Talk:Anti-Russian sentiment/Archive 3

message: "The history of the long and bitter Russo-Polish rivalry for the lands of the ancient Kievan Rus, as well as the loss of Polish imperial status contributed to the broad Russophobia throughout Polish society" - I thought it would be more like 100 years of being a Russian province? A province of "Russian Empire", no less (was there ever any "Polish empire"?). --HanzoHattori 20:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Could have been fixed in a sec. (done) Any other reasons for your tag? `'mikka 20:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "loss of imperial status"? how about loss of COUNTRY? 

message: What is that? I dont think that you can really talk of Russian imperialism. Lets see- is it the Russian Federation that has military bases all over the world? Or maybe Russian planes bombed Yugoslavia and Iraq back to the stone age? 
I am sorry but I dont think this is even politically correct. You can talk about an American imperialism but Russian imperialism doesn't really make sense since the country has not made any moves to invade another country or bomb it into stone age. (Dont talk about Chechnya , it is a legitimate part of Russia and even in its defacto independent years it wasnt recognised by anyone but Taliban)
:the sentence in question deleted as someone's unreferenced speculation. `'mikka 01:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  modern Russian imperialism 

message: I have created a stub about La Russophob blog  because it seems to be relevant to the subject of this article. But the stub was marked for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Russophob as not notable.  So, everyone is welcome to tell his/her opinion or improve this stub. Biophys 20:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is "La Russophobe" with an e. Google the two and see what comes up most. Jallor 23:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Biophys ne parle pas francaise. His ignorance is well-depicted by articles on Vladimir Putin and Boris Stomakhin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.184.225.28 (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. My mistake. But this article will probably be deleted.  Next time I will make it right. But I did not write much about Putin, because Putin is unimportant.  He is not Stalin. Just imagine that Putin suddenly dies. What will change in Russia? Absolutely nothing.Biophys 16:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The same would be in Russia if Biophys would die too. Absolutely nothing, except for a few happy people in Wikipedia.Vlad fedorov 08:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, sounds like a compliment.Biophys 23:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Biophys, engaging in "what if"s is, generally speaking, a bad idea, and speculating about political future is even more so. As for the blog, well it does not meet WP notability criteria, so the AFD will decide... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. History is unpredictable, so may be I am wrong, and Putin is  Stalin of the future. We will see. Biophys 23:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please stop useless trolling. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same words could be very accurate, regarding Graf's campaigns:  Constanz - Talk 18:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Observance of Wikipedia policies that classify unsupported removal of tags as vandalism and allow reverts of such changes is hardly trolling. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, wrong link by me perhaps! I should have linked Occupation talk page instead. Constanz - Talk 18:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: La Russophob

message: From now on all idle chat will be removed. I understand that the topic is calling for political rants, but please stick to the discussion of the article content. `'mikka 20:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Idle chat

message: Some fellow editors asked explanation, why I tagged this article with  tag. Actually Wikipedia guidelines for avoiding weasel words and the article about weasel words give very comprehensive overview of this style problem, but anyway, I will mention some points.
# The attitude towards Russia and Russians in many former Soviet countries remains negative. This could be true or could be not, but you can't write encyclopedic article this way. Actually, how much is many in this case? Who says that attitude is negative in many countries? You may think many, but somebody else think only few or some. So, you have to avoid using that kind of statements if you not citate somebody (in this case the sitation has to be correct and clearly understand as citation of somebody).
# Many Azerbaijanis resent Russians because of Russia's support and solidarity with Armenians during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. - see point 1.
# All the Baltic States consider their past adjoinment to the Soviet Union to be an act of occupation and hold modern Russia as directly responsible Where this came from and what it has to do with mordern or ancient Russia? It's related to the Russia only in way that Russia is considered the Soviet Union's successor state in diplomatic matters.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia But for some reason you deleted "as successor of the Soviet Union", which explains why Russia, and continues to push "modern", which is irrelevant in this context
# The fact of World War II Soviet Victory has been a very controversial issue... Who says that fact of Soviet Victory (by the way, when I last checked wiki article about World War II, it said something about Allied forces, including the Soviet Union) is controversial? If this sentence is related to the previous sentence, its more correct to talk about the consequences of World War II for the Baltic countries. And this is controversial issue because there are different interpretations if the Baltics were occupied or adjoined the Soviet Union voluntary. 
# is best summarised by the Latvian president. Who said this? Kuban kazak? Please see the guidelines why you have to avoid that kind of statements.
# who, in a televised interview remarked on a derogatory stereotype of Russian behaviour. Again, this is an opinion and you have to say who said this is an aderogatory stereotype.
# In addition, with the sole exception of Lithuania, denied automatic citizenship to Soviet-time migrants upon the break-up of Soviet Union. What added value has in addition? See guidelines for explanation. Also, there are only three Baltic states and if Lithuania excluded, remain only Estonia and Latvia. Why not say clearly Estonia and Latvia as it was in the last version before yesterday. Instead of this, right now there is some kind buzzling construction with all and sole exception. It gives feeling that wordiness was used for POV pushing.
# Replacing upon restoring their independence with upon the break-up of Soviet Union without giving any reason. Break-up of Soviet Union may remain, but "restoring their independence" is one of the key points to the Baltic citizenship laws. 
# Many Russians see this as an act of discrimination and even apartheid as non-citizens are severely restricted in their basic rights. Again many. This time with the references, so it could be replaced by some (which is also weasel word per se) or to say that according to Sergey S. Yuriev, President of the Law Assembly. And as this is opinion, not a fact, it has to be stated as an opinion, not as an fact. By the way, this reference is from 1996, so it's not very up to date.
# Many Georgians see the Russian government as the ultimate culprit behind the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict‎ and the Georgian-Ossetian conflict, - see point 1.
# Many western Ukrainians, - see point 1.
# However many Ukrainian citizens, - see point 1.
I will replace  tag. Please don't remove it before improving this article. At least, this is an encyclopedic article, not an essey or an article from Komsomolskaya Pravda. 80.235.67.128 16:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words

message: In case readers are wondering what this "russofobia" thingy is, here is a prime example. I found this as the only reference in the article on Ernst Leonard Lindelöf, a Finnish matematican. The reference if from the MacTutor History of Mathematics archive:
* O'Connor, John J., and Edmund F. Robertson. "Ernst Leonard Lindelöf". MacTutor History of Mathematics archive. 
Notice, who they do not even use the O-word. Enjoy! -- Petri Krohn 02:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russophobia example 

message: Maybe that's how many took it then, but the Catholics I knew all took the "errors, etc" as meaning Communism. Even in 1917 seeing it as meaning Radical politics was not implausible as Russia since the 1870s had been known for Radical atheist and nihilist groups. (And a demeaning attitude Orthodoxy didn't necessarily specify Russian Orthodoxy anyway or specific to Catholic views either. Protestant pilgrims looked down on Orthodoxers in Palestine and saw Eastern Europeans as superstitious. This part seems a bit skewed)--T. Anthony 11:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fatima deal

message: In my opinion, Turkmenistan section  shows no visible relevance to Russophobia at all. It describes general human rights issue in the country, without any well-known ethnic- or country-motivated distinction. Should be rewritten in full or deleted (with a link in "Sea also" section). Ukrained 17:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me second. It could be of Ukrainophobia as well. There were many Ukrainians in Soviet Central Asia.AlexPU 13:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't object to describing Russophobia in Turkmenistan. I even suspect there's much of it there. But don't mess Russophobia with general issues. BTW, this way is politically dangerous for you Russians. If you label general human rights abuses (and normal practices in Baltic States or Belgium) with "Russophobia", you would effectively push the point that the whole planet hates Russia, just because :))).AlexPU 19:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What are you on about? For you, judging by some of your comments and simultaneously painting yourself as a an expert it is irrelevant what is or is not normal, and what does Belgium have to do with this? Please stay on the topic.--Kuban Cossack 22:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Or I do not care... and actually is the Severstal incident that notable? Compared to apartheid policies of limiting Russian language in Russian speaking schools to 40% and no more normal? Imagine if someone did that to American schools around the world? And please given by the tone of some of your comments and edit patterns You just make such propaganda changes fucking again, and I'll fulfill my threat about Russian articles!, some of the insults in the heading above apply to you MUCH more than they apply to me. --Kuban Cossack 22:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Arcelor a Belgian steel company? Have a look at the wikipedia article on it. Note that the Dutch version on Arcelor categorizes Arcelor both as "French company" and as "Luxembourgish company". The biggest shareholder of Arcelor was the government of Luxembourg. Your reference to Belgium can only mean you wanted to involve Belgian language legislation. Too bad that the percentage of French speakers in Belgium is slightly lower than 40% - which makes it comparable to the percentage of Russain speakers in a number of countries mentioned here. Naughty, naughty ... --Pan Gerwazy 09:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ukrained, you were an extremely prolific diff creator lately, as practically every talk page entry in the last two-three months shows. So, just keep this down please. --Irpen 08:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Turkmenistan

message: To the best of my expert knowledge, GUAM is emphatically non-anti-Russian institution. I can supply many diffs on that. And it's practically inactive BTW. The authors of this page are witchhunting and crusading against the West.AlexPU 14:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GUAM 

message: Well if people insist on it then please reference it, on how in Ukraine people hate Russia more as one climbs the career ladders. I for one can be quite certain that with the exception of Tyagnibok and the like, as well as the head of Channel five. BTW here is sweet article  я постоянно занимался историей Малороссии, всегда страстно любил Украину не только как страну с тучными полями, с прекрасным климатом, но и со славным историческим прошлым, с людьми, вся идеология которых разнится от московской; но тут разница между мною и украинскими кругами та, что последние, любя Украину, ненавидят Россию; у меня этой ненависти нет. by Pavlo Skoropadsky. --Kuban Cossack 22:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Social russophobia

message: Pan Gerwazy explained one of his revertion saying "our article on Russian School Defense Staff does have sources which say thousands". What means "our article"? According to the basic rules of Wikipedia, you can't own the article, so no article can be mines, yours or ours. Or do you mean "our" as a member of this Defense Staff? Belgian who is living in Moscow and fighting in Latvia? Anyway, its also against accepted practise to make cross-references, so if you like, please add a correct reference into this article.213.219.80.106 15:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear anonymous, "our article " meant of course the wikipedia article. Our meant "of us", Wikipedian editors. There was no WP:OWN there. Oh, and I replaced "protests" by "protesters" but somehow, in a further edit war, someone made that "protests" again. Glad to see you have had a look at my user page, by the way. And fell into the Moscow trap. As for the rest of your allegations, please remember WP:NPA. Thank you. --Pan Gerwazy 21:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Our article"

message: For pushing his POV, User:Kuban kazak added reference about compensation claims. The title of the referred article says "Latvia demands $100 million for occupation from Russia", but the text describes only Parliamental discussions. As of today, no claim is presented. However, if you like this so much, you probably support also adding information about report of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation. 213.219.80.106 16:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compensation claims

message: It is interestesting to see that anti russian imperialism is seen by russian as anti russian sentiment ....
An easy way to diabolize everyone which don not agree with state imperialism —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.199.46.32 (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think most people will agree that "anti-russian sentiment" is a nicer word (Wikipedians would say "more neutral term") than "anti-russian imperialism". That is why some people may have thought that you were trolling.--Pan Gerwazy 21:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti Russian Imperialism