![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
Please do not mix Russophobia with ukrainian internal policy! It has nothing to do with russian people.
What does this phrase mean?
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)
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)
“ | 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. | ” |
“ | – 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. |
” |
“ | щоб не ображати російську мову, ми написали про мову попси і блатняка, бо це різні речі. | ” |
“ | "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"). | ” |
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)
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)
“ | 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 [5] 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 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 [6] [7]!!!! Mariah-Yulia 19:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
“ | 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Does Anti-Orthodox is a same as Anti-Russian? If not, this section has nothing to do in this article.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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 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:
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 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)
Cannot see any! Who put the template and wherefore? Muscovite99 ( talk) 17:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
(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)
(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)
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 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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
Please do not mix Russophobia with ukrainian internal policy! It has nothing to do with russian people.
What does this phrase mean?
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)
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)
“ | 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. | ” |
“ | – 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. |
” |
“ | щоб не ображати російську мову, ми написали про мову попси і блатняка, бо це різні речі. | ” |
“ | "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"). | ” |
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)
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)
“ | 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 [5] 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 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 [6] [7]!!!! Mariah-Yulia 19:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
“ | 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Does Anti-Orthodox is a same as Anti-Russian? If not, this section has nothing to do in this article.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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 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:
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 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)
Cannot see any! Who put the template and wherefore? Muscovite99 ( talk) 17:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
(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)
(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)
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 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)