Talk:Anti-Russian sentiment

Talk archives: Year 2005, Year 2006, Year 2007 (accumulating...)

Ukraine

Please do not mix Russophobia with ukrainian internal policy! It has nothing to do with russian people.

If part of Ukrainian Internal policy includes anti-Russian laws, such as restrictions on the use of Russian langauge that constitutes Russophobia. --Kuban Cossack 17:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no special restrictions concerning Russian language in Ukraine.--AndriyK 09:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"...As distantly as possible from Russia..."

What does this phrase mean?

Particularly many residents of Western Ukraine see the future of their country as distantly as possible from Russia

Geographical distance of Western Ukraine to Russia is fixed for present and future, isn't it? ;) So "as distantly as possible from Russia" is used here metaphorically, which does not comply with encyclopedic style. Would not it be better if one writes exactly what is meant here and by which sources it is supported?--AndriyK 10:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as nobody answers, I move the dubious paragraph to the talk page. Let us discuss it.--AndriyK 13:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The overall Russian sentiment in Ukraine varies geographically throughout the country. Particularly many residents of Western Ukraine see the future of their country as distantly as possible from Russia, and strongly oppose the possible introduction of Russian as a state language next to the Ukrainian language. On the other hand many country-wide polls show that the majority of questionned Ukrainian citizens support such measure.

Language of low sort pop music and thieves' slang

Did the writer say "Russian is language of low sort pop music and thieves' slang"? There is no such phrase in the original document. "Russian is language of low sort pop music and thieves' slang" refers to the slang spoken by Janukovich, who indeed was a thief when he was young.

I move this paragraph to the talk page as well.--AndriyK 13:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Russian sentiment sometimes is employed during electoral campaigns. In 2004 14 Ukrainophone writers supporting Viktor Yuschenko in his run for a presidency called the Russian language to be a language of low sort pop music and thieves' slang. Viktor Yuschenko expressed his gratitude and respect to this group of writers.

The Kiev Institute of Sociological Research and Conflictology considers that "Our Ukraine", Block of Yulia Tymoshenko and other parties with the nationalist appeal struggle for the anti-Russian electors.

Nonsense of course. "Yanukovich promises to give the language of a low sort of pop music and thieves' slang the absurd status of second state language". Referring to Yanukovich speaking Russian on TV of course. So I propose to put it back in. Interesting page by the way, because it tells people what sort awaits them if they votr for Yanukovich. The rows of Asiatic looking Red Army soldiers are of course not the writers' doing but the phrase "armed men attacking Ukrainian schools and hospitals" should be in this article as well, of course. It is a better example of Russophobia than most if not all of what we find here.--Pan Gerwazy 15:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please have look at WP:PSTS

“ Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. ”

Does the primary source say "Russian is language of low sort pop music and thieves' slang"?

No! It's somebody's interpretation that it was Russian language ment by the writers.

Everybody who knows what kind of people surround Yanukovich and what is his past knows that they speak thieves' slang ("fenia") between themselves. And this is what was ment by the writers. The authors explained this many times:

"Everybody who knows what kind ... "You cannot do better than that to confess that what you are doing is prcisely what you are accusing me off - original research. I am saying what they are saying. It will not be very difficult to find a secondary source saying that the language Yanukovich wanted to make the second state language of Ukraine was Russian, and not Padonki, Surzhyk or even Moldavian (the mother tongue of the mayor of Odessa, whom Yushchenko replaced with a Chechen). Come on, you have been found out - you thought you could get away with a passage in Ukrainian. --Pan Gerwazy 18:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you and me are doing very different things. You insert your own interpretation of the primary source into the article, while I write mein on the talk page just to demonstrate you that another interpretation is possible. Moreover, there are secondary source that support my intepretation explicitely.--AndriyK 10:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

“ – Дехто на інтернет-форумах цікавиться, чи Андрухович вибачиться за фразу «мова попси й блатняку»?

– Ні. Не тому, що впертий, а тому, що не бачу причин для вибачень. Існує російська мова, яку я не ображав і свідомо відокремив від чогось, що нав’язували й нав’язують досі суспільству. Проти цього воляпюку, котрим розмовляє певна політична сила в Україні й було спрямовано цей вислів. Я, між іншим, цим формулюванням відстоював права на чистоту російської мови та права російськомовної частини України на справжню російську культуру, котру дехто плутає з попсою та блатняком.

”

[1]

“ щоб не ображати російську мову, ми написали про мову попси і блатняка, бо це різні речі. ”

[2]

“ "Работая над текстом открытого письма, мы сознательно отказались от понятия "русский язык", ибо дело не в нем. Употребленное нами выражение "язык попсы и блатняка" следует понимать как образно-метафорическую структуру (по аналогии с "язык насилия", "язык войны" или же напротив - "язык любви"). ”

[3]

Seems I do not need to look for a second source as you provided it yourself. They said "language of popsi and thieves" instead of "Russian language", like other people say "Moskal" instead of "Russian". Quod erat demonstrandum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pan Gerwazy (talk • contribs)

Not really. Please reread the above quote. It states explicitly, that the point they were making was not about the Russian language but the slang and even this was used in a metaphoric sense. How is this relevant to the article about Russophobia ? --Lysy^talk 19:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yanukovich promised to make the Russian language the second state language of Ukraine. The text of their letter says "Yanukovich promises to give the language of popsy and thieves' slang the absurd status of second state language". AndriyK suggested above that it was not Russian that was meant there. But they meant (metaphorically, of course) Russian. Only, their sentence was not to be understood literally of course, because it was a metaphore. When Yanukovich had just spoken Russian in the TV debate? Did Yanukovich speak Surzhyk in the debate? I understand what they are saying as "I said that, but I did not mean it: I was using a metaphore." And I do not see "the language Yanukovich speaks with his friends" in their later defense either. --Pan Gerwazy 20:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The same is about "Chehen boeviks". Do the writers say something about Chechens? And if they even did, what has it to do to Russophobia?--AndriyK 16:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have a point. Chechen is not in their text, but I wanted to explain what it was about. In any cas, the word boyevik in English is only used when referring to Chechens, so it is redundant. The Russophobia, my friend, is in their heads: when you say this sort of thing, you are saying that the Russians only have themselves to blame when the Chechens attack their hospitals and schools. I am not going to synthesize this, because it would be original research - leave it to the readers what they think about it. But we need of course a chapter about how the Chechen war was reported by the press (and conceived by the public at large) in the West and in some East European countries like Poland. --Pan Gerwazy 18:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I replaced "boyevik" thingy with "armed militants" as more generic. Since authors not referred specifically to any events but explicitly linked possible attacks to the actions of "Muscovite generals", I added that they likely meant Kizlyar, Budennovsk and Beslan.RJ CG 18:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Can the section about Chechens be removed from the section about Ukraine then ? --Lysy^talk 19:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Chechen boyeviks" can be replaced by "boyeviks", yes. Not by "partisans" of course. Come on, we know what hospital and what school they are talking about. The use of the word "partisan" would serve only one purpose: confuse the reader, who may be misled into thinking this is about the second world war. --Pan Gerwazy 19:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean "boevik" of course. Boyevik is a name of a town in Kazakhstan. What would be the English word for "boevik" ? Anyway, I suggest to remove the sentence altogether, as it does not seem relevant to the article. --Lysy^talk 20:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Generic English term would be "armed militant". I corrected the section accordingly, unaware of the whole controversy. RJ CG 18:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Does not matter how you traslate "бойовик" into English, it remains unclear what all this has to do with Russophobia.--AndriyK 19:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks more like the good old fear-mongering to me.RJ CG 20:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Boyevik is easier to pronounce for English speakers, but that is not important. The sentence is very relevant, because the belief that Russians (and their friends like the Ossetians) have only themselves to blame when their hospitals and schools get attacked, is more indicative of Russophobia than much of what is mentioned here. And it should the intoduction of a section on the Chechen war and its treatment in the press outside Russia, sadly missing here. "The Ukrainian writers were not the only ones to blame the Russians themselves for ... --Pan Gerwazy 20:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is difficult. The sentence requires the explanation that you just provided in order to be understandable for an uninitiated reader. On the other hand, we cannot make such comment in the article, as it would be your own interpretation, and surely disputable. Ideally, you should be able to attribute this view to a published source. Also, it seems that this may be too subtle to be presented in the article in a clear and not controversial way. --Lysy^talk 20:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Pan Gerwazy, what do these "boeviks" or "boyeviks" have to do with Russophobia? Where does the primary source say "Russians (and their friends like the Ossetians) have only themselves to blame when their hospitals and schools get attacked"? This is clearly you interpretation, a vary strange interpretation I must add. Please reread WP:PSTS.--AndriyK 11:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A tagged the section as POV until the idscussion is resolved.--AndriyK 16:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, link #47 does not work in this section. Secondly, is common sense allowed to be used on wiki? Yanukovich proposed to make the Russian language as a second state langauge, not some slang, or popsa, or a metaphorical langauge. So the letter could only refer to the Russian language in its purposefully insulting way. Even if the letter did not call it by name, it identified the language unambigously by "proposed as another state language" phrase. All the retractions are a typical damage control done by politicians after an outrageous act. Pavel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.172.192.174 (talk) 20:45, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone here will be interested

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Holocaust#Requesting_specidic_articles_on_the_extermination_of_the_Soviet_POWs_and_Operation_.22Erntefest.22

I'm not anymore since no one else there was. --HanzoHattori 22:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

And also no, they were not only Russians. --HanzoHattori 22:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the cite KM.RU a reliable source?

“ Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. ”

Does somebody really believe that KM.RU satisfy this criterion? ;) --AndriyK 16:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

“ An example of Anti-Russian sentiment were Russophobic leaflets spread among football fans of FC Karpaty Lviv during its match with FC Shakhtar Donetsk (from almost exclusively Russian-speaking Donetsk). During the match the Lviv fans shouted their infamous "Put the Russians on the knives!" hymn. ”

Did any respectable media (like REUTERS, AP, BBC etc. or any respectable newspaper or TV station) report anything about this incident? Or nobody heard about it, except KM.RU?--AndriyK 11:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the dubious paragraph from the article. Everybody is free to restore it if the incident was reported by respectable information agencies.--AndriyK 08:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think it belongs here. This is a typical example of football hooliganism, not Russophobia. You could find similar examples in any other countries. --Lysy^talk 09:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti-national sentiment in Russia

I just found out that the Anti-national sentiment in Russia Wikipedia article needs a lot of work. Instead of desperatly looking for anti-Rusianism abroard, it's better to fight Rasicm in Russia. Atleast Russians arn't getting killed in Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, Turkmenistan and the United States , in Russia black students/kids are getting stabted to death because there non-white!!!! Mariah-Yulia 19:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That article has always been a mess. It was Russophobe from the start and when attempts to delete or NPOV it failed because of the usual "save wikipedia from red terror" crowd, some Russian nationalists set upon making the article useless. They won the argument over caucasophobia not really having become a common word even in Russia(n). They were right of course: Russian racists do not target people living in the Caucasus, they target "chornye", anyone who looks too Mediterranean (that excludes eg Kadyrov) and does not have a baptismal cross under his shirt (proving he is either Armenian or Ossetian), but the article should never have been renamed to this. If you do not see that the title is a complete sinker, because to most people it would suggest "anti-Russian feeling in Russia", and we need a re-name far more urgently than adding old stuff from 2004, you have a problem. Judging on the number of exclamation marks you use, better be prepared for people claiming you may have a COI problem as well.

By the way, Russians do not get killed in West European streets, but "chornye" (Turks and Maroccans mostly) and Negroes do. There were 4 people in Belgium alone in 2006 and 2007 - adjusting for population that would mean 56 on the Russian scale. It could be argued that the situation in Russia is not so peculiar that it deserves its own article.--Pan Gerwazy 08:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not have a COI problem before reading this article! I find it irritating when people use Wikipedia to make there country/group look better then the rest. I must admit I lost my temper yesterday, but i found it again today! Mariah-Yulia 15:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we agree that Racism in Russia is an existing and growing problem ? Maybe it would be the most adequate name for the article then. This said I don't think this discussion belongs here and suggest to continue it at Talk:Anti-national sentiment in Russia. --Lysy^talk 10:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say more generally: Xenophobia in Russia.--AndriyK 11:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say even more generally: Xenophobia in the former Soviet Union.Lawfrench 21:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Russian Cultural Centre

Hillock can you please expain your removal of the image, the repeated vandalism of that building is a merit to Russophobia in Western Ukraine. --Kuban Cossack 19:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You and Russianname have a history of presenting meaningless unencyclopedic pictures for evidence of something. Last time it took efforts of several outside editors to remove irrelevant picture from another article and here you go again with a rediculous picture, which you claim is the Russian Cultural Centre. This picture doesn't show that it is that particular building, it doesn't show that it is indeed vandalism and it presents no proof that it is anywhere in Ukraine. And most importantly, even if all the above-mentioned facts had been proven, which they had obviously not, how dare you make assumptions and conclusions about anything on evidence of one case? In short, this unencyclopedic garbage should not be here. --Hillock65 23:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So hold on a second you are saying that this is not Moscow Kremlin nor is this Kreschatik in Kiev? There is actually a plaque in the image saying Русский Культурный Центр. Not vandalism you ask? ref1, and here is the same centre with a detailed history of attacks by the most "European" Ukrainian city. Also extravagant claims such as garbage and what goes into an article or not is but a POV you cary, and wikipedia must have neutrality, and all POV's must trumped. Happy edits! --Kuban Cossack 18:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Look attentively at the picture you were trying to insert. It shows a charred wall of some building. The rest is your imagination. Then compare to the pictures of Kremlin above. Notice the difference. This is NO comparison. --Hillock65 23:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Nonsense if not bad will. Just enlarge the picture and you will see the sign on the wall: Русский культурный центр. Russianname 16:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Russophobia or just a plain vandalism?

Is there any published evidence of Russophobic motivation behind this act of vandalism? It could be done by huligans without any political agenda.--Mbuk 23:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at the article about the Russian cultural center. It is vandalized and attacked every year. The walls were signed with anti-Russian and anti-Semitic inscriptions dozens of times. Now the sculpture of Russian poet was burnt. --Russianname 17:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any anti-Russian or anti-Semitic inscriptions in the picture.

I visited my relatives in Ukraine two or three years ago. All buttons in the elevator in their house are burned, because some idiots have fun watching burning plasic. Such idiots could do the same with the sculpture. You have to provide stronger evidence that this vandalism´action is related to Russophobia rather than to ordinary huliganism.

Please do not remove the tag before the discussion is over.--Mbuk 18:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the image for now because its authenticity is not verified. It should be included again once reliable sources are provided. Reinis^talk 22:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Tiahnybok's poster

Can someone provide the reference to a newsagency or some other repuative source confirming that such posters were indeed distributed in Lviv? The point is that WP is not suited for publication of new fact, it rather summarises already published facts.--AndriyK 18:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[4], [5]. --Kuban Cossack 20:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The article in its present state features in section about Ukraine a picture of a charred side of the building, which looks to have been caused by a fire in the transformer. This is claimed to be an act of vandalism. This picture is unencyclopedic, unprovable and dubious. There is virtually no evidence to support this claim. It does not belong in an encyclopedic article and should not be here. --Hillock65 18:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

To me, it looks like someone threw stuff at the side of the building. Just my thoughts. --Son 00:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Long version: The plaque on the building says "Русский культурный центр", or "Russian Cultural Center". The damage on the wall is consistent with both paint being thrown and something on the wall being set on fire. The zoomed-in, pre-fire version shows that the thing that was on fire was not a transformer, but a bust of Pushkin, Russia's most famous poet. In other words, the photograph shows paint splatters and a burned statue, hence is consistent with the claim of vandalism. The only thing we need now is evidence that shows the building in question is located in Lviv, and not, for example, Kiev. This evidence is not hard to find: this article states that on the night of April 25, 2007, the bust of Alexander Pushkin on the facade of the Russian Cultural Center in Lviv was set on fire and destroyed (because it was made of flammable plastic). Putting 2 and 2 together, it seems clear to me that the picture is genuine. Since vandalism against a Russian Cultural Center would be interpreted by many reasonable people as a sign of Russophobia, the photograph belongs in the Russophobia page.

Short version: image is encyclopedic, provable, and genuine. However, the "before vandalism" Pushkin image also needs to be added to provide proper context. Tetromino 01:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am removing this RFC from the list of RFCs. If it is still active then please resubmit. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Religious aspects

Is negative attitude to Orthodox religion relevant to Russophobia? There are many predominantly Orthodox nations, Russian is only one of them. There are also Orthodox monorities in predominantly Catholic or Protestant countries, wich are not Russian nationals or ethnic Russians.

I wonder, does any serious source attribute the rivary between Orthodoxy and Catholicism to Russophobia, or this is just somebodies POV and OR?--Mbuk 07:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

OK: have a look at the history and talk page of Belarusian Greek Catholic Church, at Union of Brest, at Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (where you will notice that someone in 2000 was still calling the Russian Orthodox Church "the red church". Put simply, most Orthodox (and they have protestants on their side) contend that the Roman Catholic Church got the Polish government and later also the Austrian and Austro-Hungarian empires to support the Union of Brest to counteract Russian (pardon me, "Muscovite")influence in Eastern Europe. So, after the fall of Constantinople, the political and the religious aspect got intertwined. As for Orthodox outside the normal Orthodox area, it is noteworthy that both the Czechs who converted to Orthodoxy after 1919 (Czech Orthodox Church, finished off by the nazis) and the American Slovaks and Ruthenes who went from Greek Catholic to Orthodox (when the American Roman Catholic curch wanted to impose Italian priests on them) were called Russophile churches. --Pan Gerwazy 09:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if you can cite serious author who interprets what you have written as Russophobia, please consider rewriting the section Russophobia#Religious aspects. Anyway, what is now written in the article is quite different from what you are telling here. It might be related to "Greekophobia", but not to Russophobia. I'll remove the corresponding paragraph. You are invited to replace it with more relevant information, if you can cie serious authors.--Mbuk 23:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Our Lady of Fatima miracle

Can any serious author be cited that interpret this stuf as Russophobia?--Mbuk 23:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Its an attempt of the catholic church to convert Russia-Russians to catholicism.--84.94.37.90 09:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Georgia

“ Many Georgians see the Russian government as the ultimate culprit behind the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict‎ and the Georgian-Ossetian conflict ”

Does any critical view at the Policy of the Government of the country X have to be considered as X-phobia? If somebody disagries with thepolicy of Bush's policy in Iraq, is hé "americanophob"? What about Americans who criticise the policy of their government? Are they also "americanophobs"?

Are the Russians having negative opinion about Putin's regime "russophobs"?--Mbuk 08:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I see, nobody objects. I'll delete the section about Georgia.--Mbuk 23:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me but are you people stupid?? GEORGIANS HATE RUSSIANS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.49.114 (talk) 21:36, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

If you have any reliable source saying that, please add it. Otherwise, please don't use Wikipedia for spreading xenophobia.80.235.67.188 06:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo's contributions to the "Poland" section

Please explain the purpose of calling Gazeta Wyborcza, the then largest Polish daily newspaper, a "an obscure Polish outlet". [6] --Lysy^talk 08:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please explain the purpose of replacing links to English-language sources by links to Polish-language sources and cite the appropriate guideline which qualifies these edits as appropriate. I might add tons of material to Anti-Polonism and to this article, but I would not, because I don't want to stir up controversies. As one Estonian said to my friend in Tallinn, "Remember that the Russian's eyes may be blue, but his arse is black." I don't think any encyclopaedia is supposed to contain remarks of this sort, as well as arbitrary quotations from media. Anyone insisting on stray quotations from Polish media should familiarize himself with WP:SYN. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There was no Polish language source link. You replaced one English source link with another English source link. Now, back to my question: what was your purpose in calling the major Polish newspaper "an obscure Polish outlet" ? --Lysy^talk 12:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo's wholesale reverts of the section

I don't mind citing the NYT's commentary as the source, especially that it was NYT, who in the very same article stated that Pavlovsky was "an adviser to President Vladimir Putin of Russia". The statement by the Russian analyst Boris Makarenko was fully sourced as was the statement of Adam Rotfeld. They explain the political nature of the Polish-Russian enmity very well. I don't think that the political row is very relevant to Russophobia itself, but it can stay if you insist. However the reasons for your revert of all the other edits still await your explanation. --Lysy^talk 09:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Second.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  11:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You have added some tendentious stuff about Partitions of Poland, conveniently forgetting to mention: 1) that it was not Russia who instigated the partitions; 2) that the first partitions resulted in the occupation of enthically Ukrainian and Belarusian territories whose Orthodox East Slavic population had been oppressed by Catholic West Slavic Poles for centuries; 3) that the core territory of Poland was not occupied until the Poles led Napoleon into Moscow, retracing their route of 1612. To assume that Russia was wrong to liberate East Slavs from the centuries of religious and cultural oppression is POV. We are not expected to pass facile judgments. In short, the entire issue is too controversial to be treated briefly. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I did not add any "tendentious stuff". This was a direct citation from the previously cited Russian analyst, and it's hard to accuse him of being Russophobic or tendentious in the direction of anti-Russian sentiment. I simply expanded the quotes provided by the anonymous editor without a context with a more prominent statement from the same source. I understand that your personal opinion may differ with that of Boris Makarenko, but that's no reason enough to remove his citation. --Lysy^talk 12:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

1) "it was not Russia who instigated the partitions": "Catherine's the Great leading part in Partitions of Poland and other expansive policies [produced] by the end of the 18th century the phenomena known as Russophobia"[7]. Of course, it is true that Russian policy varied, and Prussia was perhaps the main instigator - but in all three partitions, Catherine's eventually supported them completely.

2) "that the first partitions resulted in the occupation of enthically Ukrainian and Belarusian territories whose Orthodox East Slavic population had been oppressed by Catholic West Slavic Poles for centuries": sure, sure, and Russian reign was much more enlightened: "[Catherine] reduced the status of serfs to chattel property. Under Catherine, the Ukrainians lost the last vestiges of sovereign self-government as a people. The Jews [...] were confined to Pale of Settlement. Catherine's repression of the Jews set the model for her successors..." [8]

3) "that the core territory of Poland was not occupied until the Poles led Napoleon into Moscow, retracing their route of 1612". Core territory is a quite POVed concept, but let me reply that Russia certainly didn't occupy back ('reclaim') any Russian core territories in the last partitions - and it had no more right to the Ukrainian, Belarusian or Lithuanian lands then the Poles.

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course it had. It is Rus territory, Orthodox territory. Russia had more rights on it in every respect. In Russia there was the serf system, but there was no ethnic discrimination of Ukrainians. In Russia, a Ukrainian could be in any state office, better don't ask about Poland. A Ukrainian was regarded as equal in Russia. Moreover, there was the Treaty of Pereyaslav, whereas Ukrainian never expressed any wish to be with Poland. Moreover, they slaughtered Poles under German occupation and didn't do that with Russians. Why? Voyevoda 16:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Enough of that emperialist BS! Not even all Ukrainians and Belarusians are Orthodox. If anyone wants to read about the slaughter of Russians by Ukrainians read more. For example here: The Battle of Konotop. Keep to the subject matter of the article and steer away from loaded Russian nationalist assumptions. --Hillock65 17:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually nearly all of Belarusians ARE Orthodox. Although I agree that there are some Ukrainians who are not Orthdox, though anti-Russian sentiment rarely travels beyond their haven, as correctly pointed out by your example.--Kuban Cossack 20:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It starts to look like a political or historical forum. Gentlemen, it is not our job here, to decide who had more and who less rights to occupy Ukraine and Belarus. The role of WP descriptive, rather than prescriptive. The discussion like this one is completely useless for Wikipedia.--AndriyK 17:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the whole dispute about who had more "rights" to occupy Ukraine is inherently silly and does not belong here. --Lysy^talk 21:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Article title

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move the page from Russophobia to Anti-Russian sentiment, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

---

During the votes for deletion multiple editors expressed the opinion that the proper article title would be Anti-Russian sentiment. In the past I moved this page to this title several times, but inevitably was reverted by those who favor strong words. How about vote? `'Míkka 22:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• P.S. A related talk is in Talk:Anti-Russian sentiment/Archive3#Recent page move to "Russophobia". `'Míkka 23:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support move to Anti-Russian sentiment. The present term is being frequently abused by people, who themselves exhibit multiple phobias. The proposed title is also neutral and is less of a magnet for Russian nationalists throwing it around. --Hillock65 22:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Although the terms are synonymous, they do have one striking difference, Russophobia describes a wider context of history and attitudes directed agains Russia, whilst Anti-Russian sentiment title restricts the scope of the article, and I for one have no -phobias. --Kuban Cossack 22:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • hehe. It is exactly vice versa: "Anti-Russian" sentiment is a broader term than "russophobia". Thta's why I suggested it in the first place. `'Míkka 23:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support. While "Russophobia" is indeed a widespread term, one has to differentiate a prejudice from anti-russian sentiment based on real political problems. Since the two issues are very difficult to separate (and in the current state wikipedians simply have no ability to separate), I suggest to use a more general term, at least until the wikicommunity matures enough to split the hair here without original research. `'Míkka 23:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support - Since Germanophobia is at anti-German sentiment. Reginmund 23:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support we should minimalize the usage of the word "phobia" in these articles, since they in no way are medical phobias. Anti-"something" sentiments are way better. User:Nikola Smolenski moved it back to Russophobia without any discussion. And the term Russophobia is not quite good when discussing the Nazis for example, it just does not cover it.--Pudeo⺮ 13:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support, I personally am doubting the use of -phobia in this context. IMO phobia should mean incontrollable fear. Which is not the case on those articles. Although I am not denying that this word is being used in this context very widely. Suva 13:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree with Míkka that the current title is much narrower than the article's contents. I would however suggest to limit the contents rather than expanding the scope of the title. We do not need an article containing all the frustrations, including "anti-Russian international politics". Keeping "Russophobia" article focused would require certain discipline, though. --Lysy^talk 15:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree about certain discipline in regards to the content. In its present state it resembles a complaint board, where new pictures and instances of Russophobia are added as they appear. This is not the purpose of this article - the phenomenon should be explained and illustrated with instances. You wouldn't expect Encyclopedia Britannica updating its article just because a Russian diplomat made an accusation. If someone wants to make an official complaint board of Russophobia instances, please find appropriate place. All superfluous illustrations beyond the necessary to explain actual phenomena should be removed. Bear in mind that this is an encyclopedia article and should remain such. --Hillock65 17:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support, I have already explained why - see the link provided by Mikka. --Pan Gerwazy 21:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edward Lucas

Just for the record, I strongly object to the inclusion of my article about "NASHI" being used as a source on this page. The accusation of racial prejudice is an outrageous slur. Surely it is possible to object to the current occupants of the Kremlin, their youth movements, and other political phenomena without being subject to this disgusting accusation? I strongly suggest that this page be deleted, or completely rewritten as "controversies about Russian politics and history".Edwardlucas 14:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You probably don't need to. InoSMI.ru is obviously not a reliable source, but in the business of portraying foreign mass media as Saying Nasty Things About Russians(tm). On that grounds, I'll revert that inclusion. Digwuren 14:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Russians are an ethnic group, not a race. This just shows the quality of E. Lucas-s journalism. Diwurgen, inosmi has nothing to do with the earticle-s content. The site just published the translation of the piece. The reference will be restore as soon as I have time.Lawfrench 22:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Attitude towards Russia and Russians by countries

Do we really need that kind of hate speech? It's also OR problem, as WP:OR includes introduction an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source. Propose to remove this whole section. Also other sections need rewriting.

Baltic States

The events listed under Estonia and Latvia are not events of anti-Russian sentiment, but Russian-language media accusations (and baseless at that) of such sentiments. In order to rectify this, I provided the relevant context, and for some reason, Mikkalai reverted it. Why? Digwuren 18:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it is your spin to make an illusion that your Russophobia is a fault of Russian newspapers. `'Míkka 18:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not have such a phobia, but I do have a buttload of sources pointing out that Russian newspapers make such accusations, and that they're baseless.

Besides, you still did not explain removal of the necessary context. For example, why would you not want it to be pointed out that the Latvia's schools affected by the 2004 law have been, and still are fully funded by the Latvian state? Digwuren 18:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, russians and latvians and estonians are one happy family. And it is kremlin who stirs the mud. I hear you. `'Míkka 19:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

First, you're providing a false dilemma here, which is certainly not useful to your position -- unless you want to be seen as a cheap rhetorician.

Second, Kremlin's rôle is only a part of the story. A major problem is that of Russian journalistic culture, which tends to be much more yellow than is the custom in the West, and is very rather easily provoked into running unchecked sensationalist stories. As a Russian emigrant, you should have noticed how much Pravda has in common with National Enquirer.

Third, even if that was not the case, the context is still relevant. You can't remove it and hope to achieve WP:NPOV. Digwuren 19:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Senseless accusation against sources, which are objective and are yet to be proven false don't warrant massive change in opinions. Even Hitler did not openly say that all Russians are pigs. Same with the Baltic states, what we have is a collection which only points in the direction of Russophobia. However unlike your spin-off Estophobia, there is actually real events and facts to back them up, not senseless accusations. Please don't revert until consensus is reached. --Kuban Cossack 19:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Accusation remains an accusation regardless of the source. What you are saying sounds like an attempt to remove context to further your POV and that simply isn't OK. Reverting the whole thing makes no sense. However "Superfluous accusations of Anti-Russian sentiment" is out of place here and should be removed.--Alexia Death 20:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be merged into the lead. Something like "Also, anti-Russian sentiment is sometimes baselessly alleged by Russian media and authorities", and links to few newspieces analysing such baseless accusations. Digwuren 21:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, I remember the context that Estophobia contained, now you want bring this article to the same "standard"...pathetic --Kuban Cossack 21:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Quoted commentator Vyacheslav Nikonov

I suggest that it is a cute but totally pointless quote. We need an encyclopedic discourse about the roots of Russophobia, not a collection of witticisms. I move to delete it. BTW, WTH is this "prominent" Vyacheslav Nikonov? `'Míkka 19:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Why it is pointless? Because you don't like this? Actually this gives an example and explanation of Russophobic attitude in some countries. And at the same time you suggest that all this section about countries is an "encyclopedic discourse about the roots of Russophobia" and not just OR to push a POV? About "prominent" you could find same word when reading reference.

Yes I like it: it is funny. It gives an opinion (of a Canadian friend (sic!) ) but not an explanation. While it is cute, it is stupid at the same time. French are white as well, and think very different from Americans. But no one in clear mind would explain Amerrican francophobia by French being non-colored. `'Míkka 21:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Concerning OR tag, it was already discussed at the talk page and the page [9]. So I kindly ask you to put the OR tag back.

The tag sits right on top of the article. The exact same concern is valid for many sections. `'Míkka 21:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

And this is NOT a problem with "Religious aspects"?

It isn't as much pointless as discussing the issue through an analogy. In an encyclopædic text, such approach is problematic, and attempts to find more appropriate sources dealing in this matter are certainly useful. Digwuren 21:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This section has lot of OR problems, just some of them:

• "Political blocks such as GUAM were created to limit Russian influence in the ex-Soviet republics" - That kind of statement needs reference. It was several times asked and several times deleted by Kuban Kazak. Last sticker has been already for 4 month without any reference provided, so it is probably OR, and as such should be deleted.
• "more than 4 million ethnic Russians have immigrated to Russia from other former Soviet republics in 1990s." - referenced statement, but actually there is no proof that they immigrated because of anti-Russian sentiment. The source doesn't say anything about reasons. Maybe they immigrated because of anti-Russian sentiment, but maybe they are economic immigrants, or maybe they are great Russian patriots who returned to their Homeland to rebuild modern democratic Russia? We just don't knew, and giving this as example of anti-Russian sentiment is OR.
• "Many Azerbaijanis resent Russians" - Again, no reference. If there are many, you probably have problem to name at least ten of them?
• Occupation of the Baltic states. Interesting legal dispute, but what it has to do with anti-Russian sentiment? Is there any citation providing that there is anti-Russian sentiment in the Baltics because of the Soviet occupation? If not, this paragraph should be removed.
• All this unsourced "historical revisionism" crap inserted by Kuban Kazak recently doesn't need any comment. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not bulletin of Nashi movement. Even sourced, this not belongs here, but in some more relevant article.
• Citation of Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga". How this is related to the Anti-Russian sentiment or Russophobia? Did she talk about all Russians—Russians as nation? Or maybe you would like to say that Soviet veterans in Riga don't drink vodka and eat vobla on May 9? Just describing factual behavior of group of people is Anti-Russian sentiment? And who said this is an anti-Russian sentiment?
• Citizenship policy. Does jus sanguinis citizenship rules in any country (including Russia) should be considered as Anti-Russian sentiment? Again, this association is OR.
• If there is general xenophobia in Japan (citation needed), it can't be classified as specific Anti-Russian sentiment. And saying that Japanese are Russophobic because they think that all Russians behave as Russian sailors, is a very interesting point of view. What the Russian sailors have done to Japanese?
• Turkmenistan. This is an issue of human rights in general, not a specific Anti-Russian issue.

There are more that kind of OR things, and the main thing is a synthesis of different facts to make a case, which itself is OR. Also several references are problematic. Do you really know anybody who believes that Komsomolskaya Pravda (tabloid) or Compromat.ru are encyclopedic sources? In general, I propose to remove whole section and rewrite all modern anti-Russian sentiment from scraps without any kind of "hate lists".80.235.49.9 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, I implemented some of the more obvious changes. Reinis^talk 16:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Kuban Kazak added again compensation claims issue. It was removed previously, because, it's not Anti-Russian thing, but could be, if even so, legal dispute between countries. Before moving this paragraph as non-related to the topic, it also included information, which is missing in the version of Kubak Kazak:

• No compensation claim has been presented to Russia;
• On September 30, 2004 the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation published a report, which contended, that Russia, as the legal successor to the Soviet Union, is entitled to compensation for having vacated the three Baltic states.

So, current version is very POV.80.235.49.9 16:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the edits by Kuban kazak (talk · contribs), and I agree that they seem quite partisan. I've reworked the Baltic states subsection that he changed to make it more neutral. Reinis^talk 18:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sailor stereotypes

Sailors, often being somewhat isolated from the "landlubber" folks for extended periods of time (though admittedly, this has become less of a factor by now than it was a century ago) tend to carry a culture different from those of most ports they visit. Often, this culture is more "liberal" than those of more stationary professionals, especially in matters of initiative and sexuality, and accordingly, land-bound people tend to view sailors as amoral, savage, or uncultured. This effect is usually the stronger the more culturally homogenous the land people in question are -- and Japanese happen to be more so than people of most European regions since the Migration Period, which is what is (regrettably) considered the 'baseline' by many Wikipedian editors. (See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.)

In context of anti-Russian sentiments, this is relevant because for many Japanese, all Russians they ever see are sailors, and thus, it's relatively easy to equate these two categories — and carry over the stereotypical characterisations. Similarly, for many Japanese, the only Americans they see first-hand (as opposed to via television) are the United States Air Force troops stationed in Japan, and accordingly, Japanese tend to carry military stereotypes over to Americans. However, this phenomenon is considerably weaker, largely due to American people being a relatively frequent topic in many Japanese TV programmes. Digwuren 22:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

I could not find a good positive source regarding pre-war Latvian law not providing for naturalisation, only hints. Accordingly, I have asked Vecrumba to check the issue, and preliminary sources provided by him have made me consider this claim suspicious. Accordingly, I have attached a {{dubious}} tag to it. Digwuren 07:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Nazi affiliance

Generally, there's a point to be clarified. The article sais: "These allegations may be coupled to similarly non-factual accusations of Nazi affiliation." It's an interesting point. But don't you just mistake understandable negative reaction on SS marches and erecting monuments for SS veterans, with accusations of "Nazi affiliation" made on official level? I of course can cite my sources, but surely the author of these lines meant something particular, so I would like to listen to which Russian official and where had accused Latvia or Estonia of Nazi affiliation, and on which grounds. I'm sorry, I can't read in national languages of these countries, so could you please cite English or Russian sources, or at least provide some computer translation from those languages. ellol 10:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not. First of all, there are no SS marches or "monuments for SS veterans" in Estonia, but a watcher of Russian news media would be easily misled to believe otherwise. Digwuren 11:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, first of all, I didn't accuse you, or any person, or any country. Please, be civil, too. But note also that I don't claim that all happened in Estonia.

Look at this: [10], [11]. In 2005, 600 veterans of SS Waffen unit, marched in Riga, the marches being approved by the President of Latvia. In the next year, similar march was cancelled by authorities of Riga. Now look: [12]. There was a scandal in Estonia in 2002, as a monument to be opened contained SS insignia and showd Waffen SS soldier. That lead to demolition of the monument. In 2004 a monument honouring those who fought with Nazi against Soviet Union was opened in Estonian city of Lihula [13]. Also, there are monuments for SS soldiers at the Sinimae heights in Estonia[14].

There was also case of Vasily Kononov in Latvia [15] [16].

You can say that these events triggered unproportional, exaggerated reaction from Russia, and it made too much fuzz of it. Perhaps, it might look so from Estonian POV. But just to claim, that Russia accused -- who did it accuse, by the way? -- or may accuse someone of "similarly non-factual accusations of Nazi affiliation", is weird.

Anyway, what's "affiliation with Nazi" in your opinion? ellol 13:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Your presentation of information shows how uninformed(desinformed?) you are. The first two you listed about Estonia [17] and [18] are the same monument, set up twice, the later as Monument of Lihula. The monument had no Waffen SS insignia, just the generic German uniform. And it never was intended as a monument for Nazis, it was a monument to men that picked the wrong side out of desperation to keep the atrocities that occurred during the first soviet occupation from happening again and failed. Or to those who were simply drafted without choise. A bit tasteless since for the rest of the world Nazis were the greater evil... But its a bit hard to see the whole picture when soviets have just taken people from your village to imprisonment and miserable lives in Siberia. This applies to most men on the wrong side of the front. So what "Nazi affiliation" are we talking about here.--Alexia Death 19:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Alexia, from one side, I can understand you, people were in awful situation. From the other side, I can't understand you, because they fought, as you put that, on the wrong side. Just like I can't understand people from the Russian Liberation Army who also collaborated with Nazi. Anyway, it's clueless here, as I'm not anybody to judge, and moreover, it's not the point in this article.

Now it sais: "It should also be pointed out that anti-Russian sentiment, especially that based in foreign countries, is sometimes baselessly alleged by Russian media and authorities. These allegations may be coupled to similarly non-factual accusations of Nazi affiliation."

I understand and agree, that you, the Estonians, have your point of view and your truth. But can you too understand, that we in Russia have our truth?

What, did Russian media baselessly alleged Uruguay, or the Democratic Republic Kongo, or Argentina, or don't know, Zimbabve or Iran of anti-Russian sentiment? I want source for that! Did Russian authorities couple to that non-factual accusations of Nazi affiliation? Please, provide sources! ellol 21:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The truth isn't that Estonians are "Nazi affiliated" as Russian media puts it. You yourself admit it, we have our own truth. It has nothing to do with Nazis or any sympathy to them. It has all to do with trying to survive when two giants battle over your home. Brothers of our nation, separated only by few years at birth may have ended up on opposing sides in battle due to drafts. How can we condemn one over the other, one joined the army that somewhere supported genocide of some people the other joined an army that came with "liberation" and a genocide on their own people... Or we condemn both? Even tho they had no choice? See the dilemma? So how is spreading lies and exaggerations in Russian media serving your truth? Or perhaps it is not your truth that is being served, but your myth of greatness? Does it make your nation feel grater, if they name their number one enemy a country of 1,4 million? It's like a high-school boy loathing and bullying a five year old... And I don't understand it. --Alexia Death 06:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As for Sinimäed monument, there was raised a small memorial with no Nazi/Communist/other symbolics whatsoever (well, excluding Christian, as it is a cross in stone circle) on year 2000 with simple dedication "For the fallen". It was raised there in hopes for it to become a place where veterans in both sides - Red Army and Waffen SS - could peacefully meet. I have no idea what is happening there now, but I know that on first few years Estonian veterans on both sides held meetings there - peaceful affairs where they put flowers on the nearby graves and sung wartime songs, all Russian, Estonian and German. I couldn't find a decent picture of the memorial, but there is one here, rather small, unfortunately. As usual, Russian media has made it into some kind of "Estonians worship Nazis" thing... don't know why anyone still believes that. Sander Säde 03:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the case, that part of the lead has POV issues. If it can't be reworded and sourced better, it should go. Reinis^talk 08:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but these attempts by Baltic editors to have this in the lead is simply incredible. These are matters of opinion, no matter how many Baltic POV sources you cite. Russians have their own opinions, and Baltic countries have their own opinions on these issues.--Ilya1166 08:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion, anyway. :) Reinis^talk 13:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I am truly happy that one Estonian contributor took it on him/herself to remove irrelevant POV-pushing statements introduced by other Estonian wikipedian. Let's leave this sorry step behind. RJ CG 13:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this nazi crap had to be gone, but grouping editors by their nationality is something what already happened seventy years ago in some countries.

Religious aspects

Does Anti-Orthodox is a same as Anti-Russian? If not, this section has nothing to do in this article.

No arguments are presented that Anti-Ortodox sentiment and Anti-Russian sentiment are same thing. Therefore this section will be removed.80.235.67.188 06:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Turkmenistan

Cancellation of the dual-citizenship agreement is an intergovernmental issue. This can't be classified as Russophobia or Anti-Russian sentiment. In this case cancellation of any agreement by country x should be mean anti-country y sentiment. Concerning recognition of diplomas, does the non-recognition applies only to the Russian diplomas or to all foreign diplomas? If to all, this is not Anti-Russian sentiment. Also, according to the international law there is no obligation to transmit foreign TV and radio programs. So, it seems that only discrimination at universities should remain, if it is proved that this applies especially to ethnic Russians.

It is Russophobia, as Turkmenistan is a heavy-russified country where the russian language has the same status(in many cases bigger) as Turkmen, the mothertounge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.49.114 (talk) 21:38, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Russification is not an argument. And could you specify what is the Russian language status in Turkmenistan? However, this is clearly general issue of human rights and not specific Anti-Russian sentiment issue. This information has already included in Human rights in Turkmenistan, so no need to have it here.80.235.67.188 06:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

E-Generator Survey

I restored it in "Sentiment by Country" chapter. I understand this is repeated info, but survey is highly relevant to chapter. I suppose it should stay there until somebody dares to re-work this mess of an article to some consistent format. RJ CG 14:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have doubts whether its notable and about the methodology they used, because they had a quantitatively poor and non-random sample. I don't think it belongs in the article at all, but if it does, it should stay in the media section, not in the international attitudes section. Reinis^talk 14:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

To start observing the situation, in 2002 or 2003 in Russia had arisen the website http://inosmi.ru The first time in history of Russia, it launched a program of massive translations of world articles about Russia (mostly English ones) into Russian. They claim, that they daily observe the pool of 600 editions [19].

It wouldn't be exaggeration to say, that it's since that moment the Russian public gained access to storage of information about what world newspapers write about Russia.

Then, taking the second step. Project launched by E-generator is perhaps the first attempt in Russia to estimate with some quantative criteria the level of neutrality of world media concerning Russia.

Perhaps, you may get an idea of its notability, as Google returns over 1000 hits for "Rating of Russophobia" [20]: this includes republishing of their original work, overview of it in newspapers/blogs/forums, their further works. Not bad, imho.

Their methodology is laid down in the body of the article, and constitutes most of it, in fact. Can you read it yourself, or do you need for anybody to translate tha in into English?

Yes, it's an investigation concerning only a sample topic -- view of Russia's chairmanship in G8.

Yet after that E-generator (precisely, authors of the original work Konstantin Belousov, Natalya Zelyanskaya) made some more work: e.g. a cycle of investigations concerning view of Litvinenko's death and its probable influence on image of Russia and Russia's president: [21]. Another their work was "rating of western-phobia" of Russian media, work similar to their "rating of Russo-phobia of Western media": [22] So I guess their work is intended not to whitewash Russia, but to make it clear what's the world we live in. I believe passage about "Rating of russophobia" should be rewritten with the usage of all three articles. ellol 16:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

See also

While removing the "see also" tag of the Occupation of Baltic states, Irpen added edit summarry: rm pull/pushing. Why next thing, someone would include Muscovite-Lithuanian Wars into "see also"). This statement is incorrect because this article says nothing about Muscovite-Lithuanian Wars. At the same time there is a whole paragraph about occupation of the Baltic states. Therefore it is natural that "see also" refers to the article, which deals with this issue. If you will remove "see also" you should remove also the whole relevant paragraph.

Also, I'm not sure if "see also" tags, referring to the Russian diaspora in particular countries, are needed. Do you suggest that there is a linkage between Russian diaspora and Anti-Russian sentiment?80.235.67.188 07:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Any country fought with all its neighbors at some point of time. We do not include Russo-Japanese War into a Japan section either. If you think the 1940 events are relevant to Russophobia in some states, the respective article should be properly linked from within the text. In fact it is already linked. Please do not forget to log in. --Irpen 07:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In Western media

A sterling example of Russophobia: http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9800547 I like the picture. Someone should incorporate the key passages into the article. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

+Not only you've noticed the thing about the Economist. Note the recent article in "the Exile": [23]. ellol 09:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Russian businessman

Is this passage really an example of Anti-Russian sentiment?: In the mid of 2006, the State Department of the United States cancelled Russian businessman Oleg Deripaska’s multiple-entry visa claiming that Oleg Deripaska wasn't being candid with them about his past business dealings. The visa cancellation occurred in the United States amid rising concerns and calls for counter efforts about Russian businessmen and companies attempts to enhance their economic and political clout in the West.[47]

Unless there's direct evidence that this was illegitimate, it could just be a matter of the businessman. This article should not speculate as to whether certain incidents are anti-Russian without sources saying so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Does numerical strength of taxpaying community relevant to it's right to receive education in native language?

I added comment that Estonian and Latvian governments are planning on limiting ability of Russian minorities to receive education in it's native language, despite pretty serious numerical strength of minorities (35% and 29% respectively). This edit had been reversed as irrelevant. In my opinion, numerical strength of community is pretty relevant here, as Baltic countries are, if my memory serves me well, only countries in Europe which limit opportunity to be schooled in native language for third or forth of population (I would love to stand corrected on that). I'd like somebody to intervene to avoid turning this question into yet another "Russians versus Baltics" shouting match. RJ CG 16:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is irrelevant because you are talking about population rates. But please, take a look at the birth rate statistics.

Let's give you some numbers: Let's say 10 Estonian students are going into 10th grade in school at year 2012. Which is already too expensive to upkeep because only 10 students. Now let's take Russian school at the same location (assuming 30% of Russian minority) 30% of 10 = 3(!) people are going to 10th grade at the same location. There is no way you can uphold a school with only 9 students! (Three grades, each 3 students). Now if the russians go to estonian school there will be 10 * 3 + 3 * 3 = 39 students. Which would keep the school.

My home school was closed because of that few years ago, nearest russian school was closed long time before that because of same reasons. Suva Чего? 17:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe we're talking about different things here. Reorganization of schools in order to increase their size, although may be used to quietly reduce number of seats in Russian schools, has nothing to do with "plans for phasing them out, with the stated goal of improving the Russophone students' skill of the state languages", as an article says. Estonia isn't trying to find a better way to use educational budget, it is engaged in the organized campaign to deny right to be schooled in it's native language to a huge minority. RJ CG 17:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read official sources:

Copied from [24]: Why do Russian medium upper secondary schools (grades 10 to 12) need to start the transition to Estonian medium studies?

Transition to Estonian medium studies is primarily designed to enable students studying at Russian medium schools to obtain a good command of Estonian. The ability to speak the state language is essential at university, where the studies commences in Estonian; it is a pre-requisite for acquiring Estonian citizenship, and will be of advantage to students on labour market. Schools in which subjects are taught in the language of a national minority form a part of the Estonian education system. In a small country such as Estonia, this system should be harmonised, as this ensures quality, and quality of education means equal opportunities to all secondary school graduates. The number of students in Estonia is decreasing significantly. According to the forecasts, by 2012 there will only be between 1500 and 1700 students in the 10th grades of Russian medium gymnasiums. This rapid drop in the number of students is a challenge to Russian medium schools, as it is to Estonian medium schools.

The final goal is to guarantee russians a better education. Because estonia desperately needs educated people. Saying that estonia does that because it wants to torture russian is highly ridiculous, sorry. :) Suva Чего? 18:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

Regarding: "Estonia and Latbia [sic.] have been accused of phasing out Russian-language schools {{cn}} (despite having large Russophone minorities)." There is no mention of who it is that is doing the accusing, there is no indication of scope of the issue (numbers of students identifying Latvian/Estonian/Russian et al.) as their primary language, whether primary, secondary, etc., no historical information as to whether numbers are going up or down to indicate whether the scope of the alleged problem is increasing or decreasing. Please feel free to remove the tag on that paragraph once sourced and detail added. PētersV 18:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed some of your concerns before you raised them. :) This section wouldn't be here anyways if the article wouldn't be coatrack in first place. There is nothing russophobic or anti-russian in the programme, it's main purpose in fact is addressing the problem that schools have to be closed because of low student counts and people need high education and good skills, because Estonia desperately needs skilled and educated people. As secondary reason is intended to bring ethnic estonian and russian people closer and lessen the cultural gap between them. Latvian programme has been reported to be successful thus far. Suva Чего? 19:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Russian sentiment#Attitude towards Russia and Russians by countries

This section is suppose to document attitudes by countries towards Russia, but all we have is a WP:COATRACK of Russian government accusations against some countries, like the Baltics. This section needs a thorough clean up. Martintg 23:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Poland" definitely qualifies for the section title "Russia's allegations regarding attitudes toward Russians in other countries." Might be easier to just change the section title. Then there are facts which are presented as anti-Russian sentiment, all WP:SYNTH. PētersV 23:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to change the section title, but Irpen reverted me. So I removed the Baltic section, since it was not consistent to the title. Martintg 23:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Now Irpen has restored the Baltic section, with a meaningful edit comment "Are you joking", but ignoring the discussion on talk. Martintg 23:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I provided numerous refrences including Vodka Vobla and Chastushki, closing of Russian schools, and of course Territory claims, if those are allegations, someone has to get their facts straight. --Kuban Cossack 09:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what WP:OR and WP:SYNT are by the definition.80.235.55.51 16:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am really not comfortable with "government accusations" statement. Baltic countries and Poland are suspected of Russophobia not only by government, but by wide Russophone community both in Russia and abroad. This is one of very few POVs, shared by Pravda, official TV, Russian independent media (what's left of it) and emigrant publications, even ones who rabidly oppose any action of current Russian regime. In fact, I can't think of other event in the world which draws similar reaction from all these groups (with possible exception of the revisionism of WWII in Baltic countries). So this is not "government" POVs, but the way Russophone community sees it. Which brings another question. Who are to judge what is "Russophobic" and what is "natural course of things"? Generally (I mean, when we're talking about any other ethnic, race or religious group but Russians) such judgement is very heavily based on community's opinion. I.e., if community feels offended by certain actions/statements, it is generally viewed as "phobia" against this community. I am sure Vecrumba understands my point, if he follows debates on blacks and crime in NYC. This rule seem to be reversed in the case of Russians and Russophobia. Estonians and Latvians seem to feel that they have right to judge how their domestic Russians must feel about closures of the Russian schools or purging Russian language from the Universities or revising history in order to paint them and their offspring as illegal and/or hostile alients or denying citizenship to people who (as well as, sometimes, their parents and even grandparents) had been born in this country. Well, going to my original point, who's to decide what Russophobia is? Is Russian opinion allowed here at all? RJ CG 13:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid making such strong statements on topics you have no idea about. Go and edit topics about Russians in Canada or whatever else you DO know about. Suva Чего? 14:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Suva, should I provide a certificate of racial purity before I am allowed to write about Baltic affairs? RJ CG 13:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

My dear RJ CG, in 2000 the entire global Russian press (outside Russia) and tag-along representatives of the Russian Duma descended upon Latvia for their annual conference in order to showcase Latvia's Russophobic ethnocratic vile oppression of its Russian minority. Sadly for your contentions, they all had a great time at Jurmala (known between the wars as the Baltic Riviera), and even representatives of the Duma stated that the situation in Latvia was not as had been represented by the Russian authorities or by Latvian Russian "human rights activists." The agitprop of Russian authorities and of defenders of the Soviet motherland attempting to continue their personal influence by carving out a political base for themselves by calling themselves human rights activists does not define informed public Russian opinion.

   And thank you for bringing up "revisionism." The Baltics again are a touchstone by which to judge intent. Only in the Baltics is countering proven blatant lies with undeniable facts called "revisionism."

   Again, here as elsewhere, if you would like to bring reputable sources to the discussion to contribute please do so.

   P.S. Before independence, Latvia was a favorite place for Russian military to retire, I think the total was somewhere around 40,000. So, what happened when the Russian troops "left"? Anyone with an apartment or house "retired" and legally claimed their residence. As long they obtained it "legally" under the Soviets--that means it could have been seized from the prior owner, who (with their heirs) had no recourse under post-independence law to get their original property back, only something of replacement value--they got to keep it. Not a penny to pay anyone. And if at retirement age, they received a pension from Latvia. Anyone who got on the train went back to Russia got, let's see... NO BARRACKS, NO PAY, Russia not rolling yet in oil/gas revenue. Latvia treated the very embodiment of its former Soviet oppressor--the Russian army, formerly Red Army--infinitely better than Russia treated her own.

   P.P.S. A majority of Latvia's Russians are citizens, and have been for quite some time now. PētersV 15:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm glad RJ CG mentions New York. In New York there are people who care only about who you are as a person. There are (fortunately a very small minority) of people who care only about what label they can slap on you. White or black has nothing to do with whether one is counted as being in the former or latter group. Latvia is the same. I have met Latvians and Russians who make wonderful Latvians because they care about their country, and Latvians and Russians who make miserable Latvians because they care only about exploiting others for their personal gain--power, money, usually both. And I have crossed paths with Latvians and Russians (fortunately a very small minority) who simply insist on mutual hate to the exclusion of anything else. "Latvian" or "Russian", "Latvian" vs. "Russian", has nothing to do with it. It's a personal choice. PētersV 15:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You completely missed my point. All your wonderful examples and original research are nice, and I have no doubts that you wholeheartedly believe that being schooled in non-native Latvian language (which give one access to 2,2 mln strong labour market) rather than native Russian (which gives one access to 100 times stronger market) is the best thing which could happen to the Russian since sliced bread. This is fine and natural. Statement about Russian jornos having nice time in Jurmala is nice too, although it is pretty hollow, since "better than I thought" estimate is not very informative (if person you quite drew his initial impression from reading opinion pieces in most sensational Russian newspaper, he or she could expect concentration camps, so reality of (for example) closing Russian schools may look like small potato for this observer). My main question was "Are Russians allowed to judge what they consider Russophobic?" You happily avoided answering it. Although your plea to keep clumsy name "Attitudes and claims of attitudes" may be an answer as well. Russians are not allowed, they can only "claim". I can imagine the hell that would happen if you use "Attitudes and claims of attitudes" header in Antisemitism or Racism. RJ CG 19:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• On "better than I thought"-- again, not what I said. The Duma representatives said things were not as they had been represented, that is, what they had been told by their government and by "activists" were lies. I do wish you'd read things the way I wrote them. PētersV 06:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that no-education gives you THOUSANDS of times better job opportunities than education. Specially in Russian maffia. Or being a pickpocket on a public transport lines. (Also I have NEVER heard someone going from latvia to work in Russia, that is like having large villa but preferring to live in a woodshelter.)

BTW, I don't remember many estonian russians having problem with the programme. I only remember one statement from someone. Some russian friends I asked comment from generally liked the idea or remained neutral. One claimed that the latvian programme has been successful. One said that she has put her children in estonian school anyway. Some remained neutral saying that it's probably neccesary, but they are not sure if it works as wanted. No one I know started screaming injustice like RJ CG here. Maybe because they live in estonia and are aware of the situation here? And don't continue beating old incorrect facts they read from some random tabloid with drunk journalists. I strongly recommend either to recheck your facts or start arguing on other topics which you ARE informed on. Suva Чего? 06:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say that statement from Estonian that couple of his/her Russian friends did not scream "discrimination" to him/her is highly informative. Especially after the Bronze Night, when some people (Russians) spent 4-5 months in jail for stealing of 3 blocks of smokes and 4 lollipops (the latter meticulously added to police protocol in order to bring grand total 0.1% above amount considered petty crime not worthy jail time) and other people (Estonians) released from jail (within 2 weeks after being detained) after they had beaten and killed Russian youth (with explanation from the police that those individuals are no threat for public safety). In fact, being old enough to believe times of Soviet Union, I can compare this statement to the statement of some Communist functionary back then that there's no state-sponsored antisemitism in the USSR because Jews he knows did not complain to him. Yeah, sure, they felt safe enough to complain. RJ CG 13:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please leave section title as "Attitudes and claims of attitudes towards Russia and Russians by country". As long as it is a mix of both surveys and polls (documented research) and a collection of allegations (not proven), the title needs to reflect both. PētersV 15:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

On the whole I will agree with the title, and with what RJ was saying, if a country feels that it is getting a fair share of -phobia then any action it can rightfully see as an evidence of that -phobia. Even if the intention was partially or hardly part of it. Now if that is so, then it has to be presented as it is. Each string of action that can be interpreted as Russphobic have to have: a) why do Russians see it as Russophobic and b) what is the official reason for that action. But Blanking as done here will be reported as vandalism. Put a reason why we should not view Vodka Vobla and Chastushki as a sign of Russophobia. Who is the one that is censoring the article? --Kuban Cossack 11:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Vodka, Vobla and Chastushki is hardly xenophobic. It's a cultural or social reference. It would be russophobia if they forbid the sales of vobla and vodka in shops to russians. :) The statement itself is quite true though. They do eat vobla, they do drink vodka and they do sing Chatushki on 9th. They also do brag about invading baltics. Only problem is that some people feel hurt because of that. Normally people just ignore it or make jokes about it. But I can hardly say it can be considered xenophobic, like many other things in this article.

Because of the vobla topic that has been going on so long in here, I will most likely go to shop today after the work and buy myself some vodka and vobla to celebrate the friday. :) Suva Чего? 11:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Itself it is an inoccent comment, but in context of reffering to old people and their habits, can be interpreted as if she considered them of second-sort. It is like saying that yeah, we do not care about what you did in your life, that you freed our lands from fascism, you are a remanant of an occupier's army, we can't do anything about you, so the sooner you die the better. Now if Russians, not the press, not the state, but Russian people upon hearing it, felt offended. At times, when Bush stood up with Putin as the veterans were driven on the Red Square to pay respect to them, she though of them as nothing but a vodka-drinking, vobla-eating, chastushki-singing bunch of old farts. Now that WAS Offensive. Shame on her...and her parents for not using condoms... ;) --Kuban Cossack 12:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Kuban Cossack, if Stalin had truly simply liberated the Baltics (that is, Hitler was the first invader/occupier) he might for a while at least have been hailed as a hero. However, since the Soviet Union had already invaded and ravaged the Baltics, deporting or killing tens if not hundreds of thousands (including Jews) long before Hitler arrived, it is that which Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians remember him for. You obviously don't know your history. Liberation? It was re-subjugation. Stalin sent hundreds of thousands of Red Army to their deaths just to try and get the Courland pocket back from the last pocket of Latvians desparately holding on to a bit of their homeland (and Germans who were cornered)--and fail. And when the end of the war came, the Latvians were all shot as "traitors" upon surrender. Freed from fascism? The Nazis had long since left when the Soviets came along and ripped down the Estonian flag. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but is not based on reality. PētersV 13:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"Vodka, Vobla and Chastushki is hardly xenophobic." Which brings us back to original question "are Russians allowed to judge when they feel offended". It seems to me that some editors have an obvious problem with allowing Russians to speak for themselves. Suva, is word "circle", spoken in Yiddish, offensive? Well, in States it is one of worst insults which can be hurled at Jewish person and clearly brand anyone who uses it as an antisemite. RJ CG 13:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if Russia stopped ignoring the fact Stalin invaded, pillaged, and slaughtered in Eastern Europe before Hitler ever arrived, as Hitler's partner, people might take protestations of Soviet glory with less skepticism. Until then, RJ CG, you are stuck. It's not your fault. But if you believe and promulgate the story of liberation by the Soviets, you have to live with the results. Russia has an ancient and rich culture. There is no need to resurrect Soviet glory to feel Russian pride. However, if Russia and Russians choose to associate themselves with the Soviet Union and its atrocities, this is the result. Don't cry over being offended while Russia vehemently denies Stalin's crimes--predating Hitler--in Eastern Europe. PētersV 13:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. How quickly we forget that Stalin supported Hitler's invasion of Poland and by the time the initial Nazi and Soviet invasions were done, meeting in handshakes along the frontier, Stalin had 51% of Poland's territory. Hitler and Stalin started World War II in complete partnership. Haven't seen Russia apologize for that bit of Soviet past either--dividing up Eastern Europe beforehand, schmoozing Hitler, starting the war and all. PētersV 13:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You are obviously under the impression that repeating Baltic accusations ad nauseam somehow answers the question "are Russians allowed to judge when they feel offended". As for your thinly weiled accusations that I promote Stalinism, that does not amuse or scare me. After all, I've been accused of being "prominent Estophobe" number of times and survived. Although I would say that you almost convinced me of your belief that Russians are not allowed to judge for themselves due to their real and imagined historical sins (BTW, should we bring Latvian Red Rifles from history to somehow substantiate, in your coordinate system, right of Russian to get tough with Latvians for providing crucial military component to the Bolshevik coup?). RJ CG 13:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

To RJ CG, reindented...
I'm sorry, but there's only one Baltic accusation with repeated Russian denial. The whole "remove POV" ploy by deleting all references to Soviet "occupations" and "annexations" is such a repeated denial right here on Wikipedia.
   The problem with the article here is that it mixes:

• anti-(government of Russia) sentiment
• anti-(those who parrot Russia pronouncements and defend its rehabilitation of Stalinism) sentiment
• anti-(Russians themselves) sentiment.

Current anti-Russian sentiment (my impression) flows from the top. As long as Russia denies Stalin's atrocities in Eastern Europe, committed long before Hitler came along, and continues to play the same old "anti-Fascist hero liberation" saw, nothing will change. You feel you should have the right to be offended? Yes, you do. Would you like to stop being offended? Look to the source of the problem, not to the symptom.
   And, I must thank you for your comic relief: "should we bring Latvian Red Rifles from history to somehow substantiate, in your coordinate system, [the] right of Russian to get tough with Latvians for providing crucial military component to the Bolshevik coup?" Here we are, Russia engaged in full Soviet glorification mode, and you're suggesting Russia's "getting tough" with Latvia because the Latvian Red Riflemen saved Lenin, insuring the existence of the very thing that Russia now glorifies? PētersV 14:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You of course also can be personal about it, however from my personal opinion. Latvia (or Estonia), when I was speaking to my English freind, I asked what he thought of Estonian Bronze Soldier problem, the conversation went along the lines:

• Him: Where is Estonia?
• Me: Next to Russia
• Him: Was it part of the USSR?
• Me: Yes
• Him: Oh, was it one of those -stan states?
• Me: Not quite, that's Central Asia, its in Europe.
• Him (very surprised): Really? Never noticed it before...
• Me (chuckling): Because it did not exist before
• Him: Oh well, I guess that's why the're pissed off, small nation insignificance Syndrome
• (both of us laugh...)

...And that's my point, little country, nobody, outside saw it dissapear nobody saw it re-appear. Perhaps that is the Source of the problem, nobody outside cared for Latvia, nobody, at large, cares right now. If Latvia was to once again dissapear of the face of the earth, I doubt anyone would even notice the shift of borders on the map of Europe.

Now that was of course off-topic, as are your claims of "Stalinist Chauvinism" what is important, is that Russians and Latvians have different opinions on what is "correct & neutral" for their society, and when the latter implemented its national policy to its standards the former saw it as Russophobia and vengence (even though for sake of neutrality and consensus, assume there was really was no vengence for 40+ years of happiness & freedom). So what RJ is saying is that we have to focus not on the causes of the policy or "Soviets did worse" arguments, but is how Russians percieve these present actions. Regards. --Kuban Cossack 18:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, Estonia did exist before, so sorry, as I am for your friend's ignorance. Rather pitiful to hear of two grossly uninformed people laughing over how smart they are. I supposed ignorance is bliss after all. PētersV 06:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You failed to answe my question, again. And since I can safely assume that your cognitive abilities are developed enough to recognize the question "are Russians allowed to judge when they feel offended" repeated 3 times during last 24 hours, I can only conclude that it is your conscious intention not to answer this question and retorting to repeat what I can broadly describe "Baltic accusations against Russia, it's rulers and inhabitants from the Stone Age on", again 3 times during last 24 hours. I think it would be only logical to assume that you happen to believe that those accusations are heavy enough to deny Russians right to speak for themselves. I am wondering, is it kosher in Wikipedia to deny certain rights, normally enjoyed by all racial, ethnic and so on groups, to certain ethnic groups? RJ CG 14:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently that is something reserved for Russians, then, as Estophobia was deleted for exact same reasons that you bring here. Double standards? No, can't be. -- Sander Säde 20:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, there is no point on wasting time on arguing with RJ CG. Specially counting the fact that he might not be who he claims to be. Instead of that, let's go on Liberty Square tomorrow, celebrate the freedom of Estonia and discuss wikipedia? I'll bring the vodka and vobla. My phone number is viiskuusüksviisüheksaükskaheksaseitse. :)

As of the other matters, this conversation seems to grow into another fool-scale discussion. Suva Чего? 21:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Specially counting the fact that he might not be who he claims to be. Just curious, who am I? BTW, vobla is very bad appetizer to be consumed with vodka. Too dry. Pickled herring is infinitely better. Just be careful on sour cream (a little bit is OK, though). RJ CG 21:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. But it is not really a problem, because I don't drink vodka (Or anything else with over 20% of alcohol content), and vobla fits nicely with beer. :) Suva Чего? 07:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Estophobia had been deleted as WP:OR because author(s) failed to prove that word exists outside of minds of some Baltic wikipedians. Andi-Estonian Sentiment, if my memory serves me well, had been allowed to exist for some time, but had been culled as it failed to develop into anything more academic than interpretation of every critical publication in Russian media as "Estophobia" (gosh, am I scared to think of WP resources needed to host Anti-Russian sentiment article, if every critical piece about Russia is listed as proof of "phobia"). Get over it or try to write an article proving that Anti-Estonian sentiment is anything more prominent than usual grudges between neighbours. Here, as far as I understand, everybody agrees that Anti-Russian sentiment is prominent enough to be included in WP and topic of current discussion is "are Russians allowed to judge when they feel offended". I'm sick and tired to no end to repeat this simple question, but you guys are willing to discuss anything (including my personality) but this topic. There's another important distinction. Author(s) of Anti-Estonian sentiment seemed to be of opinion that their personal feeling of being offended is enough to consider particular publication "Anti-Estonian". Here I'm trying to talk about feeling of the community, expressed through numerous outlets. If certain "provocateurs" trying to "ride the wave" by "accusing Latvian government of discrimination in schools" (as Vecrumba put it), that means they see the wave to ride on, they see genuine feeling of broad community they can exploit to achieve their indecent purposes. I am talking about eligibility of those feelings. RJ CG 21:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

RJ CG, I already told you you are certainly allowed to feel offended. I think you're quoting someone else, not me, on the schools et al. (though I have used the word provocateur at times).

  My point earlier was that if Russians (people) wish to positively impact the image of Russians (people), they should consider expressing pride in their heritage more than pride in the accomplishments of the dead Soviet Empire.

  Right here in Brooklyn Russians walk around in T-shirts stamped with СССР. Nor are such Russians the only ones at fault, witness $300 "authentic KGB watches" on sale in the most fashionable American mail order catalogs after the fall of the USSR. It would seem there's no monopoly on fascination with dead empires.

  However, it's one thing to have some sort of fascination with the evil empire. It's quite another, as in Russia today, to restore the bust of Felix Dzerzhisnky to a place of honor in the courtyard of Moscow's police. You don't see Germans re-erecting Himmler's bust in Berlin, do you? PētersV 02:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested in hearing our Russian editors on their opinions on the rehabilitation of the bust of the head of the murderous CHEKA to its Soviet-era place of honor, and whether they believe this act, and acts like it, affect perceptions of Russia. (Don't know what scholarly studies might be out there.) PētersV 00:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Compensation and territorial claims

As the history of this article shows, these issues have been cleared several times. First, that kind claims have been never presented by authorities. Concerning territorial claims, it's not even possible to present that kind of claims as all three countries have ratified their border agreements with Russia. Pancta sund servanda. And even in case of territorial claims between to countries, this is international legal dispute, not any kind of -phobia or sentiment. In this case, that kind of dispute should be described in the Territorial disputes of the Russian Federation, not here. Same applies to the compensation issue. Compensation claims have never presented to Russia. Even, if that kind of claim had been presented, it's not Anti-Russian thing, but a legal dispute between countries, if even so. And also, it was the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation, who published on September 30, 2004 a report, which contended, that Russia, as the legal successor to the Soviet Union, is entitled to compensation for having vacated the three Baltic states.[25] So, these claims should be removed from this article.80.235.55.51 17:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe Russia is being sued by a private individual in the international court.

The issue here is that anti-Russia gets mixed with anti-Russian when Russians support Russia's proclamations about gloriously liberating Eastern Europe and forgetting everything else the USSR brought to daily Eastern European life--and death. PētersV 02:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion to divide the article into 3

I have just noticed this article through AfDs. I'd like to share my oppinion about re-writing it:

IMHO, the article needs to be re-written from scratch, possibly into 2-3 smaller and more specific ones. The reason that similar articles exist is NOT the existence of "a wide spectrum of prejudices, dislikes or fears". An institutionalized policy of ethnic or national discrimination is the reason such articles exist. A WP article is not a good place to compile a list of "clichés". Here is what I suggest to create instead:

• Russophobia - definition of the term, 1-2 examples to show the usage of the term in the literature (half-a-page artilce)
• Cold war stereotypes - an artilce describing all types of stereotypes of that period, including anti-Russian ones, including examples, but not limited to a random, non-representative list
• Anti-Russian discrimination - where one can mention discrimination as policy, not cliches or feelings. Out of the entire article, I could find only one such case - Turkmenisan's ban to reject applications based on Russian familiy names (if it is a policy, i.e. if it is not one isolated case). Ideally, there should be scientific works dedicated to anti-Russian discrimination, and it would be nice to cite those. If you/we simply compile a list by ourselves, who guarantees that the list is representative and faithfull?

It would be like WP editors going through all WWII papers and listing all instances of German airplanes shut down. That's NOT how it is supposed to be done. One needs to find works by historians where the matter of shut down German airplanes is studied, and preferably take statistical info from there. The way the current article is written is like "Accorging to New York Times/Pravda, lt Johnson/Ivanov has shut 2 planes on January 1, 1945". You can put that in the article of lt. Johnson/Ivanov, not in an article which deals in general with a phenomenon, to which lt. Johnson/Ivanov was frankly speaking non-notable.

Finally, the current form of the article contains a lot of small mistakes, correction of which could immediately result in edit war because of misunderstandings and prejudices between WP editors. So, it is better to re-write in user space, where there is no edit war, and to eliminate the problems. Just to give you an example, consider this portion:

A mild form of Russophobia is relatively widespread in the Romanian society. This can be seen as a reaction of both the Soviet times and of pre-Soviet Russian imperialism which affected the Romanian Principalities. Russia's annexation of Bassarabia and Bukovina in 1812 and again in 1940 is widely seen as an expression of Russian's imperialism. Negative reports on modern Russia are widespread in the media. There is a general negative perception of all things Russian especially in what concerns the language and the culture. For instance the Russian language has practically disappeared from Romania's school after 1989.

1) This paragraph tells both that pre-Soviet Russian imperialism is a fact, and that calling it imperialism is a form of anti-Russian sentiment. Rather hypocritical?! If it is a fact, it can not be an anti-X sentiment, and vice versa. 2) Bukovina was NOT annexed in 1812, so the article actually desinforms 3)"general negative perseption" is such a large all-emcompassing expression, it can cover anything 4) the Russian language was only rarely a subject in schools even before 1989 (Romania was very singular in this respect in the socialist camp), so again - willingly or unwillingly desinformation.

These kind of problems can be avoided it the article is re-worked, dividing it as I suggested.:Dc76\^talk 15:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Northern Caucasus

Northern Caucasus is a part of Russian Federation. How it comes that this is the biggest section of this article? I Think there are more appropriate articles to discribe problems related to Northern Caucasus.213.219.80.25 09:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV Discussion

Cannot see any! Who put the template and wherefore?Muscovite99 (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No NPOV or no discussion? I think User:Dc76 sums up quite well what is currently wrong with the article. Lots of people admitted it needed improvement when it was taken to AFD but none of them apparently stayed here to fix it. Oth (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

POV

Calling Svoboda party "ultra-right" based on a single statement from their leader is clearly WP:OR. A charge of ultra-right" is serious and needs to be better cited. And calling that poster "radical" is simply trying to appeal to emotions. Lets just show the picture and let the readers decide for themselves, there is no need for such POV terms. Ostap 16:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And look at the caption for the picture: "Modern Anti-Russian poster in Lviv, Western Ukraine, issued by the ultra-radical nationalist political party. "

"Ultra-radical"? Now they are "ultra-radical"? The POV is terrible. Ostap 16:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

New analysis of British media

E-generator, famous for it's "rating of Russophobia" of Western media, compiled new study of British media's attitude toward Russia. Responding to charge that they used translations made by Inosmi.ru (which had been accused repeatedly of deliberate selection of publications critical toward Russia) before, they based new study on original sources, using what's they called "British sources of quality" (The Independent, The Times, The Telegraph, The Observer, The Guardian, BBC). They concluded that British sources paint Russia and Russians as brutal and dirty half-humans/half-bears, always ready to rape superior Western civilization. Article is here. Do you think it is WP material? RJ CG (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Section about Finland - difference of languages

Regarding "hence the languages are fundamentally different languages, which might be an obstacle to learning Russian.": I am inclined to believe that Finns can learn languages from three different language families just as easily (or difficultly) as members of any other nation. Maybe "be an obstacle to learning" could be replaced with "impact the popularity of" or "favor the Germanic languages"? --91.155.179.213 (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems quite fennophobic statement per se. It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.192.206 (talk) 07:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Do Russians think everybody is anti-Russian?

According to the Kiev Institute of Sociological Research and Conflictology, whose director Mykhailo Pohrebynskyi supported Viktor Yanukovych during the presidential elections in 2004 [44], "Our Ukraine", "Yulia Tymoshenko Electoral Bloc", and other Ukrainian parties (i.e. the rivals of Yanukovych's Party of Regions) struggle for the support of "anti-Russian attitude" voters. [45] What they hell does that mean? How does that proof that UO ore BYuT are anti-Russian? For me it proofs nothing. Ofcourse Ukrainian nationalist are not going to vote for the pro-Russian PoR! This looks like weasel writing. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed there's a lot of wp:or going on here. Many sources do not speak of anti-Russian sentiment, but are still used here as examples of anti-russian sentiment. - Pieter_v (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

People like to confuse not caring for Russia's politics with not caring for Russians. The two have nothing to do with each other. I can't count up how many times I myself been accused of being a rabid Russophobe (when it couldn't be further from the truth) only because I maintain (with reliable sources) that Russia (politicians) prefer to lie about history than admit the truth. —PētersV (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Northern Caucasus can be removed

It's been unsourced for more than half a year and completely based on original research. I'll sum it up one by one:

"However in the late 20th century, with the collapse of Russian authority, the Russophobia resulted in incidents of persecution and ethnic cleansing of against the ethnic Russian population"

Unsourced, and no "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide" has been recognized by any human rights group or union.

"Worst affected was the Russian minority of Chechnya: in the 1989 census, the Russians accounted for approximately a quarter of the population,[27] and from 1989 to 1994, as many as 300,000 people of non-Chechen ethnicity (mostly Russians, but also a notable Armenian and Ukrainian minority) were forcefully evicted from Chechnya"

The difference in census' is original research as it's not proven that this is the result of "anti-russian sentiment". As you may all know, Russians mostly lived in Grozny, which was completely destroyed by Russians own forces, killing thousands of its own civilians. Russians lost their homes and moved away, what does that have to do with anti-russian sentiment?

"300,000 people of non-Chechen ethnicity (mostly Russians, but also a notable Armenian and Ukrainian minority) were forcefully evicted from Chechnya, and an unknown number were murdered or disappeared.[28]"

First of all it says that it's not limited to Russians, but all non-Chechens, which would make it Xenophobia, and not anti-russian sentiment. Second of all, these alleged murders are again not recognized by human rights groups or independent organisations and may not have occured at all. The source admits that Chechnya's goverment of Dudayev at the time denied these murders from taking place calling them propaganda, and the source (which claims "genocide" occured) is Izvestia which is a Russian newspaper part of the Gazprom Media (state controled!) and therefore not reliable and may not be presented as fact.

"Many were also kidnapped, and even slave-trade was reported (the earliest known example was Vladimir Yepishin held since 1989).[29]"

Chechens and Dagestanis were also kidnapped. The source doesn't say this is an example of "anti-russian sentiment". Again this is wp:or. - Pieter_v (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This section describes the situation in Northern Caucasus in general and not particularly anti-Russian sentiment. Decrease of (Russian) population in Chechnya in context of warfare in the region is natural process and presenting it as anti-Russian sentiment qualifies as original research. It is also not very logical that there is anti-Russian sentiment inside of the Russian Federation. The whole section should be removed as out of topic issue and original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.192.206 (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Kuril Islands

Kuril Islands are territorial dispute between countries. It seems that it was agreed before that intergovernmental issues should be excluded from classifying as anti-X sentiment. This part should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.192.206 (talk) 07:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

General issues on the example of the section Baltic States

What is described is not anti-russian sentiment aka russophobia per se but a handful of accusations and the background of it. When describing and/or defining something one needs to describe (how it is expressed, what does it consist of) and explain (mostly why questions). These aspects are not covered at all. Instead we have an explanation of the supposed "citizenship discrimination".

Discrimination based on citizenship itself is an unclear concept. In this article under discrimination is meant Racial discrimination that in UN terms is equivalent to discrimination on basis of nationality or ethnic origin. The basic regulation on racial discrimination, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination states that:

2. This Convention shall not apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by a State Party to this Convention between citizens and non-citizens.

3. Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as affecting in any way the legal provisions of States Parties concerning nationality, citizenship or naturalization, provided that such provisions do not discriminate against any particular nationality.

The rest is just an explanation of the all so common in European countries, citizenship regulations with the specifics of transition in these countries.

Wouldn't it make sense to re-phrase to describe a) how the actual anti-russian sentiment is manifested and b) what are the actual reasons for this prejudice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie1045 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point. Given that the citizenship laws of the respective Baltic states are not racially based, (for example ethnic Russians arriving before 1940 get citizenship automatically while ethnic Estonians who left Estonia before 1920 don't get it automatically), it is not really relevant to the topic at hand. Will update accordingly. Martintg (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs not follow a convention to manifest it as anti-X-sentiment, however the national politics of the countries, who for example on victory days insult veterans, dig up World War II graves and follow the tactic of enemy of my enemy is my friend need be mentioned. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 12:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kuban, recall the Soviet Union invaded before the Great Patriotic War. To imply as you do that the Baltics should celebrate the first or second coming of the Red Army is disingenuous at best. There are treaties in place between Russia and all there Baltic states respecting all military memorials. Plus, using Latvia as an example, one of Russia's poster chilren for Russian oppression, for quite for some time now, the majority of the allegedly repressed, discriminated against, and maligned Russian minority are Latvian citizens. Not to mention all their state paid pensions--received whether they are citizens or not--are worth a lot more than that of Russians in Russia. Even "retired" Russian military, the symbol of the former oppressor. Please stop with the inflammatory and inaccurate rhetoric. —PētersV (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Russians are unpopular cause there white?

Currently we seem to be in a small edit war because of this piece of text in the article: A Russian commentator Vyacheslav Nikonov claimed Russia’s image is so negative in the West by quoting his Canadian friend: "The main problem is that these Russians have white skin. If they had been green, or pink, or came from Mars…or had flowers sticking out of their ears, then everybody would have said – well, these people are different, like Turks, or Chinese, or Japanese. We have no questions about the Japanese. They are different, their civilisation is different. But these Russians … they are white but they have totally different brains … which is thoroughly suspicious.". I think this text does not belong in the article because 1) no scientific proof is given, 2) it is trivia (see WP:trivia, 3) I live in "the West" and never heard somebody claim they didn't like Russians cause there white (I think it has more to do with anti-communist propaganda from the past and lack of knowledge of Russians (because people in the past where not allowed to travel to Eastern-Europe). Please discuss! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, this is Russia, that is "unpopular". Russians are hated, when they seem to enthusiastically support Russia's imperialism. Russia just doesn't have any friends, this is true: Russia only has serfs or enemies. The former class are nations "liberated" by Russian troops. The latter class are nations, which somehow managed to resist to be benefitted so. Just look around the Russian borders, and say: which one of the European neighbours of Russia's has not been deprived a large part (or a whole) of its territory to Russia's advantage in or after 1939? Where is the country, in which Russia didn't yet find someone to "liberate", and didn't instantly sent its altruistic troops to defend the liberty, human rights and peace, as recently in Georgia? It is enough to dislike own government, and Russia immediately will help you, it is so fond of helping people dissatisfied with their state, so one can only wonder, why its hasn't brought such help to Chechnya so readily. And, which of these generose acts wasn't accompanied by mass murders, deportations, confiscations, ethnic purges, ordinary robbery? Which of these acts of purely egoistic imperialism, finally, wasn't in Russian view and propaganda an act of welcomed liberation, a dawn of happiness and freedom? Russia first does all this to its neighbours through decades or even centuries, and then tends to be utterly surprised on why the Russian state and the Russian nation is so universally disliked. It must be because they're white or something like this. Давай часы (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Russian sentiment cannot be explained or excused with reference to historical events, really?

This was just put in the article (history section):In essence as in any phobia russophobia is an unfounded and irrational hatred which cannot be explained or excused with reference to historical events. Hmm. must say that Russians are often not very apologetic when it comes to atrocity's committed in there name. I got the feeling if the where more like Germans, who apologise a lot for there atrocity's in WW2, Russians would be a lot more popular. If all Russian would stop accusing someone of being anti-Russian just cause she/he dislikes the policy's of Putin would help too! You can still like Russians while disliking Putin you know, I did met people like that... Stop trying to claim/proof people are Russian while they clearly are (let's say) a Ukrainian actress would help too (see:[26]). That sort of behaviour is extremely annoying(!!) and reflects badly on your fellow countrywoman/man. -- Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

White Tights

Urban legends which depict a particular ethnicity of group of ethnicities fighting against Russians is certainly notable for inclusion in an article which includes anti-Russian stereotypes. Please leave Zalktis' addition intact and discuss here before simply deleting. PētersV (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Please provide at least one reference proving the claim that "Popular perceptions of the Baltic peoples' anti-Russian sentiments has given rise to the urban legend of the White Tights, female Baltic snipers alleged to have participated in various conflicts fighting against Russian forces." Otherwise own research is and will be removed. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops the real origins of the myth on “white tights” are amazing (and of course are not related to anti-Russian sentiment):

Rislakki, Jukka (2008). The Case for Latvia. Disinformation Campaigns Against a Small Nation: Fourteen Hard Questions and Straight Answers about a Baltic Country. Amsterdam; New York

Pages 27-28

Excerps:

There is the highly praised novel Le coup de grace (1939) by the French academician Marguerite Yourcenar... According to the author it is based on actual happenings... She is successful in portraying accurately the 1919 war in Latvia, the misogyny and cold emotional violence – and also the claim that Latvian women participated in the violence, which is the favorite theme... Regarding the Latvians, there is this claim: “As for common cruelty, the highly specialized Letts who served the Reds as hangmen had perfected the art of torture in a manner truly worthy the most selebrated Mongol traditions.” Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Your right these "White Tights" urban myths look more like Racism in Russian to me then "anti-Russian stereotypes". Unless most Russians don't believe in it and the myth is used to make Russians look stupid (that claim would need a solid reference!), but since Russia Today still exploits (this is a personal view) the myth (see:[27]) it seems not the case. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Russia Today is Novosti, the Russian state press agency. When they wish to denounce those who the Russian government deems as unfavorable to Russia, they always present "personal views" which can be conveniently disclaimed. (For example, their obvious overuse of anti-Baltic revisionist "historian" Dyukov.)PētersV (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Popular perceptions of the Baltic peoples' anti-Russian sentiments has given rise to the urban legend of the White Tights ([28]). Since when does the whole world think Balitc people are anti-Russian? Since when does the whole world believe in fairytales about woman with white socks shooting Russians? A sneaky propaganda sentence it looked like (I doubt it was ment as one), I had to change it... I think the information is worth to keep now. Althoug a reference on those Popular perceptions of the Baltic peoples anti-Russian sentiments in Russia would be nice. -- Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There are regular polls of Russian popular opinion which rank Latvia in particular as one of Russia's top enemies. That certainly qualifies. I haven't followed them lately but I do remember in 2000 that Latvia was Russia's #3 enemy behind the U.S. and China, and in 2001 Latvia "dropped" to #4 enemy. PētersV (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop pushing unreferenced material into the article. Once again, please provide at least one reference proving the claim that "Popular perceptions of the Baltic peoples' anti-Russian sentiments has given rise to the urban legend of the White Tights, female Baltic snipers alleged to have participated in various conflicts fighting against Russian forces." Please show exactly where it is written. So far I see only emotions. For example, how polls on enemies are related to the questioned link bw White Tights and the article. Provide concrete diffs. But you don't have even one. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Beatle Fab Four has a point, looks like WP:OR now, it's logical to think that "Popular perceptions of the Baltic peoples' anti-Russian sentiments has given rise to the urban legend of the White Tights..." but that doesn't make it good factual journalism if not a reference/source backs it up. -- Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a simple question. And the answer is simple too. There is no ref, which supports this claim. Check the false links in the article, for example. What Vecrumba is doing is just pushing OWN RESEARCH. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

From the Baltic Defense Review:

Finally there is the uncertainty about the number of non-Chechens from abroad who came and fought on the Chechen side. Several Russian sources have fanciful reports about thousands of muhajeddins from Afghanistan and female snipers in white tights from the Baltic countries. In fact there were relatively few mujaheddins in Chechnya and no western journalist ever saw any of the amazons from the Baltic States.

While appearing in the Baltic Defense Review, the article is credited to Ib Faurby, Royal Danish Defence College in co-operation with Märta-Lisa Magnusson, University of Southern Denmark, neither a Baltic nationalist with some axe to grind. Russian sources have repeated the legend--certainly not as indicating Baltic love for Russian/Soviet heritage on Baltic soil. Surely, the purported taking up of Baltic arms against Russia is attribution and indicative of anti-Russian sentiment? I am sure the introduction of the sentence can be refactored satisfactorily without resorting to SHOUTING. And how is this particular article/reference false? PētersV (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This ref is false because it it doesn't show that "popular perceptions of the Baltic peoples' anti-Russian sentiments has given rise to the urban legend of the White Tights, female Baltic snipers alleged to have participated in various conflicts fighting against Russian forces."

Offtop: In fact, the real origins of the myth are presented in the book by Jukka Rislakki (see above). Beatle Fab Four (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this news report as reference? Highlights are mine.

The (London) Independent, March 11, 1995, Andrew Higgins

From the very start of the conflict in Chechnya, Moscow has been unable to admit that the Chechens could possibly be fighting on their own. To explain the debacle, Russian propaganda has paraded a far-fetched collection of bloodthirsty foreign mischief-makers, including ... female snipers from the Baltics in white tights. ... A few mercenaries are certainly there in Chechnya, but they are not the reason for the disastrous performance of the Russian forces. And, as far as I know, there has not been a single sighting of a Baltic woman sniper. The fantasy is disturbing enough on its own. More alarming, though, is that the border guards at Stavropol airport, and the rest of Russia's security apparatus, actually seem to believe it. One female colleague who presented airport guards with a press card issued by the Russian government was told that this was precisely the document used by Baltic snipers to worm their way into Chechnya.

Perhaps we can more simply indicate the "white tights" legend has been used in Russian propaganda as an embodiment of anti-Russian sentiment--and been repeated by Russian security services--to avoid getting bogged down in what came first, cause and effect, et al. PētersV (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

And now exact citation: To explain the debcle, Russian propaganda has paraded a far-fetched collection of bloodthirsty foreign mischief-makers, including Afghan mujahedin, Ukrainian Fascists, Islamic fanatics, Chechen migrs from Jordan and, in a crude flourish that smacks of sexually frustrated barrack-room fantasy, female snipers from the Baltics in white tights.

The question remains essentially the same. Please provide at least one citation where it is conluded that "popular perceptions of the Baltic peoples' anti-Russian sentiments has given rise to the urban legend of the White Tights, female Baltic snipers alleged to have participated in various conflicts fighting against Russian forces" or it is shown that "white tights legend has been used in Russian propaganda as an embodiment of anti-Russian sentiment".

For resolving the conflict, it is not too late to think a little bit and self-revert the edit with WP:OWN RESEARCH. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The entire White Tights section has been removed by myself as a classic case of WP:SYN. It makes no indication that the urban legend is connected to anti-Russian sentiment in any way, shape or form. The suggestion by User:Vecrumba just above is also a classic sign of WP:OR, because I can see not a single source which indicates "white tights legend has been used in Russian propaganda as an embodiment of anti-Russian sentiment". It's WP:OR, pure and simple. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 13:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering information about White Tights, sources are scarce on it. As a pupil, I've heard legends about female snipers shooting Russian soldiers in Chechnya and the way these snipers were treated if being caught. I've heard nothing about these snipers being Baltic. I would agree, war legends are unrelated to this article. Regards, Evgeny. ellol (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This quote from The Economist makes the connection between, on one hand, popular perceptions in Russia of Balts' anti-Russian sentiments and, on the other, the phenomenon of the Whits Tights:

The blonde Baltic snipers, who are called beliye kolgotky (white tights) by the Russians, after their supposed favourite costume, are even more puzzling. Estonia has twice sent diplomatic notes to Russia, asking for the evidence behind the claims. So far, no answer. "They exist. Military intelligence says so, and they don’t make mistakes," says Mr Yastrzhembsky's office.
Both cases have something to do with psychological warfare. Russia's two historical enemies, as popularly portrayed, are fair-headed square-jaws from the west and Muslim fanatics from the south. Tapping such folk memories, consciously or unconsciously, strengthens support for the war.[29]

Emphasis mine. —Zalktis (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

And the emphasis and the connection is another case of WP:SYN. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I only added boldface to some of the consecutive sentences in the article (this is what was meant by "emphasis mine". The connection is in the original. Follow the link if you don't believe me. —Zalktis (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It is WP:SYN because it has absolutely nothing to do with anti-Russian sentiment. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Using western newspapers in a serious investigation is ridiculous. They manage so-so to report the facts, they fail completely to report the public views and provide analisys. It's also a part of anti-Russian sentiment and it's also viewed in the article. ellol (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles like the cited one from the Economists are propaganda, aimed not to provide truth, but to inspire certain types of mindset in their readers. Be real, people. ellol (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The Economist is one of the most respected news publications on the planet. If it reports: "'They exist. Military intelligence says so, and they don’t make mistakes,' says Mr Yastrzhembsky's office." then there is no reason to regard that as disreputable.

   I already suggested that we use alternate phrasing for the paragraph intro to remove cause and effect and deal only with the existence of the anti-Russian myth. Let's focus on that, then. Deleting the entire section is absolutely not the answer. PētersV (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think that Russian myth is anti-Russian? How Yastrzhembsky's words are related to anti-Russian sentiment? And who will answer the question of providing at least one citation where it is conluded that "popular perceptions of the Baltic peoples' anti-Russian sentiments has given rise to the urban legend of the White Tights, female Baltic snipers alleged to have participated in various conflicts fighting against Russian forces" or it is shown that "white tights legend has been used in Russian propaganda as an embodiment of anti-Russian sentiment".

In conclusion: WP:OR and WP:SYN. As pointed by me, Russavia, Ellol and Mariah-Yulia. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so Baltic women shooting Russians is not an image of anti-Russian sentiment? The only difference is that unlike true anti-Russian images which circulate in the Baltics, this is one that circulates in Russia and is attributed to the Baltics. That said, "Russian perceptions of anti-Russian sentiment" might be the proper section title. It's still notable, and the question is how to appropriately construct the narrative. It's neither original research nor synthesis if properly represented. PētersV (talk) 23:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the entire section as WP:SYN is absolutely the answer, because the WP:BURDEN is on editors introducing information into an article to source it. As of yet, there is not a single source which connects the so-called White Tights with anti-Russian sentiment, in any way shape or form, and attempts to do so by editors thus far is a case of WP:OR, and in particular, WP:SYN. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we're miscommunicating here. What I am stating is that "White Tights" is a Russian myth/stereotype alleging anti-Russian intent and action, hence its significance. It is fully sourced and not WP:SYN in that context. PētersV (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You can say sacred words "fully sourced" 1000 times. But please provide refs. 1 would be enough. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Rights of non-citizens

I must say, it's a very convenient position to justify current human rights problems with history events of the past. It's very convenient to pretend all problems that exist are merely "Russian propaganda". But luckily, Europe holds an unbiased view on the current human rights issues. ellol (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, in your recent edits bringing additional info to the article, you provided no sources attributing that info to the subject of article. Please either provide such a source or remove the offtopic info. Thanks! --windyhead (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello. In Latvia and Estonia a number of former Soviet citizens are facing problems with becoming citizens. The majority of those people are Russians. While it doesn't mean anti-Russian sentiment is active in those countries, the issue of large Russian groups refused of political and civilian rights is concerning in view of the article topic. Thank you for the concern. ellol (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Not until there is a source available which concerning this in view of the article topic --windyhead (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

There are already sources linking human rights deprivation of Russian minorities to anti-Russian sentiment in those countries (like [30]). I tried to give accurate information about human rights condition of those groups -- from official documents of Council of Europe. This is important, because there's a plenty of propaganda viewing legal position of those groups in entirely black or white colour.

Basically, the easiest ever way to view any controversial events is to use sources from any side of the conflict. COE documents are good here because they are supposed to be neutral.

Regards, ellol (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but Latvia treats the embodiment of their oppression, "retired" ex-Soviet military, better (claim their Soviet state apartment as personal property, receive a pension if at retirement age,...) than Russia treated those who did choose to return (no housing, no wages). Human right abuse of Russians in Latvia is Russian agit-prop. When Russian journalists abroad descended on Latvia for their annual conference, poised to rake Latvia over the coals over it abuses, even Duma deputies along for the ride stated circumstances were not as Russian "activists" and the Russian foreign ministry had painted them. The majority of Russians are already Latvian citizens. As for those still stateless, they all initially had the opportunity for Russian citizenship and didn't take it, their choice.

   Some of the most virulent and uninformed opinionating has come from "neutral" organizations from representatives who have regurgiated the pablum fed to them instead of conducting honest fact-finding. PētersV (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand your position. And I'm not saying everything in Russia is settled well. Perhaps it even does make sense to compare human rights situation in Latvia and Russia. (Although I need to say Russia is now encouraging emigration of its ex-compatriots inside the country. Just, we didn't have funds and forces for such policy before.)

But you chose to live in Europe, and Europe has its own standards and criteria for human rights, you understand.

Please, note that I didn't use Russian sources, I cited European Commisioner for Human Rights. Doesn't it make more sense to hear the voice of Europe and react to it, rather than to listen to the way situation in Latvia is sometimes portrayed in Russian media and use that as pretext for your actions?

With regards, ellol (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Did I understand you correctly that you accuse Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe of incompetence? ellol (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Although interesting that a lot of Russian speaking living in the Baltic states don't have passports I doubt this falls into the scope of "Anti-Russian sentiment". Unless they don't get passports because there Russian (and let's say Ukrainians who act no different from them do) this information is also WP:OR. As I understood it they don't get passports because some refuse to learn Latvian or fill in a test the way the Latvian government wants [31]. Although it can be debited if this is good government I don't think it is discrimination if all non-Latvian citizens are treated this way. -- Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe people who refuse to admit that Latvia "was occupied and colonised, not liberated, by the Soviet Union in 1945" at least amount to Soviet dissidents, who's only "guilt" was they disagreed with statements of the system. It's pitiful to see people being not free to choose their views nowadays in Europe.

It's not that harmless as it may seem, Mariah-Yulia. ellol (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well "discrimination of ideas" is something else then "discrimination of a group of people", although this is rather a philosophical approach to it. I would not make a test like that, but it's hard to proof the test is made like it is to bully Russians if the test is the same for all who apley for citizenship. -- Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

(Multiple edit conflicts!), first regarding the CoE:

• Rene van der Linden's well-known personal commentaries tow the Russian propaganda line and are regularly accused of being anti-Baltic. Nothing he says can be quoted as objective or fact.
• Thomas Hammarberg's report on human rights after visits to Latvia et al. uses weasel words like "some" these and "some" thats. His official reports which are filed also include responses of the authorities evaluated and are quite illuminating. On the one side, Hammarberg quotes Russians and NGO opinions mixed with associated facts; on the other side, governments quote facts only. You can't quote a CoE opinion without the rebuttal as well to remain NPOV.

The CoE is a body of politicians, no more, no less. The pronouncements and reports by individuals cannot always be represented as fact, particularly on the Baltics, where there is more misinformation than information in circulation. Reports may have findings alleging abuses, but that's as far as it goes; again, allegations represented in an encyclopedia must include the rebuttals in addition to the allegations to be NPOV.

Second, on passports, non-citizens do have passports, not just Latvian citizens. PētersV (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

And, BTW, they have been traveling visa-free in the EU since 2007 except for a couple of countries that make a distinction regarding citizens and non-citizens. PētersV (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I need to read more of Hammarberg's reports and their rebuttals in their entirety to give you an opinion regarding his competence or, at least, objectivity. Where van der Linden's anti-Baltic screeching is concerned, it doesn't take much to compare what he says to what are the reputably reported facts to see him for what he is. PētersV (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand what "rebuttals" are you mentioning. As far as I understood, you believe you know the situation in Latvia better than Thomas Hammerberg, Commissioner for Human Rights. Perhaps, you are having some special human rights, which are different from the definition accepted in the world. Anyway, whether you like it or not, it's the way European human rights body considers situation in your country. ellol (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If you read Hammarberg's reports of his visits, they include a response from the country evaluated. I am saying that Hammarberg spends a lot of time quoting "some" from the side alleging the case against Latvia while not balancing that research on the other side of the issue, i.e., if someone claims they are oppressed, it must be so. In the Baltics, that is not necessarily the case. I don't have any "special" human rights, what I have is a request that people who research "oppression" of Russians in the Baltics spend equal time with both sides prior to forming their opinions, plain and simple.

   Only in Latvia do Russians complain to the Russian embassy of discrimination because their apartment block wouldn't grant them a parking spot for their second Mercedes. PētersV (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Maria-Yulia: I believe the question is not enthnicity here, but a conflict between Russia-related and Latvia-related cultures. ellol (talk) 08:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

PētersV: Putting this at a different angle -- do you accuse Latvian non-citizens of lie? Your point of view is that non-citizens live wondrous lives -- and I hope from economic POV this is true: good if all people of Latvia have equal possibilities. But deliberate deprivation of political rights is called colonialism and slavery. Haamerberg did not say anything beyond the fact that being non-citizens is humiliating and it doesn't foster unity of the country. Millions Russians in the States proved themselves good Americans. If Russians in your country don't like -- or cannot -- play your rules -- the problem must be on your side. Knowing the intrinsic Russian degree of "pofigism" (indifferentness), I guess any other nation would explode in protest long ago. Lucky you, ellol (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, if the issue of non-citizens rights is so important for you, why won't your government just make all its people citizens, without any kind of naturalisation procedures, like the majority of post-Soviet states did? Consider this question, perhaps the solution is easier than you think. ellol (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Citizenship should be a matter of personal choice, and imposing citizenship on a population who may not necessarily want it would be an infringement of their right to choose. Russian immigrants in America make an active choice to become US citizens, they have no problems in taking naturalisation procedures. Why should it be any different with post war immigrants of any ethnicity in Latvia? Anyway, where is the reliable source that states Latvian citizenship laws are derived from "anti-Russian sentiment" rather than the rule of law? It is like arguing that the USA deportation hispanic illegal immigrants is a manifestation of anti-hispanic sentiment rather than upholding the rule of law, by citing the fact that the majority of deportees happen to be hispanic. Martintg (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Excerpt from Hammarberg's 2007 report on Latvia regarding non-citizenry

Not the best place for this discussion, but since it came up...

c. Naturalisation of children born after 21 August 1991

35. One of the recommendations in the 2003 report concerned compliance with Article 3.1 of the Law on nationality regarding the naturalisation of children born after 21 August 1991. It recommended that the possibility of modifying the birth registration forms would be considered so as to include the requirement that parents express the desire for their child to acquire Latvian citizenship or, alternatively, specify a different nationality.

36. This legislation has not been amended and the suggested provision has not been adopted, although the debate on the matter is continuing. A working group is still meeting regularly. The Latvian authorities highlight respect for the parents’ choice to justify their approach to the matter. The Latvian politicians and civil servants interviewed consider that some parents do not want their children automatically to acquire Latvian citizenship at birth. It is possible that such a feeling does exist among some of those concerned. [PERHAPS HE SHOULD EXAMINE THE POSSIBILITY BEFORE MAKING LATER ACCUSATIONS OF LACK OF COMMITMENT. -PētersV]

37. On the other hand, action has been taken to provide parents with the requisite information. This has included the campaign conducted in 2004 by the Ministry of Integration and the Ministry of Family Affairs: combined official letters from both Ministries were sent out to all families concerned, explaining the procedures for registering a child born after 21 August 1991. This initiative fell short of the expected results, although it did lead to the registration of 5 000 children. Nevertheless, there has been one welcome development: from 21 August 2006 onwards, all children born after 21 August 1991 who are 15 years old at this date can submit their own naturalisation application, even if their parents have taken no prior decision to this effect. But their applications are reviewed under simplified procedure – as recognition to be a citizen not naturalisation.

38. In fact, over 13 000 children are still non-citizens, and, children are still being born as non-citizens. This is a disturbing figure, and insufficient progress has been made, pointing to a lack of commitment to the issue on the part of the Latvian authorities. The Commissioner is in no way advocating systematic registration regardless of the parents’ wishes. On the other hand, he does consider it vitally necessary to conduct intensive information campaigns, particularly targeting young parents, and to develop dialogue. Legislation should be amended to enable parents to choose the status they want for their children when they register their births.

The accusation (§38.) is simple: the Commissioner is "disturbed" that children are being born and remain as non-citizens: ergo, there is a "lack of commitment" on the part of authorities. I'm sorry, but that's simply crap. There is no dearth of information that Latvian citizenship is there for the asking. Furthermore, the recommended "legislation" so parents can "choose" citizenship is a red herring—as if some choice were being prevented. Parents can ask any time they want. Perhaps those who are "non-citizens" remain so because Russia provides for preferential treatment for the non-citizens for visits to Russia, for starters. But Hammarberg pays only lip service to the possibility of non-citizens preferring to remain so. Perhaps because there is so little practical advantage to be gained by being a citizen? Citizenship entails responsibilities. Hammarberg's assumption is that all Latvia's non-citizens are eager to sign up for those responsibilities if only given the chance to do so with no prior proof of commitment to their (prospective) nation, while giving up preferential status where the Russian Federation is concerned. I don't see Hammarberg observing that Russia discriminates against Latvia's citizens as compared to Latvia's non-citizens.
   Issues represented as oppression are, in fact, often the results of choices individuals have made for themselves, either through action or inaction. PētersV (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The bottom line is the Commissioner divines intent (lack of commitment) based on the results (conversion from non-citizen to citizen), rather starting with an investigation into and understanding of ethnic politics (and, IMHO, intentional polarization thereof) in the Baltics. PētersV (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for OR, -- it 's even not my agreement or disagreement with your view, but the official policy. Please, provide sources... ellol (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I know that in Russia state citizenship is a serious issue and not having one creates serious problems for people. Think in no country people are wishing to be non-citizens. ellol (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No matter the causes, situation with 20% of country population remaining non-citizens for now 17 years is abnormal from POV of human rights. ellol (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This is simply your opinion. There are many reasons why people remain non-citizens and are happy to remain so, for example, avoidance of military conscription is one major reason. To illustrate, 10,000 Russians living the Pskov Oblast recently took out Estonian citizenship because Estonian military conscription is shorter than Russian military conscription (http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2008-102-30.cfm). Martintg (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"Do I accuse...?

Ellol, my "point of view" is that the quality of one's life in Latvia, mainly measured by economic circumstance, and twenty years after the fall of the Soviet Union, has little to do with being citizen or non-citizen, and that equality of financial opportunity has equally little to do with being citizen or non-citizen. As I said, only in Latvia is not getting a parking spot for your second Mercedes considered oppression of non-citizens. (A true incident.)
   Non-citizens subjected to "colonialism and slavery?" Except for voting and government jobs (not a first choice for anyone who hasn't already chosen to integrate after two decades!) there's very little difference between citizen and non-citizen. And non-citizens still get to participate in the political process through NGOs representing their interests.
   If Hammarberg, per you, contends non-citizenship is "humiliating", that is purely his projection. While he acknowledges the possibility, for all intents and purposes he dismisses the contention that people might wish to remain non-citizens. Why bother? With Schengen passed, they can even travel visa-free throughout Europe.
   I am sorry, but your contentions about colonialism, slavery, humiliation, not to mention the screams of apartheid I've seen elsewhere, demonstrate you're not acquainted with the facts. And you're certainly not going to get the facts from people like Ždanoka, who fought to preserve Soviet power and whose power base requires the continued existence of the non-citizen community.
   Finally, "no one wants to be a non-citizen in any country" is the fundamental basis of your misunderstanding (and your personal projection), as if that truly meant stateless. Non-citizen is a unique post-Soviet citizenship status of those who decided they didn't want to become Russian citizens and only applies to Latvia (and Estonia). The amount of misinformed negative press and blogging as to the actual rights and entitlements of non-citizens versus citizens is staggering. (Even here editors believed non-citizens don't have a passport!) PētersV (talk) 05:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

PetersV, look, I do not know the situation in Latvia. But the report of Commissioner for Human Rights is an international document with great weight and status -- so there's a need of serious arguments to reject it.

I do not think my view is important in this article, that's why I tried to provide related quotations from the report.

And what the fairy tales are you telling! The voting may mean little for a single certain person, except for pure psychological concerns. But exclusion of 18% of Russophone population from the election means that 18% seats in the national partiament will be occupied by the national Latvian political forces, while it could represent national Russian force or some unity party.

And this is simply no fair play. ellol (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

And yes, it's the classic formula of colonialism -- "taxes without representation". Non-citizens pay taxes, do them? And what are those resources spent to? Promoting anti-Russian policy? Do non-citizens want to pay for promoting anti-Russian policy? I doubt so. ellol (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

And oh, what's my personal view, it would be great if Russia provided local positions for all Baltic non-citizens. We need patriots of our country inside, rather than outside. May be after that there would be finally good relationships between our countries. ellol (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the report of the Commissioner for Human Rights is that it does not state: "citizenship discrimination = anti-Russian sentiment". This connection is your synthesis. This is why the whole citizenship question should be removed from this article. Martintg (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm carefully listening to your suggestions. ellol (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the parts about citizenship be moved from this article to Non-citizens (Latvia). Martintg (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the situation is viewed in excessive number of details. Indeed the section can be shortened with parts being removed to other articles, yet imho it's important to say that 350-400 thousands people, mostly Russians, remain non-citizens in Latvia and can't participate in political life, despite many have lived in that land for decades. same about Estonia. It's important to say how Europeans consider the situation. ellol (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is excessive amount of detail which best goes into another article. It is a fact that there 350-400 thousands people who remain non-citizens in Latvia, but nowhere is it stated in published sources that Europe believes this is due to "anti-Russian sentiment". This connection is synthesis. Also the paragraph connecting education policy with "anti-Russian sentiment" is also synthesis. I propose keeping the only first and last paragraph, and moving the rest to other articles. Martintg (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Discrimination against Nouveau riche Russians

This article includes some degree of anti-Russian sentiment from the usual suspects (Baltics and Poland), but is missing a lot from "old Europe". For example, Kitzbühel, a ski-resort in Austria, actively tell Russians their resorts are full when Russian capacity reaches 10%. It is thought this is because the Nouveau riche are buying up properties in the area, thereby driving up prices. There is similar sentiment in Montenegro, where Russians are buying up properties on the Adriatic. This is seen right throughout Europe in varying shapes and forms, and hopefully someone can introduce and expand on this in the article, as this is not a priority of mine at this stage. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 13:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Baltic non-citizenry continued

Detailed discussion of CoE reports and national/constitutional laws regarding non-citizens does not belong in an article such as this and belongs instead in articles on the non-citizens of Estonia and Latvia, with a summary sentence or two here for each and with "See also...". If there are no strenuous objections, I will be happy to summarize appropriately and transfer. PētersV (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I repeat the above observation/offer, after the deletion (and revert) of material added from the very same report to achieve a balanced perspective, that all the detailed CoE content on Estonia and Latvia be moved to more appropriate articles with only a summary here. Perhaps we might discuss here first? PētersV (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, I moved the Latvian content (larger) and made the changes. I believe the summary I've left fairly and accurately represents the reports. The reminder about the U.N. with regard to Estonia was not material as there are no barriers to children born in Estonia having access to Estonian citizenship and therefore does not support the "anti-Russian sentiment" topic. PētersV (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think most of this section should be removed, since it is WP:SYN to make the connection between citizenship and language policy and anti-Russian sentiment. Unless someone can provide a cite to reliable english language source that explicitly states that these policies are influenced by anti-Russian sentiment, then it should be removed. Martintg (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the inclusion at all here is supposedly on reputable contentions that Estonian and Latvian policy are formulated on an anti-Russian basis. All these materials can be placed in the Latvian non-citizen article and Estonian citizenship article. PētersV (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this should be moved to the respective citizenship articles. Where is the scholarly source that articulates that Estonian and Latvian policy are formulated on an anti-Russian basis? None are presented that explicitly states this, therefore this is some Wikipedian's synthesis. Martintg (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

People continue reverts without talks. Which one is stable article version everyone agree on? --windyhead (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

As Latvian non-citizens issues are concerned, the provided COE materials ensure that neither pro-Latvian nor pro-Russian point dominates. Without that, we would have to provide accusations of Latvian authorities from the Russian side in full detail -- providing here views of speakers for Latvian non-citizens. I repeat -- in all conflict situations positions of both sides are laid out to help reader make unbiased choice. To enlighten this task for readers, here is the report from Commissioner for Human Rights, representing a neutral unbiased side. ellol (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

1) 20% of Latvian population are non-citizens. 2) 66% of Latvian non-citizens are Russians. There are sources making a link between 1) and 2). Thank you, ellol (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

But I don't see quotes from sources linking those with this article subject --windyhead (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ellol, 1) and 2) is true, but to then say this is evidence of 3) anti-Russian sentiment is incorrect, because if there was real anti-Russian sentiment then 2) must be 100% of Latvian non-citizens are Russians, not 66%. There is no reliable source that gives a connection between 2) and 3). Martintg (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The CoE report does nothing to demonstrate anti-Russian sentiment. It is Ellol's POV that no requirements for citizenship is the only "non-anti-Russian" position. PētersV (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's look on the structure of the section.

First of all there's "The Russian authorities and media regularly accuse Estonia and Latvia of anti-Russian discrimination.[8][9] One of the most common claims is about citizenship discrimination."

Stop. This phrase sets the logics of the entire section. Is there really citizenship discrimination or not? It's important to provide different, verifiable views on that. ellol (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not have a POV. I do not care neither about Latvian citizens, nor about non-citizens. But I believe that the Commissioner for Human Rights provides a very verifiable point and there's a need of strong verifiable arguments to doubt in accuracy of his report. ellol (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The "logics of the entire section" is flawed because it is based on a formal fallacy of Affirming the consequent: If P, then Q, Q, Therefore P. If there is anti-Russian sentiment, then there is citizenship discrimination. Citizenship discrimination is affirmed. Therefore there is anti-Russian sentiment.

The reality is that citizenship discrimination is purely based upon whether they can trace their roots to the pre-war republic, i.e, it is based upon the principle of legal continuity. It is not based on ethnicity, nor is it anti-Russian. Don't forget that all Russians who could trace their roots back got citizenship automatically (including the 10000 living in Pskov Oblast), while many ethnic Estonians and Latvians who emigrated away before the pre-war republics were formed (some 100,000 or so emigrated to Russia and USA around 1905) have to naturalise too. Martintg (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting why the government of Latvian SSR did not protest against Russians moving into the republic after 1945. Then there would be no problem after 1991 after all. No, at first it's needed to create the problem, and then to deprive people of rights to solve it. ellol (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Because the original Latvian leadership was arrested and/or executed while the government of the Latvian SSR was installed by Moscow via sham election. So why would a puppet government installed by Moscow protest against Moscow? No rights have been deprived, Latvia and Russia have given people who immigrated to Latvia the right to choose between either Latvian or Russian citizenship. What right does Latvia have to impose citizenship on someone, if they don't want it. Many people are very comfortable with non-citizenship status, they can avoid military service in both Latvia and Russia, and they are free to travel visa-free in both EU and Russia. What do you expect Latvia to do? Point a gun to their head and demand they take a Latvian passport? If they want citizenship they can get it. Latvia has preserved the most fundamental of all human rights: the right to choose. Martintg (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(od) Several things. While Hammarberg makes good points in other areas where the dynamics of the situation are as one might expect based on general societal dynamics (for example, homophobia), he misses the boat on citizenship, where normal rules and external expectations do not apply. He decries low citizenship among children, but in the Latvian report makes it clear he does not suggest forcing citizenship. In the Estonian case, he's a bit stronger about enforcing Estonian citizenship for children but still stops short of mandatory. He further admits the authorities may be correct that some prefer not to have citizenship, but doesn't investigate that contention at all, preferring to judge the situation on his own mores and whatever pablum he's been fed, concluding with insulting the authorities by stating slow results must be from the lack of effort on their part. I don't recall anywhere in his report where, regarding citizenship, he reviews any specific programs and specifically finds them to be lacking.
   As for the Latvian SSR protesting Russification (an impossibility), aside from the puppet government installed by Moscow's apparatchiks, let's not also forget that when Latvian nationalism did manage to raise its ugly head for one moment in 1959, its proponents were "purged" as fast as you could pack them off to Siberia.
   I'm sorry, but all these contentions about anti-Russian sentiment are all synthesis based on a lack of knowledge of basic facts regarding history as well as the current situation, quoting a CoE report that had convicted the Latvian authorities on the citizenship "issue" before even speaking to them. That is the only possible reason for not investigating the contention that non-citizens may prefer to maintain that status for themselves and their children. PētersV (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know in Soviet Union national questions were dealt with care. Like, there were quotas in republic universities providing not less than certain percentage of indigenous population could study there. I know also that according to Soviet norms, a major part of Latvian SSR government had to represent Latvian people. If Latvian population had concerns about the situation, necessary amendments to regional quotas and the stuff would be made, -- am I being mistaken here??? ellol (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're mistaken here. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Peters, I understand your position about occupation and the like. But I also understand the position of people who had just moved to a republic of the Soviet Union and lived there for decades, and now are deprived of elementary political rights. ellol (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, a few things...

• These of course were now all Russian institutions of education; "quotas" only serve to enforce education of the occupied inhabitants in the Soviet fashion.
• "Representing the Latvian people" is mistaking whatever is said on paper for being meaningful, recall what happened when the Latvian SSR was purged in 1959 of 2,000 (as I recall) of the hierarchy when it was ventured that the Latvian SSR was Latvian.
• And so you are completely mistaken that the concerns of the Latvian population counted for anything under the Soviet Union.

My parents were deprived of everything, their homes, their possessions, and nearly their lives as the Soviets bombed fleeing refugee boats, sinking one next to theirs. They arrived in a strange land with nothing left of their prior life but what fit into two small wooden suitcases. In the displaced persons camps in Germany, where the food situation was at times so bad the camp management suggested they learn to eat grass, they learned English because that was the language of the land they were most likely going to emigrate to. Their generation all learned the language, all became citizens of their newly adopted country. Some of their parents were too old to want to learn the language, and so they didn't, nor did many of that generation become citizens: THEIR CHOICE. And so, after nearly TWENTY YEARS of Latvian independence, any non-citizen (majority Russians) who:

• got to claim their Soviet provided residence illegally appropriated from the prior owners as their personal residence for free;
• is paid a pension regardless of citizenship status;
• doesn't have to have their non-citizen children submit to military service
• ... all good reasons not to take Russian citizenship, no?

and screams of "discrimination" is ungrateful for the material gains and opportunity they have been given. It's not oppression, after twenty years it's still crying over losing their first place in line ahead of the Latvians. THEIR CHOICE. PētersV (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Almost forgot, the non-citizenry is fully involved in the political process and societal issues and dialog through numerous NGOs. Deprived of "elementary" rights? The non-citizenry received far more than I personally believe they deserved. Anyone who claimed their house and a certain amount of surrounding property for free should have been given a ten year time limit to become a citizen or forfeit that property. That would have taken care of the citizenship "issue" long ago. After twenty years, the "issue" is not the fault of the Latvians or the Latvian government. PētersV (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As any national story, it's one-sided. The other story is about people who were equally repressed by the Soviet regime, and after 1991 turned out to be non-citizens in a newly independent country. The rise of nationalism happened in all post-Soviet republics. In some Asian countries Russians were simply murdered if they were unlucky to reside there. In Latvia they do not have certain rights. To me, these events have common nature. And it doesn't have anything to do with Christian ideals. ellol (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but are there any reliable sources that connect Latvia's citizenship policy to "anti-Russian sentiment"? Martintg (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Martintg is correct in his question.

   "As any national story, it's one-sided." It's not. Your "The other story is about people who were equally repressed by the Soviet regime, and after 1991 turned out to be non-citizens in a newly independent country" is, in fact, the one-sided projection. As I stated:

• you kept your house, the rightful owners, whether Latvians who had fled or remained, had to settle for alternate compensation instead of getting their ancestral homes back
• you receive a pension like everyone else
• you participate in societal dialog through NGO's
• you have no obligation of military service
• and you got all this while asked to contribute nothing to the new Latvian state in return.

Now, for, imported Russians were repressed "like everyone else." First, it is precisely naive contentions such as these which let today's Russia off the hook for atoning for any crimes committed by the Soviets. Second, being imported and being stuck in a factory apartment in one of the most desirable republics in the post WWII USSR is not the same repression as being woken by soldiers bursting through your door and given 15 minutes to pack for Siberia. I am sorry, but there is nothing "one-sided" to my contentions.

   What is "one-sided" is that a small community of political opportunists and agitants along with the Russian foreign ministry continue to manufacture a human rights "crisis" where there is none. And what some of Latvia's "imported" Russians who have chosen citizenship (the majority) say about these people is far more scathing than anything I've stated here.

   Lastly, that Russians were killed elsewhere has NO bearing particularly on Latvia, which was multi-cultural before WWII. PētersV (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not say Russians were sent to Latvia as a punishment. If you recall famous Zemskov's data [32], you'll see that from 1939 to 1947 there was a median of 6400 of Latvian prisoners in GULAG, while 610,000 Russian prisoners. Dividing by the number of all Latvians and Russians -- 1,430,000 and 137,000,000 respectively, you get a number of 45 prisoners per 100,000 population per each ethnic group with good correctness.

Soviet Union was not an empire, it was a dictatorship, treating its all citizens in equal way. ellol (talk) 10:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

In the article I did not said human rights problems of Russian population are caused by anti-Russian sentiment. But they are of course related to the issue. ellol (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say: "But they are of course related to the issue", because no reliable source has been given that states this is related. So therefore this must be your personal opinion. However expressing personal opinion on Wikipedia is not permitted, this is called soapboxing, all content on Wikipedia must be based on what published sources say, and no reliable sources have been presented that state Latvian citizenship policy is related to "anti-Russian sentiment", therefore this synthesized content must be removed. Martintg (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, in the section I made no connection of one to other, just provided some data on the real situation. You can only accuse me of not due weight of the stuff I edited, but there's no OR. ellol (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If there is no connection of one to other, then why include it? The fact of its inclusion and juxtaposition in the article makes the connection implicitly. Martintg (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

War of information?

(some Russians even describe this as a"war of information")Hmm... never heard that one before. I think what they are referring here is what is sometimes called in Russia Информационная война or Informational war (Information war). That probalby will be more accurate. Try to google for Война информации (war of information)

and

Информационная война (information war)

The latter varian garners way more hits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.58.136.172 (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The grammatical structures of Russian and English differ naturally. There's nothing wrong with translating Война информации to War of information.

A perhaps amusing example in similar vein is the fact that in French -- whose influences can be felt throughout Russian ever since Peter I --, the acronym for NATO is OTAN due to different word order. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 01:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

United States section

I have removed the US section, as it does not have anything to do with anti-Russian sentiment. We are here to describe Russophobia the concept, and that section just didn't describe it, it was WP:SYN. However, Russophobia is alive and well in the US, and that is verifiable -- articles such as this demonstrates - this is the type of information which needs to be explained.

Other areas which are surprisingly missing from the article include the UK - where Russophobia has a long and pround history, and Denmark and Sweden (going back to at least the 17th centuries). I don't have time to include this, but perhaps someone can include details, there's plenty of scholarly writings on these. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree, that section about the USA was total nonsense and nothing to do with the concept of "Russophobia". While you are at it, could you also remove the section on the Baltic states, since what has those country's citizenship policies have to do with the concept of "Russophobia", apart from being WP:SYN? Martintg (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There haven't been significant international disagreements between Russia and Denmark or Russia and Sweden recently, so nobody has bothered to write these sections.

That happens when people concentrate too much over "proving" the currently popular propaganda claims and never bother to work through actual sources of notable data that just isn't in fashion. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 01:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Descorching

I descorched the section on Baltic states. Similarly, sections on Poland and Romania should be thoroughly reworked to become coherent again, but unfortunately, I'm insufficiently familiar with backgrounds of these cases, so I'm not ready to do it myself. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 01:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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: [33]. 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 [34]. --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)

Experience

A few days ago, I experienced a curious scene.

It was late at night, almost 22:00, and I was visiting a food store to buy some groceries for next day. Queueing at the cashier took a few minutes, and it was past 22 by the time I was leaving the store. Since 22 was the official closing time, the security guard had closed the automatic entrance doors, and was letting people out of the doors one by one.

At the same time I exited, two men of around 25 years of age showed up and demanded, in loud Russian, that they be let into the store. The security guard attempted to explain, in a sort of broken Russian, that the store is closed, but the benefit from this explanation was slow to materialise. Importantly for this particular context, one of the last things the men did before giving up was accusing the security guard of refusing them entry on ethnic grounds.

I might have witnessed the start of a new story about Russophobia in Estonia.

Full disclosure: due to my line of work, I'm a late shopper every few weeks, and I have been turned back from this particular store once or twice before for showing up too late. Ever since the Parliament prohibited retailing spirits after 22:00, this store has been rather precise in enforcing closing time. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)