Talk:Anti-Russian sentiment/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

What IS this crap?

I thought Wiki was a neutral encyclopedia for information. Not a channel to WAAAH about how some people of some nation feel OPPRESSED. "Help, help, I am being oppressed!" The russophobia entry is pure opinion and the fact value is zero. Or below zero. Looks we have nashis here, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joonavainio (talk • contribs) 13:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Dr. Vlad Sobell, an example of the anti-Russian bias in the West was the fact that President Putin was widely assumed to be guilty of the murder of Alexander Litvinenko

Dr. Vlad Sobell has been watching only Fox News? This is utter nonsense if and makes the section unbalanced (it looks like WP:NPOV to). — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Why is Russia portrayed as a “resurgent” and “aggressive” power, when it merely reacts defensively to encirclement by NATO?", this Sobell is truly an idiot. NATO is not an anti-Russian organisation, his comments looks more like another Putin lie to keep Russians submissive then independent commentary. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sobell is a respected expert on Russia. What you personally think of him is a bit irrelevant. Offliner (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Blatant POV

Although the Caucasus has never been the subject of any formal studies or polls, it is widely thought that the Caucasus may be the most Russophobic region of the world. It especially suffered from the brutality of both the Russian Empire, and its successor, the Soviet Union. In the 1800s, after the bloody Caucasian wars, millions of Caucasians were massacred and deported to the Ottomon Empire. Under the Soviet Union, Caucasian peoples were almost indiscriminately accused (all were accused except the Ossetians, historical allies of the Russians) of collaborating with the Nazis, despite their own contributions to the Russian side during the war. They were rounded up and deported to Siberia, where they were forced to labor with little food and shelter, causing massive amounts of death. Especially victimized were the Chechens, who lost well over half of their population as a result (often cited as a reason for the Chechen wars). Now, in the modern day, Russia has fought two wars against Chechens, where many other Caucasian peoples, especially Abkhaz, Circassians, Ingush, Georgians and Dagestanis have to come to the aid of the Chechens unofficially. Forums in Caucasian langauges generally are rampant with hateful speech against Russians, as they view Russians as a sort of "evil oppressor people" and the "worst nation of the world". In a 2008 interview, a randomly selected Chechen in the Republic told a reporter taht "... we Chechens are not forgetful people. We must be independent, as every 50 years, Moscow seeks to kill Chechens. We would be wrong to forgive."

Opponents of Russia's leaders are sometimes described as "anti-Russian" even when they are Russian citizens themselves. This is often either spinned by Kremlin's propaganda machine or is caused by the feeling that such people co-operate with those whose goal is to partition Russia. Such people include journalists like Anna Politkovskaya, politicians like Garry Kasparov, oligarchs like Boris Berezovsky, and former intelligence agents like Alexander Litvinenko. The later three are not ethnic Russians, they just hold the citizenship of the Russian Federation.

Either show proof for all this, or remove it. "spinned by Kremlin's propaganda machine" Seriously? Who the hell wrote this? --SergeiXXX (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole section was unsourced, so I removed it. Offliner (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I also corrected the Tuva section as it attempted to only use one particular part of its source to misinform and make it look like there are still tensions in that region.--SergeiXXX (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Coatrack

This article is not the best place to analyse Russian influence operations in Estonia, among which the lawass reference's substance indubitably fits. It is not the place to do an in-depth discussion of the mistaken and heavily criticised AI report, either. Two years ago, we tried that on Ethnic democracy, I think, and the final consensus was that mistaken sources are best not mentioned at all unless they have become objects of further events; and the mistakenness of said sources is best discussed on talkpages.

In this case, the section relevant to the lawass quote has been stable for many months, ever since I and Peters did a thorough rewrite to express all major factors at stake. It is very unfortunate to see that some elements of Wikipedia are more interested in pushing extremist POV rather than aiding in development of an encyclopædia. I realise that a person heavily invested in Soviet historiography might have trouble with the concept of "neutrality" -- after all, all three Baltic states had declared neutrality in the League of Nations at the time of Soviet invasion --, but this is no excuse for blatant violation of Wikipedia policies. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 07:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently someone is determined to censor important, well-sourced content: [1]. To counter the false accusation of the edit summary: the wording follows closely what is used in the sources, so it is not a misrepresentation of facts. Secondly, it clearly is relevant to the subject. Discrimination of the Russian-speaking population is a display of anti-Russian sentiment. Mentioning the human rights organizations' findings is also important to balance claims like this (which Digwuren obviously isn't removing as 'irrelevant'): Most claims of anti-Russian sentiment in Estonia and Latvia are made by Russian authorities, media and activists regarding supposed political or economic discrimination against the large Russian minorities in these countries. Offliner (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with Offliner (on this one). The (respactable) organisation do mention it and I think this article should mention what they mention. It is up to the reader to find it believable what they mention. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Wikipedia is all about mentioning, I like to mention! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't know if this alleged discrimination, (the amnesty report is about a lack of employment opportunities) is due to anti-Russian sentiment, or some other factor, like many Russian speakers worked in Union level enterprises that went bankrupt after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Therefore I have removed the text as it is WP:SYNTH. Martintg (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Should the argument that 18 years -- time between present and the restoration of the Republic -- is too short a time to learn a language as complex as Estonian language also be mentioned? Or is it too WP:FRINGE for Wikipedia?

A lot of the "language discrimination" arguments are based on this, either explicitly or implicitly. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 13:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of the allegations of discrimination is related to employment. There are various reasons why unemployment is higher amongst Russian-speakers, for example Russian trade restrictions have hurt those industries were Russian speaker happen to be concentrated in, for example. Martintg (talk) 03:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Traditionally, Eastern Viru County, a former industrial region with large amounts of immigrants, has had relatively high unemployment. Not last in the list of reasons is the fact that while most of the environmental pollution in Estonia has been cleaned up in the past 18 years, cleanup of the gargantuan oil shale ash mountains deposited during half a century of ruthless Soviet exploitation is quite not as easy.

According to recent statistics, unemployment in Eastern Viru county is currently at 14%. However, it's also 14% in Võru county, which has comparatively much fewer Soviet-era immigrants, and whose main businesses have been agrarian (including fishing, farming, and foresting) and tourism.

So, what conspiracy theory can be woven to fit these facts and still contend that there's a bias going on? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination

Martintg is continuously removing this because of WP:SYN:

However, international human rights agencies have found that some of the allegations are true: According to Amnesty International Russian speakers are victims of discrimination in Estonia.[15][16] The think-tank Development and Transition, sponsored by the United Nations, published an article in 2005 alleging Latvia and Estonia employ a "sophisticated and extensive policy regime of discrimination" against their respective Russophone populations.[17]

At the same time he is leaving this in the article:

Many of these individuals never chose any citizenship, leading to the development of significant numbers of people without citizenship. However, because they possess permanent residence permits, consular privileges, and other additional rights akin to citizenship, they are not stateless.[21] While most of such people are Russophones, a significant portion—primarily Belarusians and Ukrainians—are not ethnic Russian. Despite this fact, the Russian Federation makes regular assertions claiming the presence of non-citizens in Estonia and Latvia constitutes evidence of anti-Russian ethnic-based citizenship discrimination.[12][22][23][24]

But the discrimination is already linked to anti-Russian sentiment in that chapter. Thus, discussion of the claims is relevant to the article. Either allow for a balanced discussion of the discrimination claims, or remove the whole discussion (not just parts of it.) Offliner (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree with Offliner again.. I don't see what is wrong with quoting Amnesty International...

From the AI report: Tamara is a stateless woman in her early twenties. She is stateless and officially defined as a "resident alien", although she was born in Estonia and has lived her whole life in Estonia. Tamara wants to become an Estonian citizen and has studied for a long time for the civic and language exams that she is required to pass. She says proudly:

In July this year (2006) I passed the exams. I had to pay 5000 Estonian crowns (EEK, just over 300 euros) for the private school where I studied for the exams. Because I am currently unemployed, I could have never afforded the private school if my mother had not helped me financially. And without the private school I could have never passed the exams.

Having passed her exams, Tamara can get some of her costs reimbursed and will now apply for Estonian citizenship. However, she must also be able to demonstrate that that she can support herself in order to be eligible for citizenship. Tamara is unemployed, but as her mother can support her financially she is thus likely to be eligible for citizenship.

Sure looks like some kind of discrimination of non-Estonians to me... — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have read the sources and nowhere does it state this alleged discrimination is due to "anti-Russian sentiment". Many russophones are not Russian, and many Russians are fluent in Estonian. Note that is is a fact that all Russians who could trace their citizenship back to the pre-war republic automatically received Estonian citizenship, including 10,000 Russians living in Pskov region. This linking of alleged discrimination with "anti-Russian sentiment" is pure synthesis. Martintg (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

When I have a chance in the next few days, I'll be responding on the synthesis of discrimination. PetersV       TALK 02:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is another link [2]. --Martintg (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged the section since there appears some users are attempting to advance a position based upon their synthesis of certain cherry picked sources, The synthesis is the connection between alleged discrimination <==> anti-Russian sentiment. --Martintg (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the Tuva section

Because I do not see how something that MAY have happened in 1989-1990 (but has not been even proven beyond reasonable doubt) can have any real relevance today. --SergeiXXX (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Original research

I respectfully submit we stop simply quoting he said/she said. The Baltic section and references elsewhere underscore why everything that is not from a secondary source is WP:OR. Gabriele Krone-Schmalz and Peter Lavelle, for example, are known to toe the official Russian line on issues (including nodding their heads in approval over accusations the Russian government makes). We then quote people who say they aren't objective. I'm the first to agree there's a serious subject here but the way it's been treated and turned into a contest of dueling commentators and contradictory official statements is an insult to the topic. PetersV       TALK 01:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The connection between alleged "discrimination" and "anti-Russian sentiment" is in itself is WP:OR, but we are reduced to "he said/she said" style of editing because one side ignores this aspect. Where is HiberneanTears when you need him. The whole "discrimination" thing as reported by the various bodies is related to jobs. However if I fly to Moscow and fail to get a job because I cannot speak Russian, this is not an instance of anti-Australian sentiment. It is because I lack the requisite language skills required for the job. Certain jobs require language skills in the host nation language, it is a fact of life. Try to get a job the the Metropolitan Police if you have poor English language skills. --Martintg (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The scope of this article

Should this article also describe a legitimate criticism of Russian nation, especially by Russian writers of 19th century and earlier? How about "we are an exception among all nations..." by Pyotr Chaadaev, "all are slaves from top to the bottom..." by Alexander Herzen, "the country of slaves, the country of masters" by Lermontov, and description of feelings towards Russians by Cherkes in stories by Leo Tolstoi? As about "Russophobia", this term was invented only in 1980s by anti-semit Igor Shafarevich who tried to justify an idea that Russian majority has been terribly oppressed by the Jewish minority. "Russophobia has a long tradition and already existed many centuries before Russia became one of the major powers in Europe"? Come on.Biophys (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You should write to the Random House, Inc. publishers: it seems there's been a terrible mistake!

Russophobe – (noun) A person who hates or fears Russia or the Russians. Origin: 1880–85; Russo- + -phobe. Related forms: Russophobia, noun. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009. www.dictionary.com

PasswordUsername (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone knows what means "Russo" and "phobe". The question is: who and when used this combination for the first time? I can see that my first suggestion did not cause objections.Biophys (talk) 23:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Your first point is addressed by the aforementioned dictionary entry. Your second point is addressed by the same entity. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Dictionary tells nothing. ru.wiki tells the term was invented by Fyodor Tyutchev, but fails to provide a reliable source (it gives only this blog-like source). Unless we use a clear scope and definition of the term, this article is one huge WP:SYN problem.Biophys (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not the case that the dictionary "tells nothing." It tells the etymology and the meaning, which you pretend isn't given there. If you have sources that characterize Chaadaev, Herzen, Lermontov, or Tolstoi as expressing "hatred or fear of Russia and the Russians" – since you'd like to pretend that these are remarks about something other than the czarist heritage of the 19th century – provide some sources for the assertion: your examples are instances of political criticism. First you make the claim that "Russophobia" was coined in the 1980s by an anti-semite; then you pretend you don't understand how to gather information from etymological details in an ordinary dictionary. This is too pathetic to even try to pass off as Wikilawyering – one ought to have a bit of shame. Sorry, Biophys.

 – PasswordUsername (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Then by your logic anything born of anti-Sovietism (e.g., the USSR invaded the Baltics first, before the Great Patriotic War) is inadmissible as well, since it is all about the Soviet heritage and not about ethnic Russians.

   Also, I do have to agree with Biophys. It's not about the origin of a word, there are all sorts of phobias and people fear all sorts of things, even the relief joints in sidewalks. It is the question: when was the first time "Russophobia" was used in the context of a political tome expressing Russophobia or a scholarly discussion of the phenomenon of "Russophobia." Please don't cheapen the discussion with uncivil derision of editors and charges of Wikilawyering by not understanding the point made by someone with lesser English skills than yours.

   Lastly, contending a dictionary entry denotes a phenomenon as opposed to an individual phychological affliction is the Wikilawyering and pure WP:SYNTH here. PetersV       TALK 04:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Then by your logic anything born of anti-Sovietism (e.g., the USSR invaded the Baltics first, before the Great Patriotic War) is inadmissible as well, since it is all about the Soviet heritage and not about ethnic Russians.

Correct, PetersV. Pure "anti-Sovietism" is not Russophobia. Something Russophobic may be caused by phenomena in Soviet history, but – per standard definition – it's a different matter than anti-Sovietism itself. If I have ever said otherwise (I think this is my first edit here), please showcase that for us.

You're going from Biophys' denial of the term's legitimate existence and currency since the mid-1880s into questions such as

when was the first time "Russophobia" was used in the context of a political tome expressing Russophobia or a scholarly discussion of the phenomenon of "Russophobia."

And is Russophobia not a "phenomenon"? And you did not just now make a pronouncement about Wikilawyering? I think this exchange has been seriously cheapened already, and I hardly see reason to think that you have managed to redeem it here. PasswordUsername (talk) 04:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(od) You're not getting it. A phobia is a psychological affliction, that is the most you can contend by the word "Russophobia" appearing in a dictionary with a first-used date. The question is, when was Russophobia (fear/hatred of ethnic Russians) expressed in a political tome/manifesto or discussed in a scholarly source, validating it as a phenomenon—as opposed to an individual phobia.

   It's a simple question: not "when did the word first exist?" but "when was fear or hatred of ethnic Russians first expressed in a political manifesto or described in a scholarly source as a group (large sections of societies) phenomenon including its basis?".

   As far as I've researched, the earliest uses of "Russophobia" (not an affliction) are with regard to fear of Russia's imperial (tsarist) ambitions. So to Biophys' original question, is that within scope as well as a documented use of the term?

I'm not stating that either you or Biophys are "right" relative to fear/hatred of Russian individuals, I'm only saying that we can't make any statements about Russophobia first appearing as

1. a societal phenomenon and
2. specifically in context of fear/hatred of individuals of Russian ethnic heritage

based on when the word is simply first noted to have been used, absent of the context of its use. I can't be any more clear on this. This is not Wikilawyering. This is how you build article narrative based on reputable secondary sources. Have I objected to anyone's position when they have produced a reputable scholarly source backing their editorial contention and represented it fairly? PetersV       TALK

This article is written in modern English. The dictionary defines Russophobia as "[hatred] or [fear] of Russia or the Russians." This usage is the sense in which it is used – hence, this, of course, is the sense in which we use it here, individual (including per your "clinical-individual" interpretation – see WP:OR) or otherwise. (Unless you can provide a source that says that "Russophobia" is only meant to denote "an individual phobia" – this must be a complaint that readily pops up on the psychoanalyst's couch.) Etymology has little to do with it: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia documenting current and historical phenomena rather than the history of linguistic development, and Biophys' assertion – only capable of being received as an attack on the term – was that that "this term was invented only in 1980s by anti-semit [sic] Igor Shafarevich." (Words written by him. Words coming from Biophys.) Please re-read this if this still looks like it is too hard.

So far, so good, it seems. Note that nobody is proposing that we simply "make any statements about Russophobia. . . based on when the word is simply first noted to have been used." We simply stick to definitions and reliable sources. When we do and stick to following NPOV policies, Wikilawyering manages to take a vacation all by itself. PasswordUsername (talk) 05:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"[hatred|Hatred] or [fear] of Russia or the Russians" is not the issue, it is the scope and current slant of the article which is being discussed, that is:

1. the description of Russophobia as an engine of what is best described as race hatred, and
2. how far back as a phenomenon of race hatred does Russophobia go, scholarly sources please

(BTW, Wikilinking to fear and hatred comes across as rather condescending.) The points on sourcing article scope and content are, then:

1. Russophobia as a fear or hatred of tsarist Russian ambition or Soviet Russian ambition or Soviet ambition or Russian Federation ambition... stick to scholarly sources; to Biophys' original question which has not really been addressed, yes, that material (fear of Imperial Russia and associated) is then clearly in scope of Russophobia as a phenomenon (whether criticism is justified or not is not the issue, it is enough that the fear of Imperial Russia on the part of another country's leaders exists)
2. Russophobia as a fear or hatred of individuals of Russian heritage... stick to scholarly sources, the quesition to be addressed is, when did Russophobia cease being fear of Tsarist Russia et al.—documented—and become fear of Russians based solely on their ethnic background?

Since we both agree that we can't say when Russophobia first existed as a phenomenon based on when the word was first used ("non-issue"), then that does help clarify the scope and what sources are applicable. I'm not WP:OR'ing the "clinical" nature of Russophobia, I'm only saying that you can only contend Russophibia, based on its dictionary definition, is associated with an individual. To contend it is a phenomenon associated with segments of society or the governments of countries requires secondary sources. PetersV       TALK 06:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not hyperlink anything: in English, we use brackets to denote words that have been modified from their original form – such as when "hatred" is substituted for "hates." It's part of expressing oneself gramatically while taking care to note the modifications to the original sentence one is excerpting from.

As far as what you write subsequently, I'll say again that I do not think that opposition to Russia's imperial ambitions is Russophobia. If you have any material on this usage of the words, feel free to mention it in the article, but if anti-Sovietism and anti-Czarism are not Russophobia per se (as I think both of us do agree), we're on the right track in this respect.

There is no basis for your "individual-instance-as-per-definition" claim. You write:

"I'm only saying that you can only contend Russophibia, based on its dictionary definision, is associated with an individual."

This is simply a baseless assumption – WP:OR. The dictionary does not make any such claim. Our job as Wikiepdians is not to "contend" based on anything. Our job is to present things as they are defined and reported on by trustworthy (WP:RS) sources. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear PasswordUsername, if you wish to be productive you might consider that editors do edit based on fairly and accurately representing secondary sources, Wikipedia is not a contest. You will find it easier to not react based on biases based on the backgrounds of individuals and your personal perceptions (and denigration on admin's pages) of perceived cabals of editors. And sarcasm and derision have no place in the discussion of article content. That is the tool of POV pushers. I'm going against my own advice to leave such matters well enough alone, but otherwise you are joining the circus you profess to despise. The choice is yours. PetersV       TALK 06:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Right now, I will be following your own "friendly advice" and ignoring diversions from the article such as this one. I suggest you not follow me around – don't overburden yourself. Dealing with sarcasm can be hard enough. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I reach out in good faith and all I get is more sarcasm. Well, you've made your bed, you can sleep in it. PetersV       TALK 14:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The scope of this article redux

No need for anyone to respond immediately—in fact, I'd like to see a couple of days pass at least before anyone responds so folks have a chance to think about it. I would suggest that we consider splitting the article to:

1. Russophobia—based secondary/scholarly sources only, whether or not it was called Russophobia at the time, there's a good amount of scholarly material discussing Russophobia (and using that word) with respect to fear of Imperial Russian ambitions at least as far back, regarding historical events, as Moldavia/Bessarabia. Russophobia as a contemporary term for fear and loathing of ethnic Russians would also need to be suitably cited from scholarly/secondary sources (not news articles bandying the term about).
2. Allegations of anti-Russian prejudice and discrimination—I think this title is clear enough. While I personally despise "allegations of" articles as open invitations for coatracking and OR, this would provide an appropriately titled venue for point/counterpoint in the press and by NGOs and political parties, inventories of alleged anti-Russianism (if that's a word) by country, etc.

As it stands the article inappropriately conflates two separate topics with the predictable and unfortunate results. PetersV       TALK 14:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

On this note I would like to point out there is a Anti-Sovietism article (I just found out). — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That article would appear to require some attention. A lot of the literature deals with Chinese Communist anti-Sovietism and specific hot-spots of the Cold War. More contemporary references (that is, not news articles) will need to be explored to validate and characterize current usage after the demise of the Soviet Union. PetersV       TALK 01:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Massive removal of sourced text and sources

This massive removal of sourced text and sourced is not acceptable. The article contains discussion of the discrimination of Russian-speakers, thus the material is relevant.

For example, the article contains this:

• Such claims have become more frequent during times of political disagreements between Russia and these countries and waned when the disagreements have been resolved

• Many of these individuals never chose any citizenship, leading to the development of significant numbers of people without citizenship. However, because they possess permanent residence permits, consular privileges, and other additional rights akin to citizenship, they are not stateless. While most of such people are Russophones, a significant portion—primarily Belarusians and Ukrainians—are not ethnic Russian. Despite this fact, the Russian Federation makes regular assertions claiming the presence of non-citizens in Estonia and Latvia constitutes evidence of anti-Russian ethnic-based citizenship discrimination.

Why is Martintg not removing all this with the same argumentation? At the same time, Martintg is unilaterally removing all opinions of international human rights organizations (reliable, third-party sources.) This is tendentious editing, pure and simple. Offliner (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of discrimination = existence of/proof of "anti-Russian" sentiment (aka Russophobia) is a synthesis. If you wish to demonstrate the existence of Russophobia, you would need, for example, a reputable and statistically valid survey of the non-Russian population expressing their loathing of ethnic Russians. Not allegations of discrimination. Hope this helps. Please don't state the connection is self-evident or obvious or there by definition, it's not. PetersV       TALK 03:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please consider my proposal above for splitting the article into Russophobia and Allegations of anti-Russian prejudice and discrimination. That (the latter article) would allow you to present your sources without creating the synthesis. No one is tendentiously attempting to suppress information. I hope this helps. PetersV       TALK 03:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that Allegations of discrimination = existence of/proof of "anti-Russian" sentiment. The article demonstrates a connection between discrimination and anti-Russian sentiment:

Most claims of anti-Russian sentiment in Estonia and Latvia are made by Russian authorities, media and activists regarding political or economic discrimination against the large Russian minorities in these countries.

Thus, it is not synthesis to include a discussion of the discrimination in this article. Note that the current version (favoured by Martintg) already contains such discussion:

Such claims have become more frequent during times of political disagreements between Russia and these countries and waned when the disagreements have been resolved

The nations of Estonia and Latvia, which had large populations of Soviet-era immigrants, restored their pre-occupation citizenship laws and criteria with some updates. For example, Latvia introduced the option of naturalisation and granting of citizenship to all persons born as residents of Latvia after restoration of independence in 1991. Application of the pre-occupation criteria led to recognition of citizenship to people who had been citizens at the time of the first Soviet occupation and their descendants. Large numbers of Soviet-era immigrants residing in both countries were granted permanent residence and expected to choose which post-USSR country's citizenship to acquire. The primary options included naturalisation in the host country or requesting continuance citizenship from the Russian Federation; Russia issued continuance citizenships upon request to any former USSR citizen until the end of 2000. A number of people also migrated to other countries and naturalised there.

Many of these individuals never chose any citizenship, leading to the development of significant numbers of people without citizenship. However, because they possess permanent residence permits, consular privileges, and other additional rights akin to citizenship, they are not stateless. While most of such people are Russophones, a significant portion—primarily Belarusians and Ukrainians—are not ethnic Russian. Despite this fact, the Russian Federation makes regular assertions claiming the presence of non-citizens in Estonia and Latvia constitutes evidence of anti-Russian ethnic-based citizenship discrimination.

This is not synthesis, it is context. But Martintg is removing none of this. Instead, he is mass-removing the opinions of international human rights organizations, which serve the exact same purpose in this article as the above text (providing context.) This is tendentious editing.

My suggestion is this: either

1. remove all text which is based on sources that do not specifically talk about "anti-Russian sentiment," but only talk about "ethnicity based discrimination" or such, or
2. provide a decent discussion of discrimination (of which the opinions of human rights organizations are an essential part.)

Like I have pointed out, Martintg's version contains a lot of such text and sources which do not discuss "anti-Russian sentiment," but only discrimination, citizenship laws or Estonia-Russia relations. Yet he is not removing this as "synthesis." He is only removing the opinions of human rights organizations on the same issue. Offliner (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Offliner that everything that is not directly related to "anti-Russian sentiment" should be removed. To equate discrimination with anti-Russian sentiment is synthesis. You have to provide a secondary source that discussed this connection in detail, otherwise it stays out. All countries discriminate on the basis of language, just because I can't get a job in the Russian public service because I do not speak Russian is not evidence of anti-Australian sentiment. --Martintg (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Also, could you point out where exactly do the sources for the first paragraph:

Most claims of anti-Russian sentiment in Estonia and Latvia are made by Russian authorities, media and activists regarding political or economic discrimination against the large Russian minorities in these countries. Such claims have become more frequent during times of political disagreements between Russia and these countries and waned when the disagreements have been resolved

say: "Most claims of anti-Russian sentiment in Estonia and Latvia are made by Russian authorities." I could not find this in any of the English-language sources given. Offliner (talk) 08:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've checked the Estonian sources as well, and they discuss "anti-Russian sentiment" at all either, so I've removed the whole paragraph per WP:OR. Offliner (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Proof positive that—at least for now, it won't be long before we all twiddle at it—less is more. This has been a reasonably constructive exchange here. BTW, I would consider it progress to concentrate more on content and less on who thinks who should be perma-banned when my request there was that visitors to the conversation read a source and comment on their understanding of it. There was no need for your jab there subsequent to your edit here. PetersV       TALK 13:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Baltic states

In regard to this court case brought against American attorney general by this Estonian-Russian family, after reading the cited source, being a court record, it is clear that there is an allegation by the plaintiff of "anti-Russian sentiment", but the court does not rule on the veracity of this allegation. So inclusion here is synthesis. --Martintg (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What I put in doesn't say claim that the court ruled on the veracity of this allegation, so please explain again where the synthesis comes from. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As the court did not rule, there is no confirmation of veracity of the charges which were the basis for requesting asylum, they could have been making it up to stay in the U.S., hence including as an example of anti-Russian sentiment is wholly inappropriate. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  03:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

How is this claim different from any other? Incidentally, having reread the source better, I found something I'd failed to recall. The IJ (judge) did rule on the veracity of the case, finding the testimony of the family to be true:

On September 18, 2000, the IJ denied Petitioners' applications for asylum and withholding of removal, but granted voluntary departure for each of the petitioners except Serdjuk, who had been present in the United States for less than a year before the commencement of removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b). The IJ found that Orehhova, her husband, and her son had "testified truthfully," and that all three had "suffered forms of harassment, discrimination, [and] recrimination on account of their ethnicity." However, the IJ concluded that "the degree of harm to which they were exposed prior to their [most recent] trip to the United States and that which they have established will be threatened if they return at this time does not []rise to the level required for [a] finding of persecution."2 Petitioners appealed the IJ's decision to the BIA, which summarily affirmed the decision on February 13, 2003. The BIA permitted Petitioners, including Serdjuk, an additional 30-day period within which to undertake voluntary departure.

PasswordUsername (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a good example that speaks for itself. After all, the couple chose to go all the way across the ocean traveling about 4000 miles to claim about "anti-Russian sentiment" in order to get into the US instead of going just coupler of miles across the border to Russia where they could have escaped the alleged "anti-Russian sentiment" much more easily. It's just a question if such attempts to get into the US should belong to an encyclopedia, and into an article about "anti-Russian sentiment"?--Termer (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Russia sentiment vs. Anti-Russian Sentiment

Hatred or fear of the country vs. fear of the ethnic group. They are actually very different, and definitely not necessarily overlapping. One should make that difference very clear. --Yalens (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

North Caucasus

Well, there has been discussion about this section before, now we seem to have it again. Russavia wants it deleted; Sander Sade reverted Rus. the first time; I have now restored it again.

I have seen two main reasons that people state for wanting to delete it: one that the North Caucasus is part of Russia, and the second that it is allegedly a WP:COATRACK. The first can be dismissed as it is not a reason for exclusion.

As for being a COATRACK, in order to be a COATRACK, it must be off-topic with regards to the title. Actually, it is not. It discusses the causes and manifestations of Anti-Russian sentiment in the Caucasus. Russian users may perceive it as biased, yes, because the North Caucasus is part of Russia (so I assume they don't like to be reminded that many of the residents of this region wish it wasn't); and because it recounts many of the causes of Russophobia in the Caucasus- i.e. the fear of Russia. However, people do not have a gene to fear a country.

In Anti-Americanism, there is plenty of discussion of what causes it- the view that the US is, quite bluntly, imperialist. I do not know the talk page of that page well, but it is on the page, and it has stayed. And this is English wikipedia. I fail to see why Russia's page on the negative views of itself should be any different. Indeed, there are cases where I wonder if this page is biased in the other direction- like claiming that Estonia's anti-Russian sentiment is rooted in Nazi propaganda (as opposed to being existent before but eclipsed).

Although in general, the (country)-(phobia) pages are generally lacking in quality. But, to the point, it is on topic; it is not nearly as biased as some people may claim (in my opinion, as what it reports is more or less the case); and it is well-sourced (4 sources per 3 paragraph section without much depth).

Though, there is a case to make that these pages on Anti-(insert country) sentiment are generally bad articles, as they give very limited info based on polls with little depth, explanation, etc... --Yalens (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll put it in this perspective: were I to write an article about anti-Chechen sentiment, I would probably have to note that the massive amplification of anti-Chechen sentiment has to do with the view that Chechens are gangsters paired with the recent Russo-Chechen wars and the terrorist attacks (all of these amplify the original view by some Russians that Chechens are half-civilized mountain "bandits"). The terrorist attacks in particular are deeply embarrassing for many Chechens. But you'd still have to note it, and it should not be considered COATRACK to discuss it.--Yalens (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with anti-Chechen sentiment, but Russophobia. The reasons for it being a coatrack are simple. Although the Caucasus has never been the subject of any formal studies or polls, it is widely thought[by whom?] that the Caucasus may be highly Russophobic. That this statement is unsourced and uses weasal words indicates that what is going to follow is a coatrack, and it is right. This is due to the legacy of the Tsarist Empire and the Soviet Union which saw numerous conflicts between Moscow and the Caucasian peoples (or between the Russian settlers and the natives); inequity between natives and more recent arrivals (inogorodtsy); and most of all a handful of massive deportations (both during the Tsarist Empire and the Soviet Union, one of which, the so called Muhajir totaling over a million.[17] Firstly, the reference used is a press release, which is to be avoided in an encyclopaedic setting, and secondly, the link only gives some credence to the number of people deported. It doesn't cover Russophobia at all. In the case of deportations under the Soviet Union, when the deportees returned, tensions mounted between them and recent settlers on their old lands (as was especially the case with the deportation of the Chechens in 1944, returning in 1957). Now, in the modern day, Russia has fought two wars against Chechens, where many other Caucasian peoples have come to the aid of the Chechens unofficially. This is totally unreferenced, and again it has nothing at all to do with Russophobia. There have often been reports of anti-Russian activity even in Republics far removed from the Chechen Wars. For example, journalist Fatima Tlisova released an article in 2009 discussing the frequent occurrences of crosses being sawed off buildings and thrown off mountains in Circassia, due to the cross being associated with the people who initiated the mass expulsions of Circassians.[18] The reference used here is more to do with anti-Christian sentiment in the Caucasus than any Russophobia, and even then it is on pretty thin ice to use it to back up the section itself. In a report by the Jamestown Federation, dealing with the topic of the (extremely positive) reception of John McCain's statements about Russia's "double standards in the Caucasus" (referring to how Russia recognized South Ossetia but would not let Chechnya go), one Chechen was quoted to have gone so far as to tell the website that Chechnya "cannot exist within the borders of Russia because every 50 years... Russia kills us Chechens".[19] Again, this has nothing to do with Russophobia, it is simply a rack that is being used to hang a coat on to help portray the synthesis of the original statement. It has nothing to do with wanting to whitewash any information, so please, cut that rubbish out right there. If there is indeed Russophobia in the Caucasus then it will be possible to find sources which explicitly state this, and also delve into the issue in greater detail, rather than using original research, and then hanging a few coats to back up that OR. This is not how an encyclopaedia operates. That is why I have removed the section from the article. Also, the WP:BURDEN is on any editor restoring information to ensure that everything is sourced. This has not be done either. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 21:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, first of all, the definition of Russophobia is rather vague. But if we take it by its roots Russo+phobia (fear of Russia), I am pretty sure that the assertion that Russia "kills Chechens every 50 years" is definitely a manifestation of "fear of Russia".

And as for our "anti-Christian sentiment", that is an incorrect statement, if you read the article. They are specifically Russian Orthodox crosses that are being thrown off mountains (not Armenian Apostolic, which is also present in the region). Anti-Russian Orthodox in the Caucasus is pretty much synonymous with anti-Russia. The only other decently sized people that are Russian Orthodox in the region are the Ossetes, but there aren't really very many Ossetes in Circassia (and in addition, the main charge against the Ossetes is that they are viewed as servants of Moscow and "traitors"; unless you're Ingush in which case anti-Ossete feelings have a different dimension...but we are talking about Circassians here).

And, I may remind you... almost every anti-(something) page is not good. This page is certainly no exception. Each of the sections on this page are deeply flawed, shallow, and the subject matter is vaguely defined, not to mention mainly a matter of (often fluid) opinions. I would say adding some depth would be good. --Yalens (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As for much greater detail, we could easily have that as I can go into a description of the various reasons why people aren't particularly fond of Russia in the Caucasus... the wars, as Israilov put it "the plundering", the deportations, etc... and yet, according to you this is off-topic. When it is not when we are talking about Japan, about America, about Germany, etc, somehow. The fact is that, it is not off-topic (it is not on the page right now though). --Yalens (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Vecrumba's POV edit

Re [3], please read Wikipedia:No Ethnic Epithets. It seems that Vecrumba's edit is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT - he doesn't agree with the reliable source, therefore he adds ethnic epithets. Nanobear (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

What epithets? The content stated that the individual advocates for deporting people. That's nowhere in the party platform. The sources state he glorifies Nazism et al. Sorry, haven't found any such publications, only allegations in biased sources, and so had to remove the most inflammatory content as a potential WP:BLP violation. Unfortunately, political socialist advocacy sites and partisan Russian news sources are not "reliable" when it comes to objective portrayal of veterans of the Latvia Legion (Waffen SS) which was conscripted and fought against Soviet re-invasion, they just scream NAZI! That would be the epithet here. Please feel free to restore the inflammatory and libelous content if you find corroboration in a non-partisan reputable English language source. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. WP:IDONTLIKEIT would be deleting it. I merely represented the sources and what they state. You apparently equate any source contending "Latvians are Nazis!" with "reliable." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

So according to you, the name of every source should be preceded by its nationality? So we should never write "according to Diena..." but "according to Latvian newspaper Diena"? Nanobear (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The sources calling Mr. Visvaldis Lacis a neo-fasist both seem very pro-Russian.. They remind me of the boy who cried wolf. The British The Times does not seem to see this man as a neo-fasist. I shall check what RIA Novosti thinks about this man, I trust them. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

RIA Novosti simply calls him a notably nationalist. This seems to proof my suggestion that the sources calling him a neo-fasist are questionable sources and facts from questionable sources should be removed. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

@Yulia Romero: RIA Novosti is the press organ of the Russian government and is therefore no more reliable than a politician expressing their personal view. You will note the official Russian position is that the Latvian Legion were (Waffen) SS Nazis convicted at Nuremberg. (The facts are that the Latvian Legion were stationed as Allied guards at Nuremberg.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I said I trusted RIA Novosti nothing else ; I only used English RIA articles as a source for articles about Ukrainian politics and when reporting about Ukraine in English RIA always looked just as neutral as BBC News to me. Since I am not much interested in other Eastern European countries I have no idea of the quality of RIA on other subjects. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No offense taken. Where WWII, post-WWII and anything anti-Soviet is concerned, especially having to do with those nationalities that were the most active in opposing the USSR, my experience is that Novosti's contentions are better taken as opinion. I myself watch Russia Today periodically to get news otherwise not readily available, that said, my "filter" is always on to separate fact from portrayal. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

@Nanobear: It's news to me that any Baltic sources contending something about the Soviet Union or Russia aren't immediately denounced on WP as biased and must be attributed as nationalist. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK

P.S. You're not advocating that known biased sources should not be described as such when they are denouncing living persons in print? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The RIA Novosti article mentions nothing about russophobia in connection with Visvaldis Lacis, so how is this relevant to this article? Nor do I understand how being elected head of the Citizenship Committee in Latvia’s Parliament is an act of "russophobia". Seems like WP:SYNTH. --Martin (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I will remind you all to stick to what reliable sources say. We don't need any POV/OR editorialising in articles (such as "Russian and sympathetic sources"). If any editor wishes to dispute that RIA Novosti is a reliable source, then take it to WP:RSN because it meets the criteria of being a RS, and it will continue to be used on WP as such. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 10:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we all agree that an article from the website of the Trotskyte International Committee of the Fourth International is not a reliable source in that case. RIA Novosti is also not an impartial source here; so if we include it, it would seem logical to include some Latvian source on that matter, too. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I see no rationale for maintaining that the Russian position (which we already know incorrectly labels the Latvian Legion as convicted SS war criminal Nazis) as expressed through its Novosti media outlet is reliable on this topic; certainly any such position cannot be put into an encyclopedia without full attribution. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

We can continue the conversation on RIA Novosti here, as suggested. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've noted RIA Novosti as Russian state media. As their news report does not actually indicate what is considered to be "radical", I've simply noted their contention as is. However, since that isn't very informative, I've added pertinent background on the party of which Lācis is a member from their party platform. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm still trying to understand how this is all relevant to the topic of "russopobia", since the RIA Novosti article mentions nothing about russophobia in connection with Visvaldis Lacis, nor do I understand how being elected head of the Citizenship Committee in Latvia’s Parliament is an act of "russophobia" either. Since when is advocating "phasing in Latvian language only core state-funded schooling while minorities would receive instruction in their people's history, traditions, and culture in their own respective languages; for elimination of discrimination in employment against those who are not literate in Russian and, more generally, opposing creation of a bilingual society; and for providing ongoing counseling and financial support to repatriate Russified and ethnic Russian minorities who do not wish to integrate into Latvian society" a form of "russophobia"? This whole section should be deleted as totally irrelevant. --Martin (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I would agree it's a synthesis that either Lācis (nothing specific mentioned) or the unified party position (my summarizing points which I know have been misrepresented in the past in the Russian press, e.g., advocating for "deportation of ethnic Russians") are Russophobic. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There are other sources. For example, Visvaldis Lācis is mentioned in Understanding ethnic violence, where he is quoted calling Russians in Latvia "nobodies" (p. 146),[4] and is mentioned in The Independent newspaper article "Thousands pay tribute to Latvia's fallen Nazi troops".[5] Lācis defends the Lativin SS in an article published on the white supremicist website Stormfront.[http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t698673/] TFD (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to add the first source you cite. Given the penchant in the British press to pillory conservatives as allied with Latvian "Nazis" and the characterization of veterans' songs as "ominous," that's not objective reporting, and as for Stormfront, Lācis isn't responsible for what of his people publish where and the contents are not material to the article here regardless. 1 out of 3, at least.

P.S. Although it's too bad there isn't actually any ethnic violence in Latvia, ethnic violence being the topic of the book.

P.P.S. Actually on your first source, the quote from "Soviet Youth" (not a neutral source) is "You are not second-class citizens, you are nobody" allowing for some vagaries in transliteration back to the Russian. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

We must assume that The Independent is neutral in its coverage, unless similar rs describe the same events differently. Once we accept that then writing articles can proceed without endless discussion. PPS - when comments are repeated in rs, it does not matter whether the original source is rs. The rs writer can be relied upon to determine whether the original source is accurate in that specific circumstance, something we ourselves cannot do. TFD (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I am merely commenting on the quality and nuances of sources. Faith in sources need not be blind. The more there is the possibility of politicizing a situation to one's advantage (or opponent's detriment), the more likely it is to occur. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Even with the additional sources presented by TFD, I still don't see any dicussion of this person as "russophobic". For example the book Understanding ethnic violence, while it quotes Visvaldis Lācis as calling Russians in Latvia "political nobodies" while stating they should be accorded full social right, the book doesn't mention that this quote is a manifestation of "russophobia". The Independent article also makes no mention of "russophobia" in regard to Lācis. I think there is an issue of BLP here, so I have removed the text. --Martin (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You might gain more respect for your arguments if they remained consistent. In Mass killings under Communist regimes and Communist terrorism for example almost all the content makes no reference to those terms, yet you continue to support their inclusion. TFD (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

@Martin: I do believe that there is often an intentional conflation of anti-Soviet meaning anti-Russian. Lācis'—and conservative parties' general issue—is the massive influx of peoples from the Soviet Union after WWII. Anyone arriving during that time is often viewed as not "automatically" deserving anything. (That said, I should mention that even so, anyone who came by their residence "legally" under the USSR was able to claim it; the rightful owners would be compensated otherwise but not get their family dwelling back.)

@TFD: You have a truly remarkable capacity to not stay on topic. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful if all editors maintained consistent standards. I do not agree that the discussion of standards is off topic. TFD (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be more useful to stay on topic, this is not a forum to discuss people's editorial practices. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

And I'll violate my advice by observing that only on WP "Communist terrorism" needs to be referred to by that exact phrase, not in a simple discussion of terrorist acts by Communists because, inter alia, "Communist" could be an adjective referring to a method used by Communists in committing terrorism and not at all to an adherent of Communism or someone using Communism as justification committing terrorism. If we don't know which is referred to, then we can't include that source in an article. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

@TFD, when we discuss living people, a higher standard of sourcing is required per WP:BLP. --Martin (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Peters. I did not call CT a method and would be appreciative if you did not misrepresent what I said. Martin, the BLP issue is being discussed but does that mean you will abandon your objections if it is sourced to Western media? TFD (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I was commenting on the nature of the general timbre of discussion at the article. As for sourcing, if the Duluth Times syndicates Russian state media as a straight feed, that does not qualify as Western media carrying a story or sourcing to Western media. And biased Western sources would need to be attributed per policy regarding opinions. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, I am not interested in contributing into this article, because, in my opinion, it is a collection of totally unrelated facts combined together to create an impression that the hate of Russians is something general, whereas in actuality the Russians, as well as every big nation, are doomed to incite strong emotions, from hate to admiration. In connection to that I recall the story of my Russian friend who had a dispute with his Sweden colleague, and his opponent claimed: "I hate Russia and the Russians". My friend's responce was brilliant: "And I mix up Sweden with Switzerland". "XXXphobia" is not possible only towards those nations, who live "sanza ’nfamia e sanza lodo", and, unfortunately, "lodo" is unseparable from "'nfamia".
In my opinion, the very concept of this article is deeply flawed: it is a collection of all manifestations of hate towards Russia, without any attempt to describe the reasons of these manifestations (which frequently were quite concrete in each case, quite different, and sometimes totally unrelated to each other), and without attempts to presents opposite examples, which are also quite abundant.
In summary, the article, along with MCuCR, CT, "Christian terrorism" and some others, belongs to a notorious series "All bad things about ...", which is in a profound contradiction with the WP policy.
@ Peters. If I understand this your phrase "And I'll violate my advice by observing that only on WP "Communist terrorism" needs to be referred to by that exact phrase, not in a simple discussion of terrorist acts by Communists" correctly, it seems to contain some reasonable ideas. Could you please explain what you mean in more details (on the more relevant talk page)? This my request is an actual reason of this my post.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

To the first, there are two things which are conflated here:

• Russophobia proper, the fear of Russia, called such as early as 1800 emanating from Britain and British India
• allegations of Russophobia on the basis of the Soviet legacy and its aftermath, which conflate resentment of an invading power and people seen as representing it (Russophones as opposed necessarily to ethnic Russians), and which also inappropriately equate anti-Soviet with anti-Russian (as exemplified by Medvedev's historical truth commission)
• syntheses of Russophobia via a laundry list of slights, epithets, etc. that have little to do with ethnic Russians or Russia proper

This all basically ignores and does a grave injustice to an interesting and important subject. All it is now is a laundry list of countries which don't particularly care for their suffering under the Soviet boot. The article is junk.

Going a bit off topic but while I'm here...

On Christian terrorism et al., I think editors need to back off a bit and consider what is important about a topic. Terrorism is often justified as being for a just cause (eradicate colonial power, eradicate ethnic oppression, et al.). Those aspects should be discussed in the details on any particular terrorist individuals, cells, movements, regimes, events, movements. IMHO what is important, that is, what is it that informs our prejudices and gives rise to tensions and misunderstandings amongst us, is the underlying motivation, the underlying ideology which is used (or which promotes) terrorism as a means to an end. Any end which is noble cannot be attained by ignoble means. And so, if a Christian terrorist organization is killing in the name of their Lord to achieve independence of X and establish a moral Christian society, they are not freedom fighters, they are merely terrorists invoking Christianity to justify their actions. "X" terrorism isn't about demonizing "X", it is about understanding and describing how "X" becomes, how it is/was an ideology which (in the eyes of those so motivated) gives rise to terrorism. It doesn't matter if "X" is a religious ideology or social ideology or ethnic/racial, et al. ideology.

Perhaps that also sufficiently addresses the last point, which is that the focus regarding terrorists is not the nature of their goal—there is nothing that terrorism has ever achieved that cannot be achieved by less destructive means. The focus is understanding how any ideology informs an agenda which includes the conduct of terrorism, what those acts are, and what their effect (and the mere threat of them) is on individuals and society. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Generally agreed, although "how it is/was an ideology which (in the eyes of those so motivated) gives rise to terrorism" needs in some comments. This statement in actuality is demonizing of the ideology, although in actuality the roots of the decision to resort to terrorism as the tactics may be different. For instance, the roots of the so called Communist terrorism in Malaya were not in the Communist ideology but in national liberation ideas. The same is true for Vietnam.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not demonizing at all because, as I stated, it is "in the eyes of those so motivated", that is, those professing to be adherents, that is the key. No instance of "X" terrorism can be discussed or defined in the abstract absent of the individuals involved. It is only contentions as generalities, i.e., "'X adherents' are terrorists," that demonize "X." At that point we are all obliged to turn the magnifying glass away from "X" and on the individual making those contentions. So, taking another of this contentious areas, "Islamic terrorism," is terrorism by those quoting or claiming motivation by the Islamic faith. It is not searching Islam in the abstract for where it advocates for the slaughter of innocents. Certainly I've known enough adherents to that faith, including converts attracted to that faith, to know the difference. As we work on these articles we need to take care to know and communicate the difference—and to be conscious of where we are working against phobias of the different and unknown. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

And on national liberation and Vietnam, for example, once an ideology is invoked, you can't go back and simply focus on the "purpose." That is an inappropriate bifurcation of ideology from action. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Now that I've had more time to think about this, I think we should keep this material out of the article. Nanobear (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

What a collection of Russian whining!

"Poor Russia, why is everyone always picking on us?"

Talk about non-NPOV---this whole article is a collection of whining, with hardly a mention for the multitude of quite rational reasons almost all of Russia's neighbors fear and dislike Russia.

Instead of mentioning repeated Russian aggression against its neighbors---something seen just recently in Georgia and Chechnya before that---we get horseshit about "Nazi propaganda" and whining about the evil Estonians being mean to Russians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.184.204 (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. It seems like the bully is crying. Maybe it would be worthwhile putting up an article dedicated to instances of Russian aggression. Bandurist (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

As "Russophobia in the Baltics" has been suggested elsewhere on this talk page, I might take that as an invitation to create "Anti-Baltic sentiment in Russia". Limiting to Russia would not be to make a point but to spare having to mention Gough Whitlam using the "F" word in referring to Baltic immigrants to Australia as undesirable boat people. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Aivars Slutsis Slūcis

Aivars Slutsis is a doctor from US ([6], [7]), not Latvia. Repeated searches fail to find his article in New York Times ([8], [9]).

So either Andrei Tsygankov is wrong or Nanobear misinterpreted the source. Perhaps Nanobear could provide a full citation, to clear things up? And please, please let's use common sense here, not just blindly revert-warring.

Also, Nanobear, could you please use proper Cite template, with full ISBN, name of the author, book, publisher and so forth? This would make it so much easier to track references.

--Sander Säde 14:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

So, could we get a link to the Slutsis' NYT article already? As Russavia edit wars to keep Slutsis in the article, he must be able to see that article, or his behavior would be rather... shall we say, extremely unbecoming for a Wikipedian. --Sander Säde 14:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. At least now you admit that Slutsis is an American. So we can move him to USA section, I presume? --Sander Säde 14:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Slutsis may be a Latvian American doctor, but he was also a member of the nationalist Civic Union -- a Latvian political party (and member of the Latvian ruling coalition). After the scandal he was expelled, but the FM survived a call for him to leave his post. This is clearly related to Russophobia in Latvia, and hence should be kept in the article under Latvia, with that section (as well as Estonia) being prime for expansion in the future; there is so much material out there that Russophobia in the Baltics could conceivably be created. As to Tsygankov, I will await Nanobear providing the citation, but as it stands at the moment, we assume good faith. --What's the difference between a straight and bisexual man? ^{Two pints of lager} 15:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter who is mistaken (AGF) here: Tsygankov or Nanobear. If the NYT article does not exist, then it is a BLP issue, and should be reverted. - BorisG (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

And we also have to be careful in crossing BLP thresholds on scholars such as Tsygankov. If the citation does indeed check out, then it stays in the article. A Wikipedian's search of the NYT website does not trump the words of a respected scholar. --What's the difference between a straight and bisexual man? ^{Two pints of lager} 18:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not being specific enough with the cite at first. The information can be found on p.58 of Tsygankov's book (ISBN 9780230614185): "Latvian immigrant doctor Aivars Slutsis ... spent his time explaining to Americans on pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post why Russians have invading other nations in their genes, why they can only understand the language of force, and why he personally wouldn't treat any Russian patient if he or she were to drop by his office." Nanobear (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Is anyone able to find a reference/article to either WP or NYT by Slutsis, so we could use the actual articles as a source for his words? All NYT, WP and various Google searches are coming up totally blank - which is very surprising considering how controversial the articles must be. Or perhaps there is a footnote in Tsygankov's book? --Sander Säde 20:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Can't give a cite right now, but from what I recall reading about this incident some time back, Slutsis did not write an article for the NYT, but published a blatant Russophobic ad that he personally paid for with his own money, which the newspapers actually published. I hope this helps clarify the situation. (The Slutsis thing is a rather obscure piece of recent history, but it can be Googled, or Google-booked, or whatever.) 24.146.224.106 (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you please give us these searches? This book search and various Google searches are drawing complete blanks. It is as if nothing associates Slutsis with either NYT or WP on the web. --Sander Säde 05:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Full quote

Here is the full quote from pp44:

Finally, Russophobia would have not been so successful if it were not for the weakness of the Russian lobby in American politics. Other ethnic lobbies—Jews, Chinese, Latinos, Eastern Europeans, and Arabs—are influential or at least notable, but Russians are conspicuously absent from American politics. This makes Russia extremely vulnerable to criticisms from those who are eager to reconstruct and exploit an enemy image. In attempting to satisfy their interests (gaining public support, consolidating corporate vision, demonstrating qualities of a tough leader, etc.), such politicians can say about Russia practically anything they wish without fear of being confronted in a serious rebuttal. The matter goes deeper, as even outside the political establishment, Russophobia often meets no resistance. It is possible, for example, to buy a space in a national newspaper and express offensive remarks about Russians. As reported by the Congress of Russian Americans (CRA)—the only organization representing Russians in the United States—several years ago a Latvian immigrant doctor Aivars Slutsis did just this. He spent his time explaining to Americans on pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post why Russians have invading other nations in their genes, why they can only understand the language of force, and why he personally wouldn’t treat any Russian patient if he or she were to drop by his office. This was going on for quite some time until the CRA members began lobbying these newspapers and, in a rare case of success, persuaded the editors to remove the ethnic slur.86 It is equally possible, and with a more powerful effect, to make movies about the murder of former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko in which the blame will be laid on the Kremlin, even if the investigation is not completed and facts about the Kremlin’s involvement are practically nonexistent.87

I don't believe one would need to provide anything more than this. There is no doubt that Slutsis did what Tsygankov has written; otherwise a scholar of Tsygankov's standing would not put it in print. --What's the difference between a straight and bisexual man? ^{Two pints of lager} 11:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! This quote is very helpful. It is now crystal clear that Tsygankov is talking about the US context, not Latvia. I can appreciate that it is related to Latvia, but this does not belong in Latvia section. What do people think? - BorisG (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, Tsygankov mentions ads, not op-ed, and does not give a date, does he? - BorisG (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Per the below, I've corrected some content, we can decide if it belongs separately. Re: NYT, if the troops of your occupier were still on the soil of your homeland you'd be pissed too. Just saying.

Making the article into a laundry list of polemics rather does a great disservice to any serious content; Russophobia is not just some sort of post-Cold War visceral fear of Russian imperialist ambitions. It's actually quite an interesting topic; sadly, this this article is not it, nor do I ever expect it to be. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I can't find any mention of "Slūcis" or "Slutsis" on either the NYT or Washington Post sites. Of course there's all sorts of wailing and gnashing of teeth readily found otherwise given it's such good fodder for polemics on both sides. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think American spelling is Slucis. It may be letters like this one: http://vip.latnet.lv/LPRA/holocaus.htm. Letters may not come up in searches. But you can see direct quotes from these ads in the book [10] "The ads are in The Washington Post, Ост. 22, 1996). Similar ads appeared in September 10, 1995 and May, 19, 1996 of the New York Times." More broadly, I suggest that this Slucis case is extreme and not at all representative (or not shown to be representative) of the attitudes in Latvia. Slucis hasn't lived in Latvia since WWII, and nothing he says tells us anything about political, cultural or social attitudes or policies in Latvia. This may be mentioned as an extremely pathological case in the context of a much broader review, but if this is all we have, then the case about Russophobia in Latvia is not very strong. - BorisG (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem, the projection of polemics as representative of any general populace and then used as justification for the denunciation of entire peoples (as here, "Latvia" being Russophobic). Latvians don't paint Russians as being Zhirinovsky clones, sad that the favor isn't returned. Were Slūcis to actually visit Latvia, I rather think that he would find, as I have, that when it comes to being citizens of Latvia, there are Russians who are excellent civic minded citizens and Latvians who are a waste of oxygen. Neither the Latvian nor Russian communities in Latvia are as monolithic as the polemicists on either side would make them out to be. The worst offenders are those how pretend their role is to protect those who can't protect themselves, whose power, in fact, comes from keeping their own constituency powerless.PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, I think neither the article nor WP users have suggested that Russophobia is a typical attitude in Latvia (let alone the extreme type represented by Slucis). However there are definitely such attitudes among the population (for obvious historical reasons), and they can be documented. And more importantly, it is perhaps useful to analyse the approaches to this issue taken by the government, civil society and political groups. For instance, racial violence and racist propaganda is a serious problem in Russia, and there is a perception that the government is not doing much about it. Wikipedia should reflect this. - BorisG (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Boris, Tsygankov is discussing anti-Russian sentiment in the USA and he is saying that due to lack of an ethnic Russian lobby in the USA, American politicians and others can exploit negative sentiment in the US media without serious rebuttal, citing the case of Latvian-American Slucis as an example. This has little to do with Latvia, Tsygankov is not discussing Latvia he is discussing the USA. What I find problematic is rather than create a section on the USA, some editors focus on the ethnicity of Slucis and then give undue weight to the views of this extremist and attribute it to Latvia. Collecting viewpoints of individuals as evidence of anti-Russian sentiment and assembly into an article on "Russophobia" is original research. --Martin (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Tsygankov

A bit unrelated, hence starting a new section. There is a potential issue with Tsygankov, as while he asserts anti-Russian discrimination specifically in Estonia and Latvia, I have yet to locate in Russophobia where he discusses specifics. I was looking through all occurrences of "Latvia" in the source. Pointers welcome. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

We can argue over whether the Latvia section is WP:OR or not with regard to Russophobia or merely allegations thereof. In the meantime I've cleaned it up, including what Kristovskis actually "agreed" with per the journalist releasing the Email in question. Quite frankly, I'm somewhat disturbed that Tsygankov uses "Slutsis" for "Slūcis", as that indicates his scholarship is based purely on Russian sources, Slūcis -> Слуцис -> Slutis being the chain of transliteration. Helps to find information in sources if you're not looking for the wrong spelling. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Not impressed, per his "Russia's Foreign Policy", page 157:

A Contested Victory Celebration and Relations with the New Europe

Finally, Russia's strategy of developing relations with Western nations while preserving its own vision of national interests was challenged by some of the former Eastern European nations. When the Kremlin invited more than fifty foreign leaders to come to Moscow on May 9, 2005, to celebrate the victory over fascism, several nations refused. Among them were two Baltic states, Lithuania and Estonia, which saw the end of World War II as the beginning of their occupation by the Soviets. Separating the victory over fascism and the occupation by the Soviets, for which many in Russia called, did not turn out to he possible for the small East European nations.

Russia's officials and political elites, as well as many common people, viewed the perception by new European nations as an insult and an attempt to undermine Soviet Russia's paramount role in destroying Hitler's regime. For instance, the nationalist Duma faction Rodina decided to boycott the official ceremonies in Moscow, protesting statements about the end of the war made by Latvia's president Vaira Vike-Freiberga and officials of other Baltic states. The insistence by new European leaders on their version of history presented Russia as unable to relinquish its "imperial ambitions" and called into question Russia's policies of improving relationships with the European Union. The United States exerted additional pressures on Russia by supporting these claims. For instance, the American president, while traveling to the region and visiting Latvia, strongly condemned the Soviet annexation and occupation of the Baltic republics as a result of World War II.

The Kremlin stood firm and did not yield to pressures to frame the issue in terns of responsibility for Stalin's occupation of the Baltic states. Overall, despite the clashing interpretations of the end of World War II, Russia readied its two most important objectives. It reconfirmed its role in liberating the world from fascism, and it did so in the presence of fifty foreign leaders, including U.S. President George W. Bush, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, and Israeli President Moshe Katsav. Symbolically, the event assisted Russia in legitimizing its status as a Westernizing great power.

IMHO, this is rather a Baltic victim-blaming scenario:

1. No one in official Russia has called for the Baltics "separating the victory over fascism and the occupation by the Soviets" as that requires Russia acknowledging the Soviet occupation as (a) the first foreign aggression wrought upon the Baltics and (b) as being an "occupation" (using that word) for the duration of the Soviet presence in the Baltics; were Russia to acknowledge Soviet responsibility for Soviet actions, there would be no issue of "not separating"
2. Derisive tone taken regarding "insistence" on a non-official-Russian "version" of history, referring to the Baltics as making "claims"
3. Russo-chauvinistic "standing firm" in the face of being called to acknowledge Soviet occupation as occupation ("standing firm" is a typical Russian pronouncement when countering so-called falsification of history)
4. Aligning the U.S. President with the maligned Baltic states
5. Self-congratulatory self-assigned self-glorified self-legitimization on the world stage

I'm not particularly impressed. This is more a pro-Russia political manifesto-ish advocacy than unbiased geopolitical scholarship. Others' readings may result in different analyses, of course. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes Tsygankov is unapologetically pro-Russian, but to my reading, this is an almost neutral description. Stay firm is not positive or negative. Anyway, Tsygankov is not writing for Wikipedia and is not bound by NPOV :). He is just another source. - BorisG (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunate as some of his commentary, for example, on the popular perception of Stalin and what it signifies underneath, is (IMHO, of course) quite good, although I think he underestimates the conflation of authoritarianism with certitude and strength. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The book is a reliable source, whatever the opinions of the writer. TFD (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That does not mean we don't discuss sources or their points of view. I can probably give you thousands of diffs where reliable sources are dismissed out of hand because they don't fit someone's personal POV. Unfortunately, serious discussion of sources is pretty much absent from any area of contention. On WP there are no nuances, any expressions of same are exploited as signs of weakness in one's editorial flank. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"Whitewashing"

Igny, I replaced problematic text with a better source going back to the journalist releasing the Kristovskis correspondence indicating specifically what was being agreed with. The Russian news story labeling Kristovskis a Russophobe looked to be dredging up earlier Slucis' contentions; or certainly not Slucis' contentions which Kristovskis says he agreed with. Either way, the text you want cannot go back as it is not substantiated by the releasing journalist and therefore is a BLP violation. Don't accuse me of "whitewashing" again. I removed the rest of the Slūcis content I corrected earlier as it has nothing to do with someone who is in Latvia or formally representing Latvia. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I care less about the guy to edit war over him, but you may stop pretending that you are not doing what you are doing here. (Igny (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC))

At issue here is whether or not this episode concerning Kristovskis is seen as an instance of "russophobia" in a reliable source. In the absence of any source that explicitly claims this is "russophobia", this would constitute WP:SYNTH. --Martin (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly Russian media labeled Kristovskis a "Russophobe"; however, what that news report states Kristovkis "agrees" with is not what the journalist releasing the correspondence indicates Kristovkis agrees with. Slūcis has been writing editorials for years warning about not trusting Russia, warning of Russian ambitions, seeing Russo-Soviet colonists as not being positive contributors to Latvia—and with whom Latvia is better off without, and so on. That Kristovskis said he agrees with something Slūcis wrote (and Lapsa is specific on what that was in the news report) does not mean (Igny's uncivil and now repeated accusation of "whitewashing") he agrees with everything Slūcis wrote. Had Lapsa indicated the same as the Russian news story with reference to the "agreeing", I would have left that instead. It's not my problem that the Russian news story and its claims don't match statements by the journalist who actually released the correspondence in question.

The real issue is that "Attitudes and claims of attitudes towards Russia and Russians by country" as a section title means you can itemize just about anything as "Russophobia." A negative attitude toward the Russian administration, for example, is not "Russophobia." The whole section should be deleted and the topic treated as a serious subject. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the section should be removed. --Martin (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this nice little poll you are running here after having successfully ejected your main opponent from editing this article. (Igny (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC))

The sooner we properly consider the historical subject of Russophobia and deal with secondary sources and not screaming partisan news headlines, the sooner we'll have a worthy article. Rather than bicker over a laundry list we should work together with proper sources to make this a GA or even FA article. Certainly the historical topic merits it and the possibility is there. What's been cobbled together here to date is, frankly, a gross insult to the subject matter.PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Latvian section

I have edited the section at Russophobia#Latvia to re-include some information which had been removed, but have also ensured that other information was also included. In adding information to this section, I have two sources which I will likely have access to on Saturday, with information being added to those sources. I am not asserting any ownership of this article, but I would ask that any drastic changes (i.e. removal of information) be made to this section just yet, whilst I formulate the addition of further information to the section in the next 24 hours. I will remove the inuse template for the time being as well. Thanks, --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 09:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

pravda could be used here as well to add Mayo's reaction to the affair. And the fact that he survived the vote of no confidence. [11]

The fact the FM survived no-confidence motion will be included. So will the fact that he didn't accompany Zalters to the first state visit by a Latvian leader to Russia in December 2010 -- before the visit Latvian media suggested that his going to Moscow would be a major setback; the FM seems to claim after the visit that the Kremlin didn't want him to be part of the delegation---of course that is pure hogwash as it would go against protocol, and for the Kremlin to demand his non-attendance would be a setback to desire to improve relations--the decision really seemed to have been a Latvian one. Also to be included will be the PS expelling Slucis from the party and apparently had his donations returned to him. the Mayo reaction is somewhat arbitrary to the article though I believe. Thoughts? --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 10:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts are that some of the above is OR and speculation. I hope none of this will be in the article. But above all, this is not an article about Latvia-Russia relations, but about Russophobia. Thus diplomatic incidents and other inter-government issues are irrelevant. - BorisG (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You wrote that According to Tsygankov, Russians in Lativa are subjected to racial' discrimination. This is a weird terminology, given that Russians and Latvians are of the same race. Are you sure Tsygankov uses the word racial? BorisG (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Boris, if you are familiar with my editing history, I will often interject personal opinion on talk pages, but whenever I place anything in an article, it is meticulously sourced, and will be presented in an NPOV way, and will survive the most stringent verification, with the odd error here or there. Of course, some of the above is my own opinion, it is obvious what parts they are. As to relations, perhaps you might like to take a look at Talk:Estonia–Russia_relations#Merge_discussion and perhaps that discussion could be restarted as well. As to Tsygankov, he states:

In addition, supporters of Eastern European nationalism drew the attention of the public and policy circles to Russia’s problems with ethnic nationalism. Accusing Putin of sponsoring and exploiting ethnic phobias, 52 they ignored the complex roots of ethnic violence and identity formation in Russia. Some of these roots are similar to those of Western European countries, having to do with mass immigration from Muslim republics, while others result from poverty and the ideological vacuum left by the end of communism. The Russia critics also failed to analyze issues of ethnic discrimination against Russians in Eastern European states, such as Latvia and Estonia.

--Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 12:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how this quote is relevant. Also, does Tsygankov give a similar historical explanation/context to negative attitudes towards Russians in the Baltic states? - BorisG (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The main issue is that this is the only mention by Tsygankov specific to Latvia with no examples of "ethnic discrimination," nor any related analysis. Nor is such discrimination linked to Russophobia. This goes back the root issue, which is a lead which states that anything not positive about anything related to Russia in any way can be taken to constitute fear of Russians, which is a fatal wound to the possibility of creating any kind of scholarly article. Just one opinion, of course. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Scholarship or laundry list?

You would think there is material enough in serious scholarship on the history of Russophobia—for example, English school reader tales of a Russian family traveling by sleigh in winter being assaulted by a pack of wolves, where the parents toss their children off the sleigh one by one to satisfy the ravenous wolves to save themselves—that a serious and informative article could be written. That is not the article as it now stands. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

We require the highest standards in reliable sources for articles like Mass killings under Communist regimes, it should be no different for this article. Perhaps if we set the bar higher for sourcing, such as only relying upon what is published in books rather than in the media, perhaps that may be the solution for this article. --Martin (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes it kind of makes sense. Of course, Tsygankov is a book. Even a scholarly book. Scholarly books can also be biased, partisan etc. Currently, this article is a joke. It does not even consider the origin of the word (which was first used by Tutchev in a culture dispute within Russia). - BorisG (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

At least Tsygankov represents someone along a spectrum of scholarship, not sensationalist journalism. There's a clear distinction between Russophobia proper as opposed to "Russophobia" = "not caring for post-Soviet Russian government and state authorities." Where scholars contend that cynicism, skepticism, suspicion, and low expectations regarding the current Russian state constitute "Russophobia," e.g., Tsygankov, that should be treated in its own "post-Soviet era" section so as to not muddle the two. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I would say, as I proposed earlier, that aversion to the Russian Federation and aversion to ethnic Russians (specifically for the ethnicity, rather than for perceived loyalty to the Russian Federation) should be clearly separated.--Yalens (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. We should also remember that historical Russophobia also includes a certain fear of empire, certainly as advocated by Tyutchev and Dostoyevski—although prior to today's era of globalization, I think there was a closer popular interchangeability of the Empire and the Russian, their being far away, mysterious, misunderstood, etc. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

When there is consensus that a concept is neutral, then we can provide a "laundry list". Therefore the article Anti-Americanism is neutral, while United States and state terrorism is not. TFD (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The laundry list in the former suffers from many of the same issues as the laundry list here. It's also a poor comparison that is state-oriented, as there is no such being as an "ethnic American" who, for example, feeds their children to wolves to effect their own escape. A laundry list of "who denounces whom" is what it is, the topic is merely a nuance. There is nothing that makes that sort of list inherently neutral.

If you fervently believe such a list is essential in the case of this article, then I suggest we split this article with the laundry list becoming Incidents of alleged anti-Russian sentiment so as to not confuse that list with Russophobia. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps what TFD says is true-however, their certainly is no consensus that this page is "neutral", as evidenced by the neutrality tag at the top. And I don't really think eliminating the "laundry list" element would solve the problem either though. For me, its not so much "laundry list" as it is the POV aspect of the pages. The problem with these sorts of articles is that when they talk about negative feelings aimed at national groups, they fail to mention the origin of these sentiments, or paint them as irrational hatred that fell from the sky (or from Nazi propaganda in this case). Hatred of Romani may be racial, but hatred of Americans or Russians is instead political. The result is a set of hopelessly POV pages that paint an image of the tragic, unique victimhood of the nation being addressed. In this case, we also have a whole section of the page devoted to mourning the fact that Western media has a different POV (implicitly "wrong") from the (implicitly "right") POV that Russian media has (which of course just underlines the POV of the section). For the sake of not generalizing, there are actually a handful of exclusions among the Anti-x-ism/x-phobia pages , but many of them (including this one) follow this general rule of being POV pages mourning the victimhood of said nation. Sorry for the long post.--Yalens (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you're a bit off on Estonians swallowing propaganda. They despised the Soviet Union after it invaded, quickly hated the Nazis (seen as liberators a week after the Soviet mass deportations), then fought the Nazis and the Red Army on two fronts simultaneously attempting to rid themselves of both. As long as the Russian Federation insists it liberated Estonia (ignoring that the USSR invaded Estonia first), I expect those feelings will continue to be visited upon the officials of the Russian Federation. Twenty years after the fall of the USSR there's no excuse to not be up to date on history. It's a myth that Nazi propaganda had any effect, that the Waffen SS supported Nazism or Hitler or Germany, etc. Feel free to visit my talk page for an off-article-talk chat.

On the other, definitely, ignoring sources of something provides no context or basis for understanding a phenomenon. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions on how to handle the media wars other than splitting off the laundry list if we can reformulate into something more informative. Unfortunately, if, say, the "Latvia" section starts with "Latvians mistrust Russia because it has yet to acknowledge Soviet occupation", that's why XYZ Latvian advocates to rescind citizenships, that will quickly be tagged as WP:SYNTH and WP:OR as that "why" was most likely not drawn by the source, e.g., a Russian news story isn't going to scream RUSSOPHOBE in its headline and then write, well, yes, we (as Soviets) did invade them, occupy them, deport them, and murder them. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"Russophobia", is defined as an irrational fear of Russian people and culture, but as pointed out here in this critique of Tsygankov's writings, there is a tendency to level the charge of "russophobia" at critics of the present political course in Russia, even as Umland states, "much of the more competent criticism of current Russia comes from people who not only know and study, but actually like or even love the Russian people, culture and customs - not to mention the various Russians and half-Russians among the critics" --Martin (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Umland's piece is a great source to integrate into the article. On threads elsewhere, I've renewed my activity here to fill out historical aspects. In the end, the people on all sides are victims/products of their mutual history and current geopolitical posturing and conflict. The sooner the article discusses Russophobia in the appropriate context, not, for example, FeelSunny's one-sided litany against the Finns, the sooner it will be worthy of an encyclopedia. Umland is correct, the sooner Russia actually becomes democratic and comes to terms with the Soviet past, the sooner contemporary "Russophobia" will disappear. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Finnish section

This section is off-topic and is related to the Continuation War. Any connection to the topic of "Russophobia" appears to be purely WP:SYNTH. --Nug (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Since no one has responded here, I've removed the off-topic text[12]. --Nug (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Nug, I reverted your revert.

Did you expect a say from me here, an answer to a question I never knew you asked? It could have been useful to write on my TP that you started a discussion. I do not watch all talk pages of the articles I ever edited.

Anyway, please could you refer to the 3o in the Talk:Human_rights_in_Estonia#POV_edits. The third party gave good advice to us both, and I really feel that we should pay attention to it. Why don't you read and then come here and edit the way you like. But this time, please, first discuss. Thanks, FeelSunny (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

And events from the Continuation War is relevant to this article how? Why not add Operation Barbarossa too? --Nug (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Continuation War is off-topic. The historical roots (for example Greater Wrath) and modern polls and studies are more factual. See also the article in Finnish Wikipedia fi:Venäläisvastaisuus. Peltimikko (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Both operation Barbarossa and "continuation war" are relevant in the article about anti-Russian sentiment, to the degree they are connected with the anti-Russian sentiment. Nobody inserted any "excessive descriptions" of the "Continuation war" here. What was there in the article, and what I want to see there, and what matters in the Russophobia-related article, is:

• Local population of Finnish-occupied territories was divided into two groups, basing on ethnicity, ethnic Russians alone constituted absolute majority (95+%) of population called "non-relative" by Finns.
• "Non-relative" population was discriminated in wages, labor conditions, their civilian rights were restricted.
• Finnish government was planning to "resettle" "non-relative" population out of occupied zones.

All sources listed in the section.

If this should not be a matter of the article "Russophobia", please explain what it is then. If it was not about dislike of Russians living in their own land, then explain what was it. FeelSunny (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This is WP:SYNTH and your own personal opinion. Find a reliable source that explicitly links internment camps during the Continuation war to "Russophobia". --Nug (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if you just need to see sources that ethnic discrimination against Russian was caused by Russophobia, I will provide them. Finnish policy on occupied territories is a pure racism, an ethnic discrimination in it's worst, and there are plenty of sources to prove this.

I will save here some sources and quotes that I plan to incorporate in the article later, and you're welcome to see and check. Some of sources are only available in Russian; but this is what you get in an article with such a topic. "This inter-war identity, it was claimed, had basically been characterized by widespread russophobia in Finnish society and the resulting depiction of the Soviet Union as Finland’s perivihollinen – the hereditary enemy.", "Russophobia, as Heikki Luostarinen notes, was “the notion that Finland and Russia cannot live in peaceful co-existence”, "The Russian enemy image filled all the criteria of being the "Other"... between the World Wars...This phenomena - Russanviha - the so-called hatred of Russians..." "Finnish war propaganda... concentrated on openly declared political Russophobia", "Russophobia during the Continuation war", "Estern Karelia ... question became politized and increasingly characterized by Russophobia... kinship of nations... " "turn the kindred population into "proper Finnish citizens"" "education ... school system... only available to children of nationals", "Finnish national emphasis ... when it came to religion", "rations of people belonging to kindred higher", "death rate in concentration camps 13.8%", "policy of separation was also reflected in the medical care of the population", "non-nationals paid half the wage of nationals", "inequality of treatment on the basis of nationality", "breach of the fundamental principle of humane treatment", "similarities between the German and the Finnish policy...Finns had issued orders which in fact discriminated Russian population", "The Finnish authorities drew a distinction between prisoners of war and internees of Russian ethnic origin... and kindred to the Finns" etc. Here: [13][14][15][16][17][18]FeelSunny (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to persist in this vein, the Finnish thread will need to greatly expand on who started it all. There's nothing like the Russian (Soviet) army preemptively attacking your homeland to breed fear and hatred. (As a parallel, the U.S. interned Japanese in camps after the attack by Japan.) And let's also go to the very birth of Finnish "Russophobia" with the prior forced Russification of Finns, etc. I do trust you'll be as editorially enthusiastic on expanding on why Finns had good reason to fear their bellicose and tyrannical neighbor. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think the website history.ru can be considered a reliable source per WP:RS for two of the cites listed. The other sources do not seem to directly link the internment of prisoners, but rather speak of "russophobia" in terms of war time propaganda used to boost the Finnish fighting spirit: "Thus he created such an "other", against whom it was not hopeless to fight, disregarding the materially overwhelming power of the Russians during the war". Using war time propaganda to boost the fighting spirit is not an uncommon thing during war, see for example the depiction of Germans as barbarians and savage Huns during WW1/WW2 or US wartime propaganda against the Japanese during WW2. I'm sure Red Army propaganda portrayed Germans in an equally low light. So your text is still off-topic. --Nug (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

To FeelSunny: War time is war time and the subject of Finnish concentration camps is covered in the article East Karelian concentration camps (furthermore Soviets killed finnish civilians in illegal air strikes of civil targets, soviet partisans killed finnish civilians, finnish POWs very killed in inhuman prison camps etc. etc.). However, this article of Russophobia should cover two main issues: historical roots and nowadays attitudes (for example amnesty international reports). Peltimikko (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but I believe that the policy of the government of Finland in and before the WWII was really Russophobic. There were not many governments in Europe that were willing to keep people in concentration camps because of their ethnicity. Finnish government was one of them. You can name any reasons that caused these racist policies, but we need to keep mention of the racism itself too.

And, to end (hopefully) the discussion on how camps were Russophobic, one more quote: "The death rate among prisoners rose as high as 30%, the hardest hit being the 'Great Russians', among whom the Jews were at first included, and who were treated the worst, along with political prisoners." "Koko maankin osalta on tietoja siitä, että venäläistä alkuperää olevia vankeja menehtyi eniten, Neuvostoliiton vähemmistökansallisuuksiin kuuluvia jo vähemmän ja vähiten suomensukuisia (P.Mikkola, 116-119). Tämä johtui tietoisesta kohtelun erilaistamisesta ruoka-annoksia myöten vankien etnisen taustan mukaan." - conscious discrimination of prisoners on ethnic grounds. Both quotes are by Finnish professor Heikki Ylikangas, from a work made for the Fin. government, here: [19].

I propose, to continue working on the section and reach some consensus on this:

• Nug, Vecrumba, Peltimikko - please add reasons you think led to the racist policies of the Finnish government, as all three of your posts above were about reasons,
• I will add links and sources from the list above and describe the Russophobic policies of the government more clearly and briefly.FeelSunny (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget tsarist Russification, Soviet threats and preemptive attacks, et al. Another case where if Russia and the Soviet Union had left well enough alone, there would be no "Russophobia." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Peters, if you have sources claiming concentration camps were influenced by the tsarist Russification, please feel free to add this.FeelSunny (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It would help if everybody was talking about the same thing. For example the quotes you were providing were handling the Soviet POW camps in Finland, not the concentration camps for civilians in East Karelia. --Whiskey (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

@FeelSunny, no, what I am stating is that each historical instance of Russian threats and assault upon the Finnish people prompted its own fear and dislike of Russia. I believe that is generally described as cause and effect. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not sure how Finland could have institutionalized discrimination against Russians (that is what you are saying) or would have wasted the energy to bother, as, at least in the Russian empire, the ethnic Russian population of Finland was virtually nil. When Russification enforced Russian for state business, the Finns did rightfully see it as putting the (actually less than) 8,000 Russians in the entire country in charge of the total population of 2,700,000 (the other 2,692,000). I haven't researched how many Russians fled to Finland when the Bolsheviks took over. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Peters, sorry I think I need to be more clear on this: you are absolutely free to insert this mention of the Russian empire hurting feelings of Finns, if you have any reliable sources that claim this was the cause of the Russophobia of the Finnish government building concentration camps for ethnic Russian population on occupied land. It's just a matter of either OR and SYNTH or not, as usual.

This section of discussion was started by Nug claiming my point about concentration camps having something in common with Russophobia of the Finnish government was SYNTH. I responded with reliable sources and quotes above. Why don't you provide a pair of quotes that show that "each historical instance of Russian threats and assault upon the Finnish people" prompted creation of the Finnish concentration camps for ethnic Russians. This will save us all a great deal of time we can otherwise spend on discussions here. Thanks, FeelSunny (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

In case you want to discuss about the concentration camps, please keep your quotes from that issue and do not use quotes concerning POW camps to further your point of view. They are two different places. --Whiskey (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

One interesting piece of discussion and a handful of sources can be found in [20]. --Whiskey (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Whiskey, your POW camps vs. concentration camps argument is false. First, these were exactly concentration camps, explicitly called so by the quoted source:[21] and many other. В 1941 году в районе Петрозаводска было создано шесть концлагерей. - In 1941 in the Petrozavodsk area, 6 concentration camps were created. Second, Finnish administration renamed these concentration camps to "transfer camps" at the final stage of the WWII by the Finnish administration to avoid responsibility. После ухудшения стратегического положения Германии в июле 1943 года в битве под Курском комендант военного управления Восточной Карелии решил переименовать заслуживающие дурную славу концлагеря в лагеря для перемещенных лиц. - After worsening of the strategic state of Germany in July, 1943, after the Battle of Kursk, military commandant of East Karelia decided to rename the infamous concentration camps to tran sfer camps. None of these camps was "different places" - all were just the very same institutions with barbwire where civilians of wrong ethnicity were used as a forced labor and died of hunger together with their kids from the picture. The book I quote is by Helge Seppälä, a Finnish military historian from Helsinki, and a regular officer in the past, born in 1924, and serving in the Finnish army in Karelia in 1942-44.FeelSunny (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If you bother to read even a few sentences more from the sources you quoted, you'll notice that Ylikangas talks about POW camps. NOT about concentration camps.

Your quote: The death rate among prisoners rose as high as 30%, the hardest hit being the 'Great Russians', among whom the Jews were at first included, and who were treated the worst, along with political prisoners.

Let's show also the first sentence of the paragraph:Jews also died in Finnish POW camps. The death rate among prisoners rose as high as 30%, the hardest hit being the ‘Great Russians’, among whom the Jews were at first included, and who were treated the worst, along with political prisoners.

So Ylikangas writes about the POW camps. NOT concentration camps.

Your next quote: Koko maankin osalta on tietoja siitä, että venäläistä alkuperää olevia vankeja menehtyi eniten, Neuvostoliiton vähemmistökansallisuuksiin kuuluvia jo vähemmän ja vähiten suomensukuisia (P.Mikkola, 116-119). Tämä johtui tietoisesta kohtelun erilaistamisesta ruoka-annoksia myöten vankien etnisen taustan mukaan.

...And few sentences before showed from the same paragraph:Huippukautena vuodenvaihteessa 1941-1942 Suomen sotavankileirejä kansoitti 56.500 sotavankia. Vangeista kuoli suunnilleen kolmannes eli virallisten ilmoitusten mukaan likimain 18.700 miestä (Hanski, 72). Kuolleisuus oli suurinta talvikautena 1941-42. Vuonna 1942 vangeista menehtyi yli 15.000 (T.Mikkola, 114). Menehtymisen syiksi mainitaan tavallisesti aliravitsemus ja kehnot leiriolot. Monet vangit joutuivat aluksi pitkähköksi aikaa pelkkiin avoleireihin tai pahvitelttoihin ilman kelvollisia asumuksia (T.Mikkola, 56). Eri leirien ja eri kansallisuuksien välillä esiintyy kuolleisuudessa merkitseviä eroja (Lindstedt, 307; Seppälä, 84-86). Savonlinnan lähelle Aholahteen suomensukuisia kieliä puhuville heimovangeille perustetulla leirillä numero 21 jäi kuolleisuus vuonna 1942 alle yhden prosentin (Hallikainen, 53-54). Koko maankin osalta on tietoja siitä, että venäläistä alkuperää olevia vankeja menehtyi eniten, Neuvostoliiton vähemmistökansallisuuksiin kuuluvia jo vähemmän ja vähiten suomensukuisia (P.Mikkola, 116-119). Tämä johtui tietoisesta kohtelun erilaistamisesta ruoka-annoksia myöten vankien etnisen taustan mukaan. (emphasis mine)

"sotavankileirejä" = "POW camps". NOT concentration camps.

I was replying to NUG who asked me to show that Russophobia existed in Finland, and camps were connected to Finnish Russophobia. Yes, those sources were covering POW camps and discrimination of Russians there, as well as issues with discrimination of Russians elsewhere in occupied Karelia (please read the quoted text above). Do you think that concentration camps for ethnic Russians / "non-relatives" were not connected to Russophobia, like NUG thought so? If yes, I will add some quotes speaking about concentration camps specifically.FeelSunny (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Do You still claim those quotes were from the concentration camps? --Whiskey (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Whiskey, what is the point of this discussion, really?FeelSunny (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Duh! I never claimed that concentration camps were non-existent. I just wanted to point out that you try to use text Ylikangas has written about POW-camps to describe situation/policy in concentration camps, while those two camps were totally different things, be it administration, supply, legal standing, treaties etc. If you want to make claims about concentration camps, use texts which handle concentration camps. Not something else. --Whiskey (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the notice! I would:) FeelSunny (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

When I read the Finnish section and compare it to the other sections, I do consider it overblown and lacking relevant content. It should be cut to the third of it's current size and should include the events affecting Finnish views about Russia (Greater Wrath, Russification, Civil War, 1920s, Stalin's purges, Winter War, Finlandization). If someone has more to write, it should be done in a separate article, existing or a new one. --Whiskey (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No need to remove well sourced material covering the matter of the article. Just add relevant information to other sections, to make sure they give as much information as the Finnish one. FeelSunny (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This article has already passed the 50K border... see WP:SIZERULE. And the Finnish section is clearly lacking major issues, while adding this POW/concentration camp thing unbalances both this section and the whole article. It would be much more useful to use separate articles to describe the issue more thoroughly. --Whiskey (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, over 50k. And here's a thousand of articles over 150k, most with topics of much less scope. See no reasons yet why this article should be split. Do you think it's unreadable? Let's edit rather than just cut - I'm all for it.FeelSunny (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Cleanest solution would seem to be to add '{{see_also|Finnish military administration in Eastern Karelia}}' to the Finnish section and then replace the current content with just what is currently placed under 'Modern anti-Russian sentiment in Finland' subheader and then expand that with other content (ie. references to Russification of Finland and such). After all camps are not what Russophobia in Finland is all about - currently it the Finnish section is mostly off topic. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There are clear quotes from Helge Seppala in the next section supporting use of the picture, and directly connecting concentration camps with the racist policy of the Finnish government to ethnically cleanse the region. Thus, I provided reliable sources claiming camps were an instrument of an ethnic cleansing. I plan to remove the tag unless you provide any sources claiming concentration camps were not an instrument of ethnic cleansing.FeelSunny (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That is only relevant to the camps, not to the Russophobia, which is the topic of this wikipage. No ethnic cleansing took place, it was merely planned (which did not take place) population relocation - common event during and after WWII by all parties. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

"To make Padany a national settlement, all Russians were moved in Autumn, 1941 to the Svyatonavolotsky concentration camp" - Seppala, military historian, Finnish General Staff Leutenant-Colonel, author of many books on the war and a soldier of the occupying Finnish army. The ethnic cleansing of Russians in the Finnish-occupied Karelia did happen, and not just "was planned". And concentration camps were used for this ethnic cleansing. There's no justification for this tag, it just undermines credibility of the well-sourced section. P.S. And no, your statement "population relocation - common event during and after WWII by all parties" is factually wrong - only Nazis and Finns during the WWII were massively cleansing occupied lands of the local unwanted population with the use of concentration camps.FeelSunny (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Confining people to camps does not constitute an ethnic cleansing. Interning potentially hostile civilians is not same as ethnic cleansing. Population relocation, see Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950) carried out by both Western Allies and Soviets, so it was carried out by all parties of the war. Do note that Finns only planned such, they did not actually perform it, unlike others. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you even read the phrase: "To make Padany a national settlement, all Russians were moved in Autumn, 1941 to the Svyatonavolotsky concentration camp"? Russians sent to the concentration camp to make the settlement national? Is this not an ethnic cleansing with the use of concentration camps?FeelSunny (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Confining people to camps was not ethnic cleansing so I honestly fail to see what exactly you are after. And regardless, that does not change the rather important detail that it still fails to link Russophobia with the camps so it remains off topic matter (for this particular page). - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wanderer, please answer these questions:

1. do you agree that the source says that ethnic Russians were sent to concentration camps to make the settlement national?
2. do you agree that people are sent to concentration camps involuntarily, i.e. they do not want to go?
3. do you agree that an ethnic cleansing is a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas?FeelSunny (talk) 18:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That does not mean there would have been ethnic cleansing, first it only refers to single village/locality (no idea what or where Padany is) and notes that 'non-relative' people were moved out of there to a camp, not that they would have been moved permanently out of the location and relocated elsewhere - confining people to camps does not constitute an ethnic cleansing. Given that sizable portion of the people confined to camps (more than half) were already refugees they had nowhere else to go either. Yes I do, and Finns only planned to do that (not with violent of terror-inspiring part), that plan was never carried out. Unlike what Soviets and Allies did. Using something that never happened as basis for the logic for including the camps into the article does not seem to be of any use to any one. None of which has any relevance to the matter regarding camps and Russophobia. It would be helpful if you tried to keep the content of the page under its stated topic. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am planning to remove unsourced information from the section, those statements now with tags. I will try to find some sources for these statements before deleting them, and would really appreciate if somebody could help finding sources.FeelSunny (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

History and laundry list

The history section is woefully inadequate. The genesis of "Russophobia" in the Anglo-Russo geopolitical conflict is abundantly clear and is hardly treated at all. I did what was possible with what is there now. I also retitled the (contemporary) "claims" section to Russophobia—let's at least have "Russophobia" appear in sources cited whether or not they are considered partisan. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I also alphabetized (regions and) countries to remove the grotesquely POV ordering. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I also recommend a historical treatment of countries—after all, England, the primary progenitor of Russophobia, with 19th century English society described by contemporaneous observers as being in "paroxyms" of Russophobic fear—isn't even mentioned, rather proving the entire "...by country" section is nothing more than a "let's find any mud that sticks" list.

I suggest editors start working on the history of Russophobia (named as such in sources) by region or country as appropriate. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree that timeline approach is an interesting idea. Let's try and implement it here.FeelSunny (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"England, the primary progenitor of Russophobia, with 19th century English society described by contemporaneous observers as being in "paroxyms" of Russophobic fear—isn't even mentioned". Whoa there. What about the endless clashes between Russian and Poland centuries earlier, memorialised by Gogol in Taras Bulba for instance? I would think very carefully before even considering casting stones at any particular nation for allegedly being a "primary progenitor of Russophobia". In any case, to claim that "England" (or rather Great Britain) was "the primary progenitor of Russophobia", and to then amend the article to say "Widespread societal Russophobia has its roots in geopolitical competition between Russian and Great Britain" is very POV; and I wonder how much this is backed up by the given citation, which was originally provided by another editor who gave it no such import. This looks suspiciously to me like WP:SYN.

Plus, if Great Britain was such a nation of Russophobia, why is it that such British individuals as Rosa Newmarch at the turn of the 20th century spent so much time promoting The Five, and Tchaikovsky was awarded a doctorate at Cambridge? It seems likely to me that this so-called Russophobia was no more than a jingoistic passing phase during the Crimean War etc. And didn't the Russians themselves rather relish thinking themselves descendents from the supposedly barbaric Scythians? Hence Stravinsky's Rite of Spring and Prokofiev's Scythian Suite. Alfietucker (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

An evening's research has conclusively trashed the idea that "England" was "the primary progenitor of Russophobia". Please let's try not to be carried away by the half-baked theories of a single source (that's assuming it actually says what it was alleged to have said). btw, though I say so myself, it's rather gratifying to now have text which actually complements the illustration! Alfietucker (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Commentators at the time specifically attributed "Russopbobia" to both English society as a whole and to individual policy makers, authority figures (e.g., British officials in India), etc. There are plenty of sources for this. The phobia in English society was quite real. The English manifestation starting in the early 19th century is the direct antecedent of modern Russophobia. I'm sure that Ivan the Terrible was feared too, but for good reason; the point is that "phobia" is an unnatural fear; the definition at the beginning of the article is an open invitation for an unencyclopedic laundry list.

Exactly what do you maintain you have "trashed"? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 05:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Cain's book is convenient but right now it's there because it was already there, not because there aren't dozens of better sources. Unfortunately, most of the activity here has been regarding the laundry list of slights and offenses against Russians and Russia by country as opposed to working on an encyclopedic article. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 05:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

"Commentators" - can we have some names/examples, please? If you know them, perhaps you can save some of my time by including these with citations in the article, rather than making broad sweeping statements. Unless and until you can provide concrete and credible examples, for all I know the commentators may be as reliable as a certain Polish general whose document was taken up by Napoleon (have you taken the time to look at the work I've already done to the article?). Alfietucker (talk) 10:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have, thanks for you contributions. I've been organizing sources chronologically for the 19th century and English/Russian conflict. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Is Dracula really about the Russians?

Hello. I'm just wondering if anyone here can vouch for Dr. Jimmie Cain's book Bram Stoker and Russophobia. I'm finding it remarkably hard to find much independent comment on-line about its content, which appears to be based on a doctoral thesis he submitted in Georgia State University back in 1996, Travelogues of empire: Bram Stoker's Dracula and The lady of the shroud. It seems distinctly odd to me that he didn't get it published until a good ten years later, and then by a publishing house less known for academic history books but more for such titles as The Halloween Encyclopedia, Horror Films of the 1970s and Werewolves of Wisconsin (see [22]). Anyway, for some reason it appears to be the main citation given in this article for the United Kingdom being home of Russophobia - a claim that appears untenable from the basic research I did last night. Besides, it does seem rather odd that if Stoker was indeed trying to write an anti-Russian parable, he should choose not a Slavic state or region (say, Bohemia) for its setting, but rather one that was predominantly associated with the Magyars.

Altogether I'm not sure that Cain's book seems a very sound source for any evidence of British Russophobia; but in fairness to the book, I wanted to check - can anyone confirm it actually does claim that a) Russophobia is a British invention; b) that Britain (to quote the Russophobia article text as it stands "exported [this propaganda] to other parts of the world"? Also to be fair, I will see if there is any more authoritative source for the latter claim (the first being patent nonsense, as I've discovered); if there is none, then I will strike this out from the article. Alfietucker (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you find many of the better more scholarly sources out there and add content to the article if you're interested. If your only contribution is to threaten to be a deletionist, perhaps you might find an article more to your liking. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 05:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a "deletionist", don't worry. I'll be sticking around for a while, and in case you haven't noticed, I have already added several scholarly citations, though alas none which back the thesis you originally proposed. That's not for want of trying to find some. :-) Alfietucker (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You might look for this chronology:

• Napoleon (1812...) and French publications
• defeat of Napoleon puts Russia on the royalty places to visit (goodness)
• European Russophobia develops as a geopolitical counter to keep Russia "in check"
• Anglo Russophobia is launched and honed over multiple geopolitical conflicts from Turkey to Afghanistan to India ("paroxyms" of panic of Turkomania and Russophobia)
• then there was decree to enforce of the Pale of Settlement, here's a quote, the English author quoted being described as being in the throes of his "Russophobia":

"Russia, who had outraged every Commandment of God, and every Law of Man, fills up with this last Atrocity the Measure of Iniquity. Russia having already, by such Crimes committed with Impunity, steeped the Nations of Europe in Infamy, by this last fills up the Measure and the Proof of their Degradation."

Trying and not finding... well, you know you can't prove a negative. :-) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this feedback - I'll check your references, but in the meantime may I observe: 1) you appear to be conceding that the French publications (highly influential and widely read as they were) predate the episodes of what has been called Russophobia in Britain (rather different from your earlier claim that "England" was the "primary progenitor of Russophobia"); 2) are you seriously suggesting that the Pale of Settlement was a benign and good thing which should have been applauded? I hope not, but if not what exactly is your point there? Alfietucker (talk) 11:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just identified the author of the quote starting "Russia, who had outraged [etc]" - David Urquhart, who was a Member of Parliament, only he was very much seen as a nuisance by the Prime Minister and his colleagues. He was actually recalled from his diplomatic activities as his pro-Turkish and anti-Russian fervour boiled over into his anti-Russian pamphlet England, France, Russia and Turkey; and he spent much of his time in parliament in *opposition* to the policies of the Prime Minister, in particular his foreign policy. So yes, Urquhart said some extreme statements of Russia, but his views were regarded as eccentric and were unsupported by the British establishment - a very different scenario to Napoleon's sponsorship of anti-Russian propaganda. That said, I can't say the Pale of Settlement issue reflected well on Russia's Tsarist government, and the mere fact it was attacked by Urquhart doesn't make it any more creditable. Alfietucker (talk) 11:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Another quote to leave you with (1919, "Russia, White or Red", Sayler)

"Fear of Russia has been the consistent attitude of every country in Europe ever since she emerged as a world power under Peter and Catherine in the eighteenth century. Distrust of the motives of the great white autocracy of the north and anxiety as to what pose her changing and irresponsible will would assume in the face of important crises have put Great Britain and France, Prussia, and later the German Empire, Austria and Turkey and Scandinavia, eternally on their guard. At one time they have sought her favor, and then within a few months they have patched up alliances to offset a possible change of heart on the part of the Bear.

"The Russian policy of all Europe, therefore, has been based on negative instead of positive motives. ..."

Try looking (Google books) for "Russophobia" prior to 1900 or "Russophobia" plus "Napoleon" for recent sources dealing with Russophobia in a historical context. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Fall of Napoleon = beginning of Russophobia (Napoleon defeated at the hands of Russia as opposed to Napoleon defeated by the Russian winter and over-extension of his supply lines). I'll toss you an editorial bone. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. We'll also need a section of the (re-)creation of "Russophobia" in post-Soviet discourse. But first things first. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

On Urquhart, as odd as he may have appeared, he needs to be taken in the context of the time, e.g., the Newport rising gaining wide rumor as a plot in which the Russian navy would invade England. The seed of geo-politically generated Russophobia started with Napoleon, but in terms of taking over societal perceptions, grew and matured in the multiple 19th century geopolitical conflicts between England and Russia. (Unfortunately in moving computers I seem to have lost the reference to the story in the 19th century English reader of a Russian family in a sleigh being chased by a pack of wolves, and just as the wolves were about to overtake the sled, the father tossed one of their children to the wolves to save themselves and the rest—and once the wolves caught up again, would toss another child.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on David Urquhart, but I've generally thought of him as more of a Turcophile (and a Circassophile) than a Russophobe- i.e. that he agitated for Britain to support Turkey in the Black Sea region because of his pro-Turkish/pro-Circassian views, rather than anti-Russian views. I also speculate that the fact that he was Scottish (rather than English), could have something to do with it, i.e. it would help him to identify with the plight of the Circassians (preserving their nation state, not unlike the various Scottish national heroes of lore). Notably, before being a supporter of (preserving) Circassian independence, he was a supporter of Greek independence (and I don't deny that he may have developed anti-Russian (Empire) sentiments, but I would hold that the cause for this was his pro-Circassian view of the region). But I suppose now we are getting off topic... --Yalens (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"The Making of a Russophobe: David Urquhart" - a book about him, [23], and here ISBN 0192802321, 9780192802323 called "the Britain's leading Russophobe".FeelSunny (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)