Talk:Anti-Russian sentiment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Russophobia)
Jump to: navigation, search

Aivars Slucis isn't notable[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please refrain from using Wikipedia as a soapbox, and try instead to discuss improvement of the article. Lklundin (talk)
The Estonia paragraph (and several others) lacks context. Adding the context will improve this article. Economical context is important, beacause it can be measured. Xx236 (talk) 08:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Letter of 40 intellectuals should be probably mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
A text by Slucis (probably the mentioned op-ed, I don't like his Holocaust wording, but the problem of Soviet crimes against Latvian people wasn't known at that time.) According to Werth 16.500 Latvians were shot, not 75,000 . [5] Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

Anti–Russian sentiment among Vietnamese[edit]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

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

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

Final sentence in the intro paragraph[edit]

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

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

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