Talk:Anti-Ukrainian sentiment

Ukraine Stub‑class Mid‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

POV

Of all the sources out there, anti-Ukrainian sentiment is not so much linked to Russia, but rather Poland...yet this is completely missing in the article. "Anti-Ukrainian sentiment in contemporary Russia" is based almost entirely upon WP:SELFPUB sources, and I have re-written that section yet again in order to weasel out the use of weasel words. "Some Ukrainians" is a single cultural centre in Ufa, and "several organisations" are the same organisations in Ufa. The presence of the Orthodox churches in this article is a case of WP:SYN, because we all know that this is not an "Anti-Ukrainian" sentiment, but anti-anti-Moscow Patriarch sentiment; it's presence in this article is WP:SYN pure and simple. As it stands now, this is just a mish-mash of SYN. Also, the lead states that Anti-Ukrainian sentiment is widely present in Ukraine and Russia; yet this source is from 1994; hardly as of late is it? VCIOM has done opinion polls in the past on these allegations of anti-Ukrainian sentiment in Russia, and this type of information should be present, rather than just the viewpoints of a minor Ukrainian organisation in the Urals, which is why I have placed POV and OR templates on the article, and they need to be rectified so that all major viewpoints as reported in WP:RS are present in the article, rather than just accusations by some group. --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for NPOV tag seem valid enough. The article is very raw and needs major work. But I am puzzled as to OR tag. What exactly is original research? Which particular statements violate that policy? --Hillock65 (talk) 03:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia, why not add stuff on Poland yourself? Martintg (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because when I am not a rabid Polonophobe and have no interest in creating original research in order to link things. You have now removed my placement of the {{or}} template on the article, but as yet, there has is no eivdence in the article to demonstrate that the religious issues are linked to Anti-Ukrainian sentiment. The onus is on you do so, or it should be removed as WP:SYN. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The linked references in the religion paragraph clearly state "Particular discrimination is leveled against Ukrainian Orthodoxy", so I don't see how you think this is synthesis. Martintg (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zhirinovsky, etc

Additionally, Zhirinovsky is the leader of the LDPR. In the article it is stated that he is the Deputy Speaker of the State Duma. I have changed this to the leader of the LDPR, because his views are attributed to him being the leader of the LDPR, not speaking officially on behalf of the Duma, which implies that his views are officially sanctioned by the Duma, and by the Russian government. Just like on the Putin article, where Anne Applebaum isn't listed as an adjunct fellow of a neocon think tank, she is portrayed as a "journalist and author", because this is what she is most well known as, according to Martintg. Yet here, it is the exact reverse. Zhirinovsky is more known for his LDPR leadership, not as the Deputy Speaker of the Duma, hence, it should be changed back. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The positions of Russian officials mentioned in the article are important. For example when making their Anti-Ukrainian statements they occupied important positions within the Russian government: the mayor of nation's capital, deputy speaker of the parliament, member of parliament. I don't see the reason why this information should be excluded. These are not rank-and-file people, but prominent personalities in the Russian society and government. --Hillock65 (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And why exactly is it more important for "Deputy Speaker of the State Duma" to be present, rather than "Leader of the Democratic Liberal Party of Russia"? Also, please note that a similar argument is present on Vladimir Putin, whereby Anne Applebaum is merely being listed as "journalist and author" without her marriage to Polish MFA and adjunct fellow at a neocon think tank being presented. And Martintg is the same person involved. And this is my belief, he wants to portray Zhirinovsky as speaking on behalf of the Duma (which he is not, as he is only a Deputy Speaker), rather than for himself or as leader of the LDPR, and on the Putin article, he doesn't want the fact that Applebaum is a member of a neocon think tank and married to a Polish MFA to perhaps explain her views; surely her membership of an neocon think tank is also important information which will explain her neocon views? I have suggested on both articles to remove qualifiers before people's names; particularly when there are multiple qualifiers than can apply...and I have suggested this in the interests of NPOV, but have so far hit a brick wall. Why is that? --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why are you bringing up other articles. I don't edit there and I am concerned about the content here, not elsewhere and am not familiar with those names you are mentioning. An attempt to extend dispute in other articles to this one is the clear case of WP:POINT. The fact that you may have disagreements in other articles, doesn't mean the same practice has to be repeated here. It is important to mention that while making those statements Zhirinovsky did represent the Russian parliament, albeit indirectly. And so did Yuri Luzhkov representing the government of Moscow. No one is stating that that was the position of the Russian government, but it was the position of the high-ranking Russian parliamentarian, Deputy speaker and the mayor of the nation's capital. This is important. If we were speaking about Tymoshenko, would we only mention that she is the leader of Batkivshchyna party or that she is the prime-minister of Ukraine? It is self evident. --Hillock65 (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a categorical difference between political position and marriage. Political position gives a person a specific sociopolitical rôle -- one that merits mentioning when briefly introducing the person in a social or political setting. Marriage is usually only relevant for close friends (and in case of celebrities, close friend wannabes), and doesn't then merit mentioning in such an introduction. Outside special cases such as Joe Wilson's wife, the place for public marriage details in any encyclopædia is limited to the biographical articles. 62.65.238.142 (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]