Talk:Russian Americans

Edit-warring over unsourced nonsense which has mutated over the years

This unsourced nonsense started expanding since 2014. Note the use of the weasel-word "some" in its early manifestation. Now from the earliest form:

Some Rusyn Americans identify as Russian American.

it accreted to

Some Ukrainian Americans, Belarusian Americans, Russian Jewish Americans, Russian German Americans and Rusyn Americans identify as Russian American.

and then metastacised into:

The term "Russian American" may be restricted to people of ethnic Russian descent, but is often applied to any American with ancestors from its historic empire or Soviet Union, which might include Ukrainian Americans, Belarusian Americans, Jewish Americans, German Americans, Polish Americans, Georgian Americans, Azerbaijani Americans, Armenian Americans, and Rusyn Americans.

Please note the abundance of WP:WEASELWORDS supporting this unsourced speculation like "some", "might" and "often".

At the same time, "Russian German Americans" in the earlier version, has become "German Americans" in the latest, which is patent nonsense because since when German Americans are considered Russian? The same fate exactly befell "Jewish Americans" who having lost the descriptor "Russian" of the earlier version, now qualify en-masse as Russians just by virtue of being Jewish. If that is not ridiculous, I am hard-pressed to see what is. Please also note the creeping SYNTH as the verb of the first two versions "identify as" changes to "is often applied to" which radically changes the meaning of the paragraph, unsourced and SYNTH as it was.

It is unacceptable and even more so is the edit-warring supporting it. I know there are local editors here who feel that they have to discourage newcomers to this article like me coming in but this is ridiculous and discouraging. Especially when I get reverted using non-sequitur edit-summaries like Rv In which case, it has become WP:CON by virtue of being long-standing. Feel free to tag it for citations, but not remove it. I think removing such unsourced garbage is a duty. Dr. K. 03:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Instead of playing at semantics, please refresh your memory as to WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:TALKDONTREVERT. You've simply entered the arena declaring it to be nonsense and are now edit-warring with no apparent knowledge of the subject, but adamant that you are right. Just to give you a flavour of what is meant by confusion of ethnic identity (and not all of them are probably correct), read a few pages of this, plus this. The ethnicity of those coming from the Russian Empire was heavily confused and badly recorded. In fact, read the entire article before calling it nonsense. Conflation of ethnicity is already prevalent in the caption "Russian-speaking bankers in Chicago, 1916" [my emphasis], and in the "Russian American communities" section, with its 'see also' hatnote pointing to Russian Americans in New York City. You need to think carefully about what "Russian descent" actually means, because this article is unable to attribute the self-identification as 'Russian ethnic' until the post-Soviet influx into the USA. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Your heavy-handed reprimands about playing with semantics, consensus, lack of subject knowledge, and edit-warring are all misplaced and I AGF that they just lack an understanding of my arguments, rather than being deliberately designed to discourage my participation here by making the environment unpleasant. Especially the note about edit-warring, when you are currently at three reverts, is rather ironic. In any case, again, I repeat what I wrote above: Please also note the creeping SYNTH as the verb of the first two versions "identify as" changes to "is often applied to" which radically changes the meaning of the paragraph, unsourced and SYNTH as it was. If you can find an RS that the term "Russian American is often applied to German-Americans and Jewish Americans etc." then please supply it.

Otherwise, please stop the attempts to restore this patent SYNTH. According to the SYNTH criteria of the now-removed paragraph, any ethnicity, Greek, Italian, French etc. could be called Russian Americans, as long as they had an ancestor in the old Soviet Union. This very notion, makes including this long list at the lead untenable, not at least without using a suitable RS and replacing the explicit listing of the ethnicities with a much shorter generalisation and eliminating the sea-of-blue overlinking. Also, the thing is, when you use the phrase "often applied to", questions arise such as: How often is it applied? By whom is it applied? To whom is it applied? First, second, third-generation immigrants? How could this be applied to a segment of second, third-generation German, Pole, or Jewish immigrants when they would have assimilated fully into the American culture and they wouldn't have any external trace of their purported Russian background so noone external to them, from the wider American population, would know their background and would thus be unable to "apply" to them the label "Russian-American"? And why these Germans, Poles, Armenians etc. - the list is almost never-ending- would not be identified as simply Germans, Poles etc.? Dr. K. 06:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The Soviet Union wasn't Russia even if many Americans believed so. Xx236 (talk) 07:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Xx236. I fully agree with you. Dr. K. 12:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: It is you who started on this talk page in an aggressive manner, which is a clear demonstration of your lack of AGF. Is the title of this section AGF? Does repeating 'unsourced nonsense' suggest anything other than an aggressive position to any editors who believe the content to be correct? If you're going to invoke WP:WEASEL, make certain that it is WEASEL: "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." Those are the very words you are pointing to as being 'weasel'. The lead you've left behind is equally weasel: "Russian Americans are Americans who trace their ancestry to Russia, the Russian Empire, and the former Soviet Union. The definition can be applied to recent Russian immigrants to the United States, as well as to settlers of 19th century Russian settlements in northwestern America which includes today's US states of Alaska, California, Oregon and Washington." What is a Russian-American who "trace their ancestry to... the Russian Empire, and former Soviet Union..." mean? Does that make them "Russian"-American? The Russian Empire and former Soviet Union were not "Russia", nor were their denizens uniquely and exclusively Russian. The current lead is a terrible piece of unsupported WP:SYNTH which was previously balanced out by the paragraph you've removed and not restored despite being reverted by a couple of editors. Can you please meet WP:BURDEN and find RS demonstrating that the lead you've left is both sourced and realistic? I don't see anything in the body of the article that even begins to suggest that any source has defined Russian-Americans in that manner. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It is you who started on this talk page in an aggressive manner, which is a clear demonstration of your lack of AGF. Sorry Iryna, but this is utter hogwash. I removed blatant, unsourced SYNTH and I have explained why multiple times and in painstaking detail and I called it for what it is: "Nonsense". What is so lacking AGF about that? What is a Russian-American who "trace their ancestry to... the Russian Empire, and former Soviet Union..." mean? Does that make them "Russian"-American? Are you asking me? I am an absolute newcomer to the article remember? I was blinded by the SYNTH of the second paragraph and I removed it. I didn't get to see the SYNTH of the first part of the lead so I could remove it too. Can you please meet WP:BURDEN and find RS demonstrating that the lead you've left is both sourced and realistic? Really? Seriously? I quote from BURDEN (thanks for the wikilink, but it was not necessary.):

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material,

I ask you: since when did I add or restore the material of the lead that pre-existed my arrival at this article for years? Is this how you want to encourage participation by uninvolved editors who remove crap from this article by BURDENing them to be responsible for material they have no idea about and they did not touch in any way?

The current lead is a terrible piece of unsupported WP:SYNTH which was previously balanced out by the paragraph you've removed... Since when a terrible piece of SYNTH is supposed to be supported by another "terrible piece of SYNTH"? Obviously both should be removed and the lead completely rewritten from scratch. At least, in an awkward way, we now both agree that the lead is garbage and should be completely rewritten. Hopefully, you will not accuse me of lack of AGF for saying that.

It is ironic that instead of thanking me for removing a "terrible piece of SYNTH" which had the added bonus of exposing yet another "terrible piece of SYNTH", you instead tell me that describing it as "nonsense" lacks AGF and, as a kind of weird bonus, you want to BURDEN me to support the remaining "terrible piece of SYNTH". This is getting unreal. Since I am an absolute newcomer to this article I have no idea how to fix the remaining garbage in the lead other than by completely removing it. I hope you can offer your considerable knowledge of the subject to fix it. In the meantime, perhaps we can stub the lead pending its rewrite. But I don't want to start an edit-war removing the remaining piece of crap so I ask you, what do you think about removing it? Dr. K. 11:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: Okay, agreed that the lead needs a rethink, so I'm going to think on it. Do you have any objections to my pinging a few other editors who have expertise in the area? I'll make it a balance of editors who don't necessarily agree with each other on the subject of what being "Russian" means - but know how to work in a collegial manner - in order to thrash it out for the best results in terms of content for the reader. Also, my apologies for being short with you. I know you to be a good editor, and it sets a terrible example to have a couple of experienced editors being curt with each other over content. I've actually thought the article to be a bit of a mess in terms of conflating actual historical Russian colonies with later immigration. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

My job is done here Iryna. I am more than happy to leave this article in your capable and knowledgeable hands. TU-nor cleaned up my bit, so I am happy to leave things as they are. Please call any editor you choose from the regulars and thank you for offering to clean up the article. Thank you for your kind words, which are reciprocated fully on my part. I too regret that we had to exchange a few robust comments between us, despite our great past collaboration and respect for each other, which has not diminished even after this recent exchange. Problems were quickly resolved in any case, which befits two experienced editors who also happen to be friends. Take care. Dr. K. 21:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Greetings all. I see that the argument has subsided, but the issues with the lead remain. I thought I'd add my two cents, as I'm responsible for transforming the offending passage from the second manifestation to the third quoted in Dr. K's original post. I'm a longtime but very occasional contributor of minor edits to Wikipedia, so I apologize wholeheartedly for not having been fully aware of all the proper rules. In retrospect I see that it was a bit heavy on weasel words, though as Iryna mentioned, they may to an extent be permissible in a lead if elaboration is provided in the article's body. At the time of making the edit I was totally unaware of the SYNTH rule, which I agree I may have been violating.

However, I maintain that my intentions were good and that what I wanted to do still needs to be done! The problem, reflected very clearly on this very talk page, is of course the tension between different definitions of "Russian American". All I wanted to do was, in the lead, make it clear to the uninformed reader that the term can be used in different ways, either restricted to ethnic Russians or encompassing people of other ethnicities, most notably Jews. What was there before my edit seemed to do more to confuse than to clarify and I think the same is true of the current version.

In response to Dr. K's claim that "[a]ccording to the SYNTH criteria of the now-removed paragraph, any ethnicity, Greek, Italian, French etc. could be called Russian Americans, as long as they had an ancestor in the old Soviet Union", I would like to say that it seems to me quite reasonable that, for example, someone of Greek ethnic ancestry who only speaks Russian and was born and raised somewhere like Stavropol would identify primarily as "Russian" and, in the US, would be identified as "Russian" by others and that his children, born and raised in the US, might identify as "Russian American". Obviously something seeming like it reasonably could be true isn't enough to get it included in Wikipedia, but it should serve to refute Dr. K's characterization of my contribution as "nonsense". The point as applied to Greeks is not particularly important, but it is highly pertinent in relation to Jews. Indeed, if this premise is rejected, a large part of the article's content, which deals with Jews, would need to be removed. However, in reality it is beyond reasonable dispute that the term "Russian American" is commonly applied to those descended from Russian-speaking Jews (whether from Saint Petersburg or Odessa). It would seem logical that the same is true of Americans descended from Tatars, Yakuts, Chechens, Mordvins and other stateless nations that the average American has never heard of, as well as descendants of Russia's ethnic Germans.

When I originally made the edit, I didn't think what I was doing was controversial, or adding any new information, just rephrasing to make the meaning clearer, which is why I (foolishly, lazily) didn't bother to find any sources. In light of the edit war and the discussion here, however, it's clear that reliable sources are needed. Rather than come wading in with my own clumsy edits, I'd rather leave the resolution of this apparently contentious issue to more experienced editors with a more in-depth knowledge of the issue. That said, I don't think it's acceptable to leave things as they are. The lead doesn't properly define the term at all, rendering the information below fairly meaningless. Static Sleepstorm (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Static Sleepstorm. I have no doubt that your additions to the lead were AGF. Unfortunately, I've been caught up in so many other articles that this one has fallen so far back on my backburner/wishlist that it's actually slipped my mind. Currently, we've had a run of hot weather down under, and my thinking cap is more of a tired thinking blob than anything constructive. I'm amenable to discussing how to improve it. As many editors are taking a break IRL, I'm reticent to ping anyone until later in the month. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Some unknown author added this, it was the most eloquent and accurate version (better than the updates I made by far), Russian American is a confusing term because it is equivalent to Latin American but also equivalent to say "Italian" which could be clarified as American ethnic-Russian, English does not disambiguate between the vague term ethnic Russian, and Russian citizen, hence the confusion, that said, the edit which was far clearer than mine or anyone elses edit:

"Russian Americans are Americans who trace their ancestry to Russia, the former Russian Empire, or the former Soviet Union. This means that 'Russian' does not necessarily refer to East Slavic ethnic Russians, but to the broader cultural area of Russia and the post-Soviet space. The definition can be applied to recent Russian immigrants to the United States, as well as to settlers of 19th-century Russian settlements in northwestern America." Vyaiskaya (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

"Russian American" means an American of Russian ethnicity

Poles, Jews, Volga Germans, Ukrainians, etc... don't belong in this article. When another term is put before the word American, it is a reference to the person's ethnic background. This article should only include people who are actually of Russian ethnicity. (e.g. Walter Afanasieff is Russian-American, Irving Berlin is not) Here is an essay written by a Jewish American, born in Poland, who makes it very clear that he is not Polish. Genealogizer (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Ukrainians often do identify as Russian Americans. That doesn't mean all do to the same degree, but the term is and historically used much like latin americans, with reference to immigrants from post soviet space, the USSR, or Russian Empire, as well as ethnic Rusyns. It may be a double identity as well, Russian American and an ethnic _. Many Russian Jews are identified as Russian Americans. Poles, not usually... Ukrainians, yes. Buryat or Tatar, Yes. Jewish poles are another matter from Russian Jews. Things are complicated due to there being multple senses of the word Russian, and this is probably the heaat of the confusion, and this should be factored in and made note of, that Russian American, and American Ethnic-Russian are separate concepts. So, it's a complicated matter. Vyaiskaya (talk) 08:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

This version is the clearest I saw in the logues: "Russian Americans are Americans who trace their ancestry to Russia, the former Russian Empire, or the former Soviet Union. This means that 'Russian' does not necessarily refer to East Slavic ethnic Russians, but to the broader cultural area of Russia and the post-Soviet space. The definition can be applied to recent Russian immigrants to the United States, as well as to settlers of 19th-century Russian settlements in northwestern America." If someone feels adding a section specifically on American ethnic-Russians is important, it might be prudent for some peoples understanding. Vyaiskaya (talk) 09:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Ukrainians often do identify as Russian Americans.

Heh. Wonder what they're up to now. Synotia (moan) 13:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jeffersonvalladares. Peer reviewers: Jeffersonvalladares.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Smgarfias1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Russian Americans vs American ethnic-Russians

So, scrolling through the logues, this seems to be a point of contention between the fourth wave ethnic Russians or maybe even Russians in Russia as well, and the Americans and Russian Americans of older and/or non-"ethnic Russian" decent.

The reality is, the term is used equivalent to Latin American. One can be both Italian/Spanish American and Latin American or Peruvian American. This is a dualistic identity. The term Russian in English is not as concise as in contemporary Russian, where there presently exists a difference between ruskii and rosiyanin.

In addressing this, I propose creation of a sub-section specficially entitled "American Ethnic-Russians" to address this subsection specifically while not ignoring the standard and established use. Hopefully a win-win. Vyaiskaya (talk) 09:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Numbers

What I would find interesting is a numerical clarification to the question: Who were immigrants from Russia to the United States? I believe that the bulk of them have been Jews but I see no data in this article to confirm or deny that hypothesis.

Moreover, the authors of this article seem uncertain of what a "Russian American" is, or rather has been throughout time. I'm pretty sure that if you went to Brooklyn in the 1900s and called the local Jews there Russians, they'd correct you at best. Synotia (moan) 13:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Searching in Russian I found this. A truly fascinating read! :) Synotia (moan) 13:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Russophobia and anti-slavic sentiment

So far, this doesn't have really any mention of the anti-Russian biases and prejudices that Russian Americans faced, especially at the height of the cold war. Perhaps that information should be added? BadFaithSourceRemover (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)