Talk:Anti-Russian sentiment

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 92.74.255.241 (talk) at 19:15, 28 October 2020 (→‎Anti-Russian organizations.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Findsourcesnotice

Russophobic article on Russophobia

Judging by the content and references in this article it was written by people who hate Russians and want to justify ongoing extermination of Russians in Europe as a legitimate action against not-really-humans. Sentiments of this article is very similar to justification of antisemitism, except instead of crucifixion authors use "Kremlin policy". Shame on wikipedia - and hopefully some legal actions against it should come as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.173.131 (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aivars Slucis isn't notable

Maybe the part about the minister is important, but the rest of the paragraph should be removed.Xx236 (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The author was User:Russavia, banned from the project.Xx236 (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Xx236: I've removed it per WP:POVPUSH. Op ed rants by someone who is clearly not notable are WP:POINTy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, this is part of longer narration, and Slucis is quite notorious in his radical speaking against Russians in Latvia. In addition to sources cited you may see [1] [2] [3] (book ref), (monograph about right-wing populism in Baltics) etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the additional sources, I'd agree that he, and his rhetoric, is recognised as being significant as a representative of anti-Russian extremism. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One of your sources is listed twice. Xx236 (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To discuss the problem one should know a little about history of Latvia: Soviet colonization of the land. French people colonized Algeria and later were expelled from the land (Pied-Noir, BTW - the expulsion is not mentioned in Francophobia). The SU apparently promoted Russian speakers and allowed them to settle in best places: Baltic republics and Crimea. Xx236 (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A Russian source about Baltic states: http://ecsocman.hse.ru/data/517/836/1219/2004_n3_p98-130.pdf
The Russian Wikipedia accuses Latvian film The Soviet Story to be anti-Russian.Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was a considerable difference between French and Soviet "colonization". France did nothing to development of colonies only sucked resources out of them. On the other hand, Belarus, Moldova, Estonia, etc. before "Soviet colonization" were backwards agrarian backwaters. Soviets built highly developed industries there. (Of course, by the end of the Soviet Union these industries were worth nothing, but this is another story.) Further, population transfer during "Soviet colonization" moved two very different categories of people. One is communist functionaries (see eg "Yestonians") and military. Another was skilled industrial labor to man the factories and plants. There is nothing unusual that the first category was despised. The second category was actually Stalin's slaves, who were moved not to gulags, but to factories, coal mines, etc. on the peripheries, akin to black slaves brought to America to cotton plantations. (Well known is that Soviet peasants were deprived of passports to prevent them from fleeing. A little-known fact is that the abovementioned industrial "migrants" were forbidden to leave their factories as well (although for a limited time, typically 5-10 years).) But they were treated as "occupying force" by locals as well.

Therefore in this respect, most economic drain was suffered not by "Soviet colonies", but by Soviet satellites (COMECON) due to artificially disproportional currency exchange rate. I remember on 1970s when Soviet trade union-sponsored tourists came to Poland. They were allowed a small amount of currency to exchange; I believe, 30 roubles, but they went back home hungry, but with huge bags of goods. I was told that because of this in Hungary the prices for children's goods were hiked in parallel with salary hikes, to prevent Soviet tourists from emptying shelves. Same happened in industry. I remember Polish computers MERA (actually clones of PDP, VAX, etc) were shipped for ridiculosly low prices to Soviets. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, a significant part of Russian population is well integrated in "post colonial" post-Soviet states, e.g., even in modern ultra-nationalist Ukraine. And BTW the mayor of Riga (capital of Latvia) is Russian. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with you, here is a source abour 1930 economy, not described in this Wikipedia [4].

Xx236 (talk) 07:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using Wikipedia as a soapbox, and try instead to discuss improvement of the article. Lklundin (talk)
The Estonia paragraph (and several others) lacks context. Adding the context will improve this article. Economical context is important, beacause it can be measured. Xx236 (talk) 08:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Letter of 40 intellectuals should be probably mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A text by Slucis http://lpra.vip.lv/holocaus.htm (probably the mentioned op-ed, I don't like his Holocaust wording, but the problem of Soviet crimes against Latvian people wasn't known at that time.) According to Werth 16.500 Latvians were shot, not 75,000 . [5] Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would not call these "integrated Russians" Russians as they don't speak Russian and know nothing about Russian culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.173.131 (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-Russian sentiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anti–Russian sentiment among Vietnamese

Hi.

I just need to tell that the Russophobic sentiment among Vietnamese people is real and that shouldn't be ignored, and I think you guys need to know about this.

Due to people often read that Russia is "good friend" of Vietnam, they totally ignore the feeling of fears among Vietnamese towards Russia has been growing in a large number in a level that even BBC itself on its poll has failed to recognize this. Because of this, there has been no English sources about the Vietnamese view on Russia. It is a big loss.

I hope you guys can help to discuss about it and to write a real report about it.

Cheers. – User talk:ZaDoraemonzu7 11:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC+8)

We can't write original research on any subject matter. You would need to provide reliable sources to substantiate these claims. Reliable sources do not have to be English language sources (see WP:NONENG), but they must be reliable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has already been told that they should use citations and also edit summaries, neither of which they are doing. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Lithuania section they wrote, although it had some true facts in it, was totally uncited, and veered deep into WP:COATRACK territory at various points, talking more about Anti-Polish sentiment than Anti-Russian sentiment... I've removed it. At least have sources if you're going to write something like that, and try to observe NPOV.--Calthinus (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be exact, the entire section was cited to Daily Mail, which is not acceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, this article is a hodgepodge of awful WP:SYNTH in desperate need of updating and removing WP:GEVAL and WP:POVPUSH from both sides. There's a gaping chasm of difference between encyclopaedic content and throwing verifiable 'stuff' together. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope Ymblanter, not even the Daily Mail was used for the Lithuania section I removed [[6]]. Iryna, A lot of this dates back to the happy time when the article was called "Russophobia" and there were edit wars galore (including over the ordering of sections). It seems the solution was a hodgepodge which did manage to reach a semblance of balance as both views are represented. Personally I prefer not to open Pandora's box and if that means tolerating a page with certain things I would otherwise call undue weight (i.e. the whole Slucis affair), I'm fine with that. If you think you can do it without causing those issues to reemerge I salute you though. --Calthinus (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[7]--Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, stricken.--Calthinus (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Calthinus, have you ever asked a Lithuanian wikipedian user to talk about their fear towards Russia? Or how about the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaDoraemonzu7 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the user does not seem to comprehend basic Wikipedia principles. Moving to a block per WP:COMPETENCE?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't interacted with this guy before so my instinct is not to WP:BITE so soon but perhaps there's a history I'm not aware of and you're the mod, after all. --Calthinus (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By claiming I am a mod, okay. Is there someone after you trying to project that Lithuanians are fans of Russia don't you? It is not just the first time but repeatedly the fears of Lithuanians over Russia I have tried to explain has been vehemently deleted by someone who want to falsify the fact that Lithuania doesn't have anti-Russian sentiment. I failed to understand why Lithuania has always been "excluded" from it when Lithuania was one of Russia's historical grievances. -- ZaDoraemonzu7 —Preceding undated comment added 01:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, Ymblanter is a mod, not you. You are still welcome to add information sourced with citations that match WP:RS to a section about Lithuania if you so desire and have adequate sources. That's how Wikipedia works.--Calthinus (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ZaDoraemonzu7, no one is trying to falsify the contents of this article. I was being a bit harsh about the imbalance in the article as, in general, it's fairly comprehensive. If I believed it to be truly WP:POV, I would have tagged it as such and pursued outstanding issues via other forms of active discussion as set out by, and condoned by, Wikipedia per its policies and guidelines.
Calthinus, no, I certainly don't want to dredge up the spectre of Slucis again. In precisely the same vein, however, the section on Ukraine is heavily loaded (both images and text) with WP:UNDUE/WP:GEVAL depictions of an extremist nationalist organisation engaging in neo-Nazi activities (flag burning, printing deeply offensive posters, etc.), and reads as the depiction of the entire Ukrainian population as being embodied by a tiny percentage of extremists - who happen to have a high profile as the result of recent events not addressed in the section - were a balanced representation. As regards the section on Poland, how is "The most contentious issue is the massacre [...] in Katyn Forest in 1940..." not WP:SYNTH. It's an issue amongst many, but according to whom is it the 'most contentious issue' in more recent history? These may seem to be minor issues but, when added together, they add up to a lot of lopsided and pointy content littering the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Iryna Harpy Fair enough. I quickly removed Katyn superlative, and also an SYN inclusion in the Ukraine section as the source never linked its contents to anti-Russian sentiment [[8]]. I suspect the Svoboda-Right Sector stuff may be more delicate; I'll leave fixing that to others. --Calthinus (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Calthinus: I'd agree that your fixes were appropriate. More dramatic changes would require a well discussed overhaul. The "Ukraine" section is tagged as requiring attention and updating, so it should stand as is until someone gets around to it. Whatever condition the article is in, it's become CON by default until challenged. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anti-Russian sentiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final sentence in the intro paragraph

"On the other hand, Russian nationalists and apologists of the politics of Russia use the allegations of "Russophobia" as a form of propaganda to counter the criticism of Russia."

Really? Isn't this a violation of Wikipedia's rules on neutrality by assuming there's something inherently wrong with 'Russia' (what is criticism of "Russia"? the government? then here it's implied that the current government is axiomatically representative of Russians as such, isn't it?), which is to be asserted without controversy, or would it be acceptable to include a racist tirade in the article on racism against African-Americans if it was couched in similarly vague language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.6.8 (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, it's quite acceptable to put use such assertions on Wikipedia these days. I propose the deletion of that particular line in the intro. --Reollun (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Russophobia in Vietnam!?

Alright, I maybe ridiculizing a bit. Please remember it is my private opinion.

I seriously never realized there is a strong Russophobia in Vietnam before. As I was heard from Bulgaria, people often see Vietnam like Russophile country until now. However I am totally surprised with a high level of Russophobia in Vietnam recently.

Although I understand why increasing Vietnamese people hating Russia, but... if there is an increasing anti-Russian sentiment in Vietnam, then why Pew Research Center still list Vietnam as the most Russophile country? I have seen more Vietnamese in Facebook or other websites like Quora started bashing Russia a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismail Hassan Ismaili (talk • contribs)

Selective Facebook and Quora posts don't seem the best way of measuring anything. Just like history forum posts you added as a reference. Please don't edit this article if you're too emotionally invested in this matter and can't uphold reliable reference standarts or refrain from drawing your own conclusions. –Turaids (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep and definition drift

I assume this article is meant to cover instances of discrimination against ethnic Russians, historical grievances that drive lingering distrust and cool relations, unflattering cultural stereotyping, and so on and so forth. Yet, there are several sections where the "anti-Russian sentiment" is just any degree of criticism, any diplomatic rows with the Russian Federation over very specific incidents, or just not submitting to the Moscow line. For instance:

  • Greece — Greece expels Russian diplomats following the Skirpal affair; rather a stretch to call this "anti-Russian sentiment".
  • Australia — Framing the Australian government condemning Russia's role in shooting down MH17, and musing about barring Putin from a G20 meeting in retaliation, as anti-Russian is pure spin.
  • Norway - Direct quote: Recently, tensions with Russia is mainly over Russia's militaristic involvements in Ukraine and Georgia, which Norway supported sanctions against Russia and has not lifted it. I think that speaks for itself. The section also provides "being a NATO member" as evidence of anti-Russian sentiment!
  • Denmark - This section outlines a diplomatic row, in which Russia even makes a dark warning to Denmark… the only way this can be considered anti-Russian is if that simply means any activity not in Russia's interest.
  • Vietnam — Younger generations "becoming aware of Russian atrocities towards its neighbours" does not, in my mind, equal any significant or noteworthy anti-Russian sentiment within the context of this article. This is easily the most tenuous example in the article.

Defining "anti-Russian sentiment" so broadly has a few problems. First, to equate any criticism of Russia to discrimination is both unhelpful and revealing of one's own bias. Second, any diplomatic rows and tense relations more properly belong on pages for foreign relations (eg: Greece–Russia relations). But third— and most importantly— these examples (aside from Vietnam) fall into exactly what the lede warns about: On the other hand, Russian nationalists and apologists of the Russian politics are sometimes criticised for using allegations of "Russophobia" as a form of propaganda to counter criticism of Russia.

I would remove these right away but I wanted to get other editors' thoughts first. Otherwise, I'll come back in a few days and junk them. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right in observing the difficulty with which the term Russophobia must be defined, in the strictest sense that would seem to mean primarily a distrust. fear, or opposition to Russian people. However, this term in a more pragmatic sense (particularly within the articles title; Anti-Russian Sentiment), would equate to a distrust or fear of the Russian government, military, foreign policy, etc. It may be an incomplete assessment of the utility of this article, if it were to use the strictest definition of the term Russophobia, thereby relegating all diplomatic relations issues between individual countries and Russia to their respective 'Russia-SomeNation Relations' pages. This is because if a reader wanted to get an accurate depiction of the current state of Anti-Russian Sentiments that may exist throughout various regions of the world, they would have to visit multiple pages to find such information rather than being able to get a more concise and accessible portrayal which this article could provide. To some degree, it would make sense to define the purpose of this article (and therefore the precise semantics of the terms Russophobia and Anti-Russian Sentiment) similarly to other articles such as [9] or [10]. Both of these articles state clearly that fear, distrust, or disapproval of the nation's respective governments may constitute a form of 'Anti-Country Sentiment' or '-phobia', although this is not the case in every instance. In this manner, and following the guidelines in WP:SCOPE, relying on a predetermined and overly narrow scope (that is dissimilar from other comparable articles) may be doing a disservice to this articles readers. If the meaning of Russophobia/Anti-Russian Sentiment is a question, is a fear of an invasion, or nuclear war, regardless of whether that fear is justified, not within the clear definition of a Anti-Russian Sentiment? Is the Russian foreign ministry itself is directly saying that the Trident Juncture NATO exercises are "Anti-Russian" in nature, is that not a sufficient qualifier of the credibility of the circumstances? That being said, I applaud the efforts you have made to remove non relevant and unreliable information in some instances, in other, such as the deletion of the entire subsection on Norway during the ongoing build up of the greatest NATO and Russian military exercises since the Cold War, could cross the line past WP:BOLD. If part of an article is salvageable, it is almost always better to keep what is good and improve what can be improved, rather than simply removing the entire subsection entirely. Criticizing the quality of other editor's words, particularly in this article when they may be translating from a foreign language, is not only contrary to WP:WQ, but the time spent on such criticism could potentially be used for improving the very things you are criticizing. Consensus is built by collaboration, and while I will reiterate that your edits have certainly done considerable work to improve the article by removing some irrelevant and extraneous information, perhaps such efforts could also be used to qualitatively improve and add the content itself. I will be updating the Norway section with WP:RS citations and along with removing any unrelated and unimportant relation, and will edit wording and content where necessary to maintain WP:NPOV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.13.53.128 (talk • contribs)
It seems to me that most of the original underlying issues in the "updated and improved section" are still there as they have to do with the way the text is structured. Like the first sentence of classifying countries into "traditionally Russophobe" and "not traditionally Russophobe" (according to whom?) or the seemingly ORish conclusion links like "Russia believes NATO is anti-Russian (that is valid as an opinion, but not as a proof of Norway's anti-Russianness), Norway is in NATO, thus Norway is anti-Russian as well" and Sweden, Finland, and Denmark have experienced historical conflicts with Russia, Norway is not traditionally considered a Russophobic country (implying that Sweden, Finland, and Denmark must be), but it does share historical and sociocultural ties with them, so that supposedly makes it Russophobic as well. At least that's what I read between the lines. In four words it's Synthesis of published material. Why not include facts and information that speaks for itself? Like poll numbers on Norwegian attitude towards Russia/Russians, opinions of Norwegian officials on Russia and Russians, statistics of hate crimes against Russians etc. –Turaids (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My criticism of the Norway section had nothing to do with the quality of the writing— which you have undeniably improved— but the content within. I stand by my criticism that it consists of "vague suppositions" and that it lacks "substance", for the reasons Turaids throughly explained above. If you can substantiate that Norway has significant and notable anti-Russian sentiment, then by all means include it in the article. — Kawnhr (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been on and off cleaning up the article since July when it looked even worse, so a helping hand is always welcome. The article seems to be an unlikely common ground for people with an actual anti-Russian sentiment that want to "prove" that the whole world hates Russians and the aforementioned Russian nationalists that also want to spin it that, well, the whole world is against them, so anti-Putin, anti-Communist, anti-Soviet, anti-Russia sentiment and even simply "not submitting to the Moscow line", as you aptly put it, is freely and uncritically interpreted as Russophobia.
I've tried to balance someone calling something/someone anti-Russian/Russophobic that is valid as an opinion and should be presented as such and facts that should speak for themselves with concrete numbers and statistics, as well as distinguish the nuance between being anti-Russian and feeling negative about Russia in the section on my own country, but my in-depth knowledge on the matter only goes so far. –Turaids (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just went through the article again and deleted a couple sections that fit the same patterns as above (Montenegro, Croatia), and some removed lines from other sections that were just wholly irrelevant or uncited (Belarus, Hungary, Albania). I think that's the worst of it gone, now. — Kawnhr (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Turaids Indeed this article seemed to have been taken over by someone with an obsessively tribal worldview (people do things that are against Russia only because they are irrationally locked in some tribal battle against Russia, rather than having their own interests and viewpoints based on experiences). You have my regards and full support in your efforts to clean this up, I've been watching. --Calthinus (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of anti-Russian slurs

I have removed a list of anti-Russian slurs. As well as citation issues, I don't think it really adds to this article, which is already confusing enough as editors on this talk page have made clear. If properly cited, some of these belong at List of ethnic slurs, not here. --Bangalamania (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i can't remember the name of the text...

...but i remember reading a history book in the late 90s that was very old (1940s.) and tied the ideas of russophobia to a very specifically british fear of mongolian expansion into western europe. this text certainly picked up the narrative around the great game. but, it was actually quite detailed in it's extrapolation of russophobia as an idea that developed in the middle ages from a kind of fear of white christian genocide at the hands of these expanding mongolian hordes, not dissimilar to the anti-semitism that came up around the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.190.102.169 (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you manage to find the mentioned book and it's identified as a reliable source you are welcome to add it to the article, but the talk section is not the place for mini-essays like this. –Turaids (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article "statute"

@Turaids:: After our minor edit war I start appreciating your cleanup of this article. Articles like that tent to accumulate WP:TRIVIA of various incidents, which of course abound in some countries. IMO we must focus on:

(a) summaries of important pieces from secondary sources of research type which consider the problem in general in the world or in particular countries
(b) incidents which have led to lasting consequences in the politics or law and dismiss others even if they created some temporary splash in the media like with this Ukrainian singer. The rest must be dismissed per WP:TRIVIA, similarly to WP:NEVENT, unless decided otherwise after a discussion.

Do you (or other page watchers) have more ideas on the "article statute"? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Ukraine could probably have a separate page on this subject at some point. One thing I really try to watch out for in this page is ambiguous content that your first edit seemed as, because the quote mentioned no Russians. After you added Skrypka's clarification, where he went straight to Russians, he himself made very clear that the statement was indeed mostly aimed towards Russians, so I stopped having problem with it being on this page.
One important thing for point a would be specificity and avoiding weasel words when dealing with numbers and statistics. Sections on Azerbaijan, Lithuania and Czech Republic have this problem. I also find the use of words like "scandal" generally objectionable as the presented facts should speak for themselves without Wikipedia indicating what should the reader think or feel about them. Reactions from Russian officials also seem obvious to anti-Russian acts, unless it adds something new to the information already present.
@Kawnhr and Calthinus:, maybe you have your own two cents to add? –Turaids (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in full agreement with the above messages; events should only be included if they caused furor or are from otherwise notable people. I would also add that it's important to consider context of such events, lest this page become (again) a list of every time a country has done something not in Russia's interest. For instance, a (now removed) example of anti-Russian sentiment in Canada was Canada saying that Russian should be banned from the Olympics… which sure sounds bad until you realize the editor left out the important detail that this call came in response to widespread doping. At that point, it can only be seen as "anti-Russian" through a very narrow lens.
Weasel words are also a problem, as is framing events through a Russian POV. The Norway section had this problem (and still does to some degree), where the examples of anti-Russian sentiment come from Russian officials talking about it… surely it's better evidence when coming from Norwegians, or any other country in question, rather than Russians.
The other thing I would urge caution on is citing historical tensions. Because while historical relations are absolutely relevant, IMO many of the instances of it on this page were vague statements like "[country] has a long history of clashes with Russia…" that just generally read like WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or simply trying to craft a narrative where a given country is locked in some tribal warfare with Russia. Again, historical events, clashes and tensions absolutely can inform modern anti-Russian sentiment; I just think it should be handled with more substance. (This isn't a problem on this page anymore as I removed most of these, and Turaids cleaned up the rest; but it's something to keep in mind for future revisions.) — Kawnhr (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality tone is needed

"There is considerable evidence that in fact it was a fake petition with fake signatories aimed at fomenting an opinion about the degree of Russophobia in Latvia." https://www.stopfake.org/en/fake-latvians-want-to-establish-ghetto-for-russians/

StopFake is anti-russian russophobis site, financed by pro-american NED: "This ongoing project relies on viewer support. In 2015, StopFake also received financial support from the International Renaissance Foundation, the National Endowment for Democracy, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic. Nevertheless, StopFake maintains its editorial independence: the organizations and governments supporting the project stipulate how funds are allocated, but not StopFake’s content." https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/4p9yra/ukrainian_site_stopfake_is_financed_by/ https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-funded-projects-in-ukraine-2015-2016 In that article there is not clear evidence that it was a provocation.

"On April 16, 2018 pro-Kremlin activist Aleksandr Gaponenko claimed..." Is there any proofs that he is pro-Kremlin?

"in line with Russian independent anti-government media such as (TV Rain, Novaya Gazeta, Ekho Moskvy, The Moscow Times)"

Independent?? They all financed by pro-american funds! http://www.politonline.ru/interpretation/22882926.html http://www.iarex.ru/articles/62199.html

Alexey Navalny is financing from abroad: http://www.iarex.ru/news/62281.html?utm_source=article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.255.228.113 (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to remove 'On the other hand' remark in opening paragraph

Can the "On the other hand" sentence from the opening paragraph be removed? That sentence mentioned how the Kremlin is sometimes "using propaganda" to spin "criticism of Kremlin policies" as Russophobia. Whether that happens or not is not relevant to the article, because this article is supposed to give information about the phenomenon of Russophobia / anti-Russian sentiments. There are, for example, no 'on the other hand' sentences on articles about Anti-Semitism. By having that remark there, this article seems to attempt to justify Russophobia, which in my opinion, discredits this article. Russophia has nothing to do with current politics, it is simply a phenomenon that exists for a long time. Chernovorn (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant, because the subject is the concept of Russophobia to describe behaviors observed in various societies.--Calthinus (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject is Russophobia and not current political machinations of governments. Russophobia is: "negative feelings, dislikes, fears, aversion, derision and/or prejudice of Russia, Russians or Russian culture". It says so in the opening sentence. If you want to specify possible reasons etc, then how about this: remove that sentence from the opening paragraph and create a new section on the article page somewhere below, calling it "Propaganda, current political conflicts" or "Influence of the Russian government" or something like that? Why have that in the opening paragraph? A new section then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chernovorn (talk • contribs) 15:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Russophobia is also a subject of discourse and this page also concerns that. In any case any sentiment has a context, for example the page Anti-German sentiment discusses the context of the World Wars.--Calthinus (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a clear anti-Russian bias here and a false equivalence with the anti-German sentiment. The article about Anti-German sentiments does not contain any 'contradictory' remarks in the opening paragraph like "On the other hand, Germany did attack this or that country..", or "Although the German government is using/has used Germanophobia as a pretext for this or that..". By having that remark in the opening paragraph, this article tends to focus more on the modern-day politics and events rather than on Russophobia as a historical phenomenon, like all other phobias (like Germanophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-whatever).. So why not just move that remark into it's own section like I proposed? Chernovorn (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its presence would be comparable to a citation of Beyond Chutzpah and other work of Norman Finkelstein in the lead of the antisemitism page. Which is to say, undue and inappropriate.GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you can't compare anti-national sentiment with anti-people sentiment. Anti-Americanism also mentions the political context. Why do we need a double standard for when it's Russia?--Calthinus (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From the lede of Anti-Americanism : Political scientist Brendon O'Connor of the United States Studies Centre suggests that "anti-Americanism" cannot be isolated as a consistent phenomenon, since the term originated as a rough composite of stereotypes, prejudices, and criticisms evolving to more politically-based criticism. -- again, why do we need a special exemption for Russia?--Calthinus (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also consider Anti-British sentiment, which says it is … usually because of British Imperial past; or Sinophobia, which posits that factors contributing to sinophobia include disapproval of the Chinese government, historical grievances, fear of economic competition. — Kawnhr (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But people manifestly do use "Russophobia" to suggest criticism of Russia is unfounded or unfair, as can be seen in the past revisions of this very page. It therefore seems perfectly relevant to note "on the other hand…"— not in the sense of offering a correction, but to reflect how the word is used and the discussion around it. This is an imperfect example, but just look at how the lede for Anti-Zionism discusses the controversy about the term: Many notable Jewish and non-Jewish sources take the view that anti-Zionism has become a cover for modern-day antisemitism, a position that critics have challenged as a tactic to silence criticism of Israeli policies. So why can't similar be noted about Russophobia? — Kawnhr (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So why doesn't this article say something similar, like: "Many notable Russian and non-Russian sources take the view that criticism of Russian policies has become a cover for modern-day Russophobia"? Chernovorn (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's not what the sources say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there's no objective reason for removing the paragraph, but it could use a couple more citations since it does seek to partially discredit anti-Russia(n) sentiment, as well as better wording, because it makes the seeming assumption that everyone who accuses someone of anti-Russia(n) sentiment/Russophobia is either a Russian nationalist or apologist. –Turaids (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mass removal of material by My Very Best Wishes

Can we please talk about why those specific sections were removed? PaulCHebert (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read this section? It tells: "According to a July 2007 poll, only 2% of Armenians see Russia as a threat, as opposed to 88% who view Russia as Armenia's partner" and so on. So, this is not about Anti-Russian sentiment, but about the opposite, This is the most pro-Russian former Soviet republic. Why it should be on this page at all? My very best wishes (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know and I don't really care. I just understand that massive removals of text should be justified with more than an edit summary. You've been editing long enough to know that. PaulCHebert (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now, that thing. Here someone is trying to make a point that Karl Marx was guilty of an anti-Russian sentiment, just before mentioning Hitler. Well, if anything, this is just a reasonable comment by the philosopher, unlike views by Hitler. My very best wishes (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most important, to include something X on this page, one should have a secondary RS explicitly telling that "X is anti-Russian sentiment". Was it in the cited sources? No, it was not. My very best wishes (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There. Was that so hard? PaulCHebert (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Was about to remove repeated POV pushing by Tobby72 on the education reform in Latvia, but decided to wait for a third party. As you can imagine, the allegations of it being Russophobic is just one of many sides of the coin and the reform has a lot more to it than just language. –Turaids (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep, round 2

It's been a while since I last looked at this page, so I was surprised and disappointed to see a bunch of rubbish had been snuck in again (no disrespect to fellow editors intended— I understand we all have lives and other interests, and it's not as if I had been keeping an eye on it— it's just disheartening to see the page back to a similar place when I first noticed the issues half a year ago). So, I rolled up my sleeves and got to work, junking several sections built around vague suppositions, false citations and overall dubious claims. These sections matched the same criticisms I outlined before, so I don't think I need to elaborate much on my thought process any more than my edit summaries already do; but I understand it was a fairly big deletion of content, so if anyone has questions or disputes the edits then give me a shout. — Kawnhr (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I've seen parts of my edits reverted, which is fair, but following WP:BRD I'd like to discuss and ask for clarification/consensus on this. So, one thing I've come down on, now and in the past, is statements from Russian officials describing something as anti-Russian, eg: A deputy foreign minister of Russia in Oslo stated that Russia views the October 2018 Trident Juncture NATO military exercises in Norway to be "anti-Russian" in nature or Russia has characterized Canadian participation in NATO drills which as "act of aggression". My view is that since these statements come from Russian officials, they cannot be said to be neutral or objective (particularly since, as mentioned in the the lede, "allegations of "Russophobia" [are used] as a form of propaganda to counter criticism of Russia.") and so using them as a source is giving more weight to the Russian characterization of a dispute— and therefore as anti-Russian. But like I said, these pop back up pretty quickly, so I'm left wondering: am I "fighting the good fight", or am I in the wrong here and should back off, or what? How do other editors think this should be handled? — Kawnhr (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

government statements are generally not neutral--which country is an exception? Bit Wikipedia does NOT ban non-neutral quotes. the rule is clear enough: While Wikipedia is required to present a neutral point of view, sources on the other hand are not expected to be neutral. = WP:NEUTRALSOURCE When a spokesman for government X denounced government Y that is clear evidence of trouble between them -- which is what we are talking about here. Solution include both statement from X and statement from Y which says we are not in opposition to X.Rjensen (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of this page is that it's meant to chronicle things such as discrimination, historical grievances that effect lingering distrust, double standards and the like— not just instances where a country disagrees with Russia and causes "trouble". A country can pursue foreign policy goals and disagree with Russia without there being a sinister motivation behind it. If we accept a Russian official blasting a country over something or other as evidence of anti-Russian sentiment, then what this says is that any disagreement with Russia is inherently wrong.
And I think it's worth repeating that the specific "troubles" here, the inciting point of these tensions, is NATO membership and participation… characterizing that as "anti-Russian sentiment" is a bit much. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kawnhr Imo, what the scope of hte page is should be clearly spelled out in the lede. On the one hand, it is true that at many points in the past people have added items to this page that appear to portray anything that doesn't equal an expression of geopolitical love and devotion to Russia can be portrayed as some sort of "Russophobic" racism that bizarrely gets compared to anti-Semitism. On the other hand, see also Anti-Americanism, a page that critically analyzes the existence of aversion in public opinion of various countries to Russia and how it may have emerged in the past -- a combination of actual bigotry (often against "Asians") but also some arising from objection to perceive imperialism, outrage at widespread interference in other countries' domestic affairs, concerns about democracy that are actually motivated by compassion for the Russian people, unaddressed perceived grievances such as this and this and this and this as well as current events like these and more. Likewise Anti-Americanism correctly notes a combination of bigotry mixed with disgust for certain aspects of the US' percieved societal system as well as some things in the past and in the present like the Trump_administration_family_separation_policy, the latter of which, I have no doubt will be on that page in the future. I think the latter critical approach of a multifaceted subject of anti-Russian sentiment coming from various sources (bigotry or history) is probably more appreciated by readers too.--Calthinus (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Touché. I'll be more cautious and discerning in the future. — Kawnhr (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with Netherlands?

PEW 2018 poll lists it as No.1 country as far unfavorable views of Russians, but our article doesn't even have a section on this. Can anyone find anything explaining this weird data blip? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus One Dutch viewpoint [relations] (unclear if this page is about relations with or fear of Russians -- I've noticed a questionable trend of describing any policies not friendly to Russia being placed on this page as examples of "anti-Russian sentiment"). There's also [very recent and publicized attempt of Russian interference] and also election interference exposed by Dutch intelligence [[11]]. Granted the same has occurred in many places. I don't really think Pew should be taken as exact figures, they're numbers year by year often show crazy oscillations of around 30% that are hard to explain. Good for trends in aggregate, not for exact figures imo.--Calthinus (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a place for sentiment against Russian tourists?

These European polls: https://sg.news.yahoo.com/russians-voted-most-irritating-tourists-european-poll-144512453.html, https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2019/08/30/britons-make-worst-tourists-say-britons-and-spania, https://www.tourism-review.com/travel-tourism-magazine-russians-are-the-worst-tourists-according-to-brits-article970 show a constant negative sentiment against Russian tourists. I know in some countries (mine at least), there is a negative view of the Russian new rich but it is not common. ItalianTourist (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Russian organizations.

A lot of the Anti-Russian stuff comes from state funded organizations such as polygraph.info, bellingcat, Atlantic Council and Integrity Initiative. Can we have a section on those? Keith McClary (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, this whole article is on a non-existent issue. For several centuries, Russia has been an empire (and still is), and its aggressive foreign policy and repressive domestic policies (in different forms) have created resentment among oppressed ethnic and religious minorities and neighbours. Likewise, most organisations mentioned above are not anti-Russian people; they are opposed to (some of the) policies of the Russian government. BorisG (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC) BTW I am Russian BorisG (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Boris G you must be joking! All what you say about Russia holds true for US! You are an americanized Russian, right? You view on Russia reminds me the typical American (or British) Propaganda. The US is an Empire and has an aggressive foreign policy (illegal wars against for example Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria) and repressive domestic policies (signs: Mass Surveillance, militarized and very violent Police, expanding and partly privatized Prison system). The drug laws in US are very racist because there are for example different punishment levels for consumption of identical drugs (crack cocaine and powder cocaine) with the consequence that blacks are overrepresentated in prisons. Indigenous Siberians live better than Native Americans. The war crimes in Chechen wars are comparable with those of UK in Northern Ireland or with the human rights violations of Spanish Intelligence Services in Catalonia and Basque country during Anti-Terror-Operations. There are no discrimination of religious minorities in Russia in opposite to Iran or Turkey. China, UK, Spain and Portugal also have an imperial history and China and UK still have neo-imperial ambitions. The Russian "Wars" in Georgia, Ukraine and other countries are and were no aggression wars anyway. The de-facto-Regime in Transnistria is in opposite to Kosovo are functioning Quasi-State for example and the whole conflict in Moldova is based primary on the different two languages. South Ossetia and Abkhazia were de facto independent from Georgia since 1990ties and the Georgian Army committed war crimes there for example so the Narrative of Russian Aggression is not plausible. Demonizing the government as a Dictatorship is actually very stupid Propaganda because there is no reliable study that proves that Russia is a Dictatorship. If Russia is allegedly is an authoritarian state why Singapore is clasified as an incomplete Democracy in Democracy rankings? The Peoples Action Party rules centuries in Singapore. Why Montenegro is not clasified as a Dictatorship? Dukanovic rules much longer than Putin. Kaczynski is a Fan of Polish Dictator Pilsudski dreams of Intermarium while the accusation that Putin wants to restore the USSR is only a fake. Bellingcat and the Institute for Statecraf are Pseudo-NGOs who are controlled by the British Intelligence Services and the main mission of these Organization is to realize the interests of the British Elite. The Altantic Council adivces the American Elite and creates concepts for the neo-imperial policy of US.--92.74.255.241 (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there "layers", epoch-related differently to the sentiments?

I think there is at least 3 layers of Russophobia a person from Moscow can encounter:

  • The modern one, related to after-USSR society;
  • The anti-USSR set of sentiments;
  • The pre-1917 set of fear of "people living so far from civilized Europe they can't use perfume and wear furcoats with fur inside out".

And, aside from all of this, there is a general "huge empty country" claim (Mercator Projection visually enlarges Russia's appearance x2, mostly bloating empty near-polar areas). Uchyotka (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Russian_sentiment&oldid=985923319"