what you expect. The first time I read Prometheism I actually thought it was a "WP:beans" page put up by Russian (and perhaps some German) Polonophobic editors who were having a good laugh. Well, it turns out that most of that XXXX (expletive deleted) was written by Poles who did not have an idea what they were doing. Nice one, Cyril. --Pan Gerwazy 11:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why the page couldn't have basically the same content under any of the titles. Nikola 22:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Russian_sentiment/Archive_3&oldid=1080936751"