Talk:Anti-Russian sentiment/Archive 2

message: I think Rusophobia is a duplicate of this article... no? --W.marsh 01:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was significant revert warring on this page around 8 November 2005, Molobo was the one inserting the POV tag, perhaps you could ask him/her. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Molobo is an unrepented troll, and no sensible editor would feed the trolls. --Ghirla | talk 11:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure about Caucasus and Chechnya being mentioned as NPOV examples of Russophobia. What do you think ? --Lysytalk 01:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to Chechnya if you want to learn. The Chechens like Poles. They don't cut their heads, as is customary in their dealings with Britons, Russians, and other foreigners. --Ghirla | talk 11:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant is I kńow there is a conflict between Chechnya and Russia, but it seems much more severe than "dislike of Russia". Do you think it's appropriate to call it Russophobia ? --Lysytalk 21:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. Of course, it is not dislike, it is hatred. And it is started way before the bombings of Grozny. And hatred is also included into the basic definition of an antinational "-phobia". mikka (t) 08:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed especially thousands of Russians who lived through the Chechen genocide of 1990-94. I personally took part in the second Chechen campaign to liberate the Chechen rebublic from the occupationalist Maskhadov government.  --Kuban kazak 02:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rusophobia]] 

message: What is up with that picture?  I don't understand the image's relevance in any way.--1 black hand 11:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which picture? mikka (t) 08:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Le Merridien hotel. --Lysytalk 17:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the-- 

message: Can please someone explain the relevance of Polonization to this article. But please do not use the "Polonization was against Orthodox, Russians were Orthodox therefore Polonization was against Russians" kind of logics. I would apprieciate the frank explanation, not ill-formed rhetoric figures. --Lysytalk 21:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, what's wrong with this logic? Nevertheless it is not the case. "Polonization" is mentioned in a very specific context. Please read the sentence carefully: it speaks about conversion to catholicism, and Polonization is a example of such processes. Now, back to the suspected logic.  Judging from your name I suspect you are a Pole, and I am surprized of your underestimation of the influence of religion on people's worldview. If ksiądz tells you that russians are heretics, what shall you think? mikka (t) 08:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's what's wrong with the above logic: "Russians fought Germany in WW2, Germans were Europeans, therefore Russia was against Europeans". What I'm concerned about is that mentioning Polonization in this context suggests that there was a policy of Polonization targeted against Russians in medieval Poland. We are not talking about 20th century Polonization policies, are we ? Medieval Catholic Church used Latin, not Polish. I believe this is simply a misunderstanding but if you insist, I would ask to support the Polonization of Russia claims to be supported with some reasonable sources. (I did not understand your remark about ksiądz telling me that Russians are heretics) --Lysytalk 08:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "what's wrong with logic": Exercise: find the difference in logical structures of "Orthodox" and "Germany" examples. My daughter does such brainteasers at school. Also, there was no Polonization of Russia. And if you don't understand what happens with parafia when their ksiądz keeps telling them  that Russians are heretics, then you are thoroughly underqualified to discuss the issue.  mikka (t) 10:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, I'm impressed with your intellectual superiority. Now, could you please either explain your theory of medieval Polonization or remove it from the article. It could help the discussion if we both appreciated that we obviously come from different cultural backgrounds and things that seem obvious to you may not be so obvious to me and vice-versa. I'm sure you're aware that showing some minimal respect towards the others would help too. Anyway, are there any sources to support this theory of the influence of early Polonization on Russophobia ? --Lysytalk 07:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is not my superiority. I have my own problems as well. There are sources (are you really claiming that Poles just loved Muskovites, Russians, Soviets? That they longed dolaczyc sie do przyjaciół Moskali?). BTW, Polonization was not only medieval. The referred artricle is called Polonization, not Medieval Polonization; yet another example of your attempts to skew the discussion to suit your goals. Since it seems that you failed to find useful books, you may start from wikipedia article Logical fallacy. This particular case is known as "straw man" (convenient twisting of opponent's position). mikka (t) 22:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mentioned "Do przyjaciół Moskali". Did you read that poem? Maybe you should have. ("Żrąca jest i paląca mojej gorycz mowy,(...) / Niech żre i pali, nie was, lecz wasze okowy.") --Monkey Man 10:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Mikka, I beg you try to assume my good faith, even if you suspect me of the worst Russophobic intentions. As to whether Poles just loved Russians, obviously not. I think it's been some sort of love-and-hate relationship. An obvious but maybe useful stereotype oversimplification could be that Poles usually loved Russian people and hated Russian goverments. My concern here however is about the way that Polonization is mentioned in the article. No doubt there were different types of Polonization throughout history. We are probably best aware of (or first think of) the 20th century Polonization policies towards national minorities in Poland. The article however says "In the centuries following the East-West Schism of 1054", which suggests it does not refer to 20th century, but earlier times (of course someone could claim that 20th century is one of the centuries following 1054). Are you aware of any forced Polonization of Russians before 20th century ? --Lysytalk 22:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polonization and Russophobia 

message: Whatever the category was before, it is now renamed to :Category:Anti-national sentiment, and I see several articles have already been renamed into this format. Therefore I suggest to rename this one into Anti-Russian sentiment as well, since it has overgrown the scope of my initial "Russophobia" stub.  mikka (t) 00:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article rename 

message: Amusingly, Russophobia can be easily cured  with almost 100% success rate. --Lysytalk 13:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The cure

message: Who is the author of this translation to English: "Partition of Russia is fundamental for our policy in the East. Our position will depend on who will take part in that partition. Poland shouldn't stand aside in this remarkable moment of history. Our task is to prepare ourselves both morally and materially. Our principal aim is weakening and defeat of Russia" (report of the Polish General Staff, 1938, «Z dziejów stosunków polsko-radzieckich. Studia i materiały», T.III. Warszawa, 1968, S. 262, 287.). --Lysytalk 21:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: :12 / 2003
:Янина Куманецкая
:ПОЛЯКИ И РУССКИЕ: ТРУДНОЕ СОСЕДСТВО
:«Между неприятием и восхищением» — так называется открывшаяся в Национальной библиотеке выставка, на которой представлена история польско-российских культурных контактов, рассматриваемых в перспективе непростой истории двух народов
:В XVIII веке военное и политическое превосходство было на стороне России, однако тип взаимоотношений двух стран еще не определился окончательно. Только в конце века в результате разделов Польши большая часть земель прежней Речи Посполитой отошла к Российской империи. Политическая ситуация была недвусмысленна. Именно тогда в Польше зародились те антирусские настроения, которые в дальнейшем не раз получали новую пищу, а многие сохранились и по сей день
:"grattes un Russe et vous trouvers un barbare"
 
:Mikolaj Rej: (rough translation) "People of Sween and Denmark are uneducated and foul, in their nbarbarianism comparable to Muscovites" (here Muscovites are not simply barbarians; even better: they are the measuring stick for barbarianism)
:Jerzy Faryno, Polacy w oczach Rosjan. Rosjane w oczach Polaków. Zbior studiow. Warszawa, IS PAN, 2000
:Wojciech Gilewski. "Rosja Mikołaja I w oczach pamiętnikarzy polskich":
::"Kolejnym czynnikiem, który obok historii obu państw wpływał na kształtowanie się wizerunku Rosjan, były i może nadal są różnice religijne...Katolicy uważali, że prawosławie jest schizmą, a przez to wyznaniem z gruntu fałszywym. Pochodną takiego stanowiska było dążenie do zatarcia granic dzielących obie religie....Zatem Rosjanie, jako niechrześcijanie, schizmatycy, nie zasługiwali na godne traktowanie, na zrozumienie swojej odmienności - można było ich bezkarnie poniżać i z nimi walczyć. Właśnie na bazie takich rozbieżności kształtował się przez wieki stosunek Polaków do Rosjan - często ze względu na religię, powszechnie uważaną za gorszą, także wschodnich sąsiadów uważano za gorszych"
:::Rosjanie jako naród w relacjach pamiętnikarskich
::::Rosjanie jako naród nie mieli u naszych pamiętnikarzy pozytywnej prasy
:"Polacy i Rosjanie. 100 kluczowych pojęć" ISBN 83-88032-45-3 Warszawa 2002, s. 350
:Praca zbiorowa pod red. Agnieszki Magdziak-Miszewskiej, Moniki Zuchniak, Pawła Kowala 
::"Ta książka powstała z potrzeby przełamania stereotypów i uprzedzeń polsko-rosyjskich."
::Kilkadziesiąt esejów zostało napisanych specjalnie do tej książki przez wybitnych polskich i rosyjskich intelektualistów zdających sobie sprawę, że ciągłe patrzenie na siebie przez pryzmat utartych schematów jest nie tylko anachroniczne, ale również szkodliwe. Szkodliwe dla Polaków, którzy ze swoją odwieczną podejrzliwością wobec Rosji budzą zdumienie w Europie, jak i dla Rosjan, którzy - także podejrzliwi - mogą popełnić błąd w ocenie miejsca i roli współczesnej Polski. 
Enough? Or more hundreds of primary and secondary sources? mikka (t) 17:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good, but you're still missing the point. Where do you have your Polonization of Russia in all this ? --Lysytalk 19:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  some more quotes for those who turn blind eye on history

message: Was Catherine the Great really known for these words ? Or was she known to say the words ? --Lysytalk 20:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catherine the Great was known for her words 

message: Russians constructed Orthodox churches in centres of many cities in Poland 1815-1914, not only to prise the Lord, but to show who rules. Your description of the RC pressure is biased, you don't mention the other side.
Xx236 11:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which parts of Poland? Yes we did built Orthodox Churches including the shamelessly destroyed cathedral of Alexander Nevsky in Warsaw. However they were not built to show who rules who, but to represent the Russian minority. Hey there are Polish cathedrals in Moscow like this one built in the same time period, and recentely restored. Who is the one that now has to show the opposite gesture of tolerance and agreement? --Kuban Cossack 13:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eventhough the last census showed that there are barely any Orthodox people in Warsaw, we do have three Orthodox churches and a monastery here. As to the destruction of Nevski's cathedral in Warsaw, it was indeed a shame that it was destroyed as it was indeed a precious piece of architecture. However, after the Russian retreat of 1915 there were barely any Russians left in Poland and at the same time the church was indeed seen as a sign of Russian domination and a monument to times of forcible Russification of Poland and the times when people here had to name catholic churches after the ruling tsar in order to make their construction possible at all (as was the case of St. Alexander's church, for instance). The destruction of a single Orthodox church occupying one of the central points of Warsaw and dominating its landscape (it was the tallest structure in the city back then) was not aimed against Orthodox people of Warsaw (who were left with, if memory serves me right, some 10 churches altogether - not bad for a community of less than 10,000 people) but against Polish traumas and Russian 19th century imperialism. Halibutt 13:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what happened to the other seven? --Kuban Cossack 18:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, and the Cracovians dismantled the monument to Marhsal Konev (who saved their city from sharing the fate of Warsaw, Konigsberg, and Dresden in WWII) and sent it back to Russia not out of Russophobia but to show their gratitude to Russian liberators? What a hypocrisy! --Ghirla | -трёп- 13:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I see that you prefer to have seen your country un-"liberated" and left to the mercy of the Nazis, until there would have been not a single Pole left alive. Well, it's your own choice, not mine. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If you think that the Western Allies with their negligible armies could have done anything against the Nazis without the USSR, well, I feel for you. Honestly, you are so amusing. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I prefer to resort to WP:DFTT here. They fought in Sahara, Birma, Antarctica and other improbable place which the Germans didn't really care about, while the Soviets broke the bones of the Wehrmacht with their own courage and blood. And please stop spreading around CIA-sponsored Cold War legends about "feeding" and supply. The Land Lease was negligible, providing less then 5% of the input of the Soviet war industry. I will not respond to your trolling any more. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What? Soviet Airforce being entirely dependent on US supplies? Most mass produced aircraft in the war: Il-2 Sturmovik and the Yak series.--Kuban Cossack 13:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was from a village Lodeino in the Vologda Oblast that my freind is in Russian Federation. --Kuban Cossack 13:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: And Chamberlain actually condemned the annexation of lands recoginesed by the proposed Curzon Line. --Kuban Cossack 14:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthodox church 

message: Would you please decide if the SU was Russia? The quoted text is about the Soviet Union, called till today "Russia" by many.
Xx236 12:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think many people (including Russians) still confuse or associate (rightly or not) Russia with SU. Therefore Russophobia presented in this article is often in fact Sovietophobia but the first term is much more popular. --Lysytalk 08:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Partition of Russia is fundamental for our policy in the East. Our position will depend on who will take part in that partition. Poland shouldn't stand aside in this remarkable moment of history. 

message: 1. It's about the SU, after the Great Famine and Great Purge, the most criminal state of that time.
2. The book is a Communist product, edited by the censorship.
Stop the pro-Soviet propaganda, you will have less "Russophobia".
Xx236 14:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partition of Russia is fundamental for our policy  

message: During the Cold War, the "godless (Russian) communist" figured heavily in American propaganda, so much that the Pledge of Allegiance of the US was changed to include "Under God" in order to distinguish America with the atheist Soviet Union. 
But it is true. The communists, many of the Russian, have killed hundreds of thousands of religious people, destroied thousands of churches. It's not Russophobia. This article is a mixture of the most absurd stories. 
Xx236 12:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheists 

message: So they are biased.
Xx236 12:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Although (worldwide) there are plenty of media outlets who provide positive news about Russia and Russians. 

message: It's the mixture of ignorance and Russian imperialism. My comments in the Talk page aren't answered, but when I cpntibute, the Russians remove my texts and call me a troll. 
Orthodox isn't the same as Russian and Russian isn't Orthodox. If you want to describe anti-Orthodox activities, do it in a correct place, not forgetting who exterminated Orthodox people and destroied the Church in Russia. 
Xx236 12:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's not a private Russian article 

message: Media should inform about positive and negative aspects of anything, including Russia and Russians. The sentence "Although (worldwide) there are plenty of media outlets who provide positive news about Russia and Russians." says that Russia manipulates world media. Is it true?
Xx236 13:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Although (worldwide) there are plenty of media outlets who provide positive news about Russia and Russians. 

message: The quoted text is about the Soviet Union. When I put a comment under the text, it's always removed. It reminds me many aspects of Russian and Soviet politics - lies, terror, insults and finally - "Russophobia".
13:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partition of Russia is fundamental for our policy in the East. 

message: I always thought the Blessed Virgin was refering to communism, not the fact Russians are schismatics. Could the author of this part somehow document his claims?
:So in your view all Orthodox christians are schismatics...Lovely unoriginal POV...--Kuban Cossack  11:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fatima???

message: What is the value of such statement? The SU was atheistic, there are millions of proves, since Orthodox martyrs till books and museums in churches. Yes, many Americans call Soviet people "Russians", it doesn't mean they are phobic in any way, they simply ignore geography and history.
Xx236 14:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  During the Cold War, the "godless (Russian) communist" figured heavily in American propaganda 

message: When and where did the Poles "Polonize"  ethnic Russians?
Xx236 14:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Belarusians and those belonging to the Orthodox religion were deprived of the right to heir any property in Rzeczpospolita and Grand Duchy of Lithuania after Krew Unia and according to numerous privelij's of Polish king. Polonization refers not only to the creation of Uniat religion by Polish catholics in Ukraine and Belarus and depriving non-catholics of any rights, especially Belarusian and Ukrainian nobility, but also refers to the policy of Pilsudski government on occupied territories on Western Belarus, where belarusian schools were closed, Orthodox churches were made Catholic churchers, where all belarusian literature and press was forbidden, while Polish occupants, who were taking place of forcibly moved into Poland belarusian population, accounted only 20% at best times. Even now, students of law in Poland do not study three Lithuanian (Belarusian) Great Statuts of Great Duchy of Lithuania, who were the most complete codes of law in 16th century in Europe, and study only Court book of Kazimierz.Vlad fedorov 10:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: In fact there were a number of Russians who got Polonized in the last 200 years. I personally met a girl who was a direct descendant of some Russian 19th century general named Orlov. Her great-grandparents left Russia in 1917 and settled in Poland and she considers herself a Pole nowadays. However, I'm not sure if her case is typical in any way. //Halibutt 16:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't call it Russophobic or anti-Russian either (especially that the girl was Orthodox, contrary to her parents who were atheist), but I guess this example is the only one we're going to get here, as our friends are not really keen on presenting sources fo their claims - and if they do, the result is usually similar to the above-mentioned respected scholar... Or am I wrong? //Halibutt 14:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polonization 

message: The quote comes from http://www.pereplet.ru/history/suvorov/suv_polsh.htm and the author is AVo>  Alexandr Volkov 2:478/3.88 
The guy is fantastic:
А если пана Пилсудского послушать? 
"Уже в 1918 году, независимо ни от кого, я поставил себе ясную цель в войне с Советами. Я решил приложить все силы к тому, чтобы сорвать любые попытки вновь навязать нам чужую, не самими поляками устроенную жизнь, причем сделать это как можно дальше от мест, где зарождалась и крепла новая жизнь. В 1919 году я эту задачу выполнил. Большевистские происки были сорваны так далеко, что Советы уже не могли препятствовать нам в возрождении нашей собственной жизни, хорошей или плохой - сейчас речь не об этом. Большое пространство, которым я отделился от "революции извне", имело в военном отношении и негативные стороны. При известном легкомыслии нашего народа, при, к сожалению, медленном и часто неумелом строительстве новой жизни были забыты законы, управляющие народом в военное время. Войну не видели вблизи, войну не принимали всерьез. Итак, намеченную цель я достиг в 1919 году." 
Пилсудский Ю. Война 1920 года. - М., 1992. - С. 263-268.
Видимо, легкая нажива не давала покою пану и в 1920 году? Если не так, то зачем нужно было втравливать свой "легкомысленный народ" в новую войну? Чтобы народ увидел эту войну поближе и принял в серьез? Или как? 
Xx236 12:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: English, please.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible source? 

message: :I think, Irpen, that you are downplaying the fact of the quote not being properly referenced.  As it was inserted (here), it created the impression that the author had consulted the Polish book directly, thus adding to the credibility of the quote.  The fact that it came from a Russian website really should have been added.  Still, everyone makes mistakes, so I am not going to put too much blame on Ghirlandajo for this.  What his true motivations were remains his business.  The real problems with Ghirlandajo's behavior began once serious discussion about the quote's credibility started.
:I raised the question of the quote's origin on April 14 (diff).  This would have been an excellent time for Ghirlandajo to come clean about where he got the quote, and provide the full information.  This was his duty as it was he who inserted the quote and it was his job to properly reference it. Ghirlandajo took a few days to think about the issue, then he reverted even the disputed tag placed on the quote, with an insulting comment diff, then he threw in some more invective in his comment on this talk page 
:After that came Ghirlandajo's claim that he forgot where the quote came from (diff).  At this point Ghirlandajo left the discussion.  Irpen was kind enough to provide references to the Russian webpages which contained the quote.  But Ghirlandajo could still find the time for a few more reverts, with more insulting or inaccurate comments: , ,  .
:Finally, at considerable effort, I tracked down the book (not easy in North America) and found that the quote did not exist, at least not in the reference that was cited.  Ghirlandajo's reaction was to insult me one more time , and also admit that all of a sudden he remembered where he obtained the quote.  
:After this fiasco, did Ghirlandajo admit to any wrongdoing or apologize for his reverts and insults to well meaning editors?  We have not seen it yet.  In fact, far from apologizing, Ghirlandajo started a little campaign against me ,, which for now seems to have got nowhere.  His latest angle of attack is that I am a new version of Molobo.  Apparently Ghirlandajo misses him, and is looking for a replacement.  I will not oblige him. Balcer 01:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My summary so far

message: One can quote Polish intelligence documents but many Soviet intelligence
documents remaind secret. The SU financed terrorists in Poland, run schools
for anti-Polish activists. Another problem was the genocidal destruction
of the Polish minority in the SU Polish operation of the NKVD.
Xx236 13:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish/Russian asymetry 

message: I have a problem with the quote:   
In the 18th century, when Poland was not yet partitioned, Catherine the Great was known to say: "The Polish people hate us so deeply, that there is no other way out for us and our security, than to subordinate and to control them".
First, there is no source provided.  Second, why is this quote valid here?  Many politicians will say the strangest things to justify their actions.  Since when was Catherine the Great an expert on Poland anyway? Balcer 11:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as one of my teachers used to say, the king of Poland s****ed her and then she s****ed him, so perhaps she might've known a thing or two, but this is of course OT here. //Halibutt 11:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catherine's quote 

message: This phrase: The facts of genocide of Russian population have not been reported by journalists in Western mass media and by scientific circles, from what appears to be fear of physical elimination by the perpetrators of genocide. Hence, only personal accounts on various non-official websites offer a glimpse into the matter. At the same time reports of hooligan attacks against non-Russians in Russia are widely picked up and analyzed often with an attempt to paint Russia and Russian people as intolerant and racist. 
is a typical propaganda statement clearly violating NPoV. There is no proof that the attrocities against Russians in the North Caucasus have any features of genocide. First of all genocide must have a planned character and there is no proof that the series of actions against Russian individuals was following any plan. It is also difficult to say which action was the example of anti-Russian resentiment and which was a common crime with no ideological backgroud. If you can prove that in all the cases  it was clear that the actions were ideologically motivated - please explain it in discussion instead of reverting my contribution. the authors admit that the "genocide" has not been recognized outside of Russia and among scientific circles and the only source are only non-official websites. This is much like to say: "E.T. does exist, but scientific circles deny it". No information that is not recognized in scientific circles can be presented in Wikipedia as fact. In this case there are two solutions:
- delete controversial and not verified statements (as I tried to do at the beginning)
- write that these statements present Russian PoV and that there are also other interpretations (as I tried to do now).
I am reverting the text now, but I am open to suggestions if they are supported by rational arguments. I do not want to carry on any edit war.
Regards, Jasra 14:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I first saw this section the entire thing looked like a joke. The sites that some of this material is based on appear very suspect indeed, as does the statement that Western journalists fear to publish the information because of the fear or "physical elimination". I am not that familiar with this particular situation, however the "evidence" presented is anecdotal at best, at least about the genocide. I fully agree with the removal of that part unless some credible sources can be found to support the information. TSO1D 14:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all yes there is proof, of genocidal reference. Second see the census figures published above. Third having personally taken part in the Chechen conflict I have come in contact with quite a few Terek Cossacks. The autrocities that were commited against them speak for themselves. --Kuban Cossack  15:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not talking about the issue itself, because as I have stated before I am not familiar with it, but about how it was presented here. Statements such as: "we have to rely on some random blogs because Western journalists don't report the information because they fear to be killed" seem to discredit the entire article. Can you really picture a Chechen holding an AK-47 storming the office of the BBC because they discussed the situation there? I just wish the text would follow NPOV guidelines more closely and be backed by more prominent sources. TSO1D 15:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The phrase about Caucasian aspects is not neutral 

message: Complete violation of NPOV. Where are the valid sources for such claims? What Genocide? Do you know what the term Genocide stand for? This section is full of POV statements and some hidden agenda. Please start using sources and remove POV statements. Ldingley 18:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that such terms like Genocide cannot be used unreferenced. We should either rephrase it or find sources that use the term. Until than, I think the section is tagged properly. --Irpen 22:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Caucasian aspects

message: "The facts of genocide of Russian population have not been reported by journalists in Western mass media and by scientific circles, from what appears to be fear of physical elimination by the perpetrators of genocide. Hence, only personal accounts on various non-official websites offer a glimpse into the matter."
Awesome. Are the authors of the "non-official websites" not afraid "of physical elimination by the perpetrators of genocide"? Is the Russian governement afraid of the "physical elimination", too? And why the Wikipedia editor who wrote this idiocy isn't adraid - or maybe he's already physically eliminated? ;) --HanzoHattori 01:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I beleive you have a point. The reason why the topic was avoided has more likely to do with political reasons rather than fear of perpetrators. --Irpen 01:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOL 

message: Anti-Russian sentiment → Russophobia — I have requested the page to be moved back, anti-Russian sentiment is not the same as Russophobia. First of all Anti-Russian sentiment can exist in Finland, Western Ukraine, Baltic States and is a contemprory form. Russophobia on the other hand is a historical term that is applied not only to Russians or Russia, but to Orthodoxy, to Communism, to Sovietisation and of course to the Holocaust wrt to Slavic peoples. Its a much broader term that specifically deals with the historic events. Kuban Cossack  12:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
====Support====
*#As nom -- Kuban Cossack  12:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: *#As nom -- Kuban Cossack  12:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: *#
There is nothing to discuss here. The move was unproposed and I reverted it. If the person who moved the article feels that such move is a good idea, he has to propose the move. Until he makes the case, the article stays at the original name. -Irpen 16:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: I remember reports of a wave of Molotov/hand grenade attacks on an ethnic Russian houses (don't remember details), so someone can look for this and ass some details for the "violent attacks". Said Gubina was also blew up by a bomb some time before but survived. Clearly aimed at forcing remnant to leave and discouraging returns.
Also the Russians in Dagestan and an adjoining region complained lately to Putin himself, even if AFAIK all the clashes were between the Nogais and the local and federal armed forces. --HanzoHattori 14:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about the PAs, I have merged the two versions, what we need is Russians in Northern Caucasus article instead of it being spread on a dozen of others.-Kuban Cossack  14:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ingushetia 

message: Major POV, unsubstantiated claims and sheer stupidity in bold. Some other simply weird ("foreign workers", "Christain groups" and what not), not to even mention unreferenced. One idiocy I disussed already, and no one disagreed (one person agreed).
Persecution and ethnic cleansing of ethnic Russians in the North Caucasus has been going on for almost two decades now.  Recently, terrorist attacks by armed gunmen against Orthodox priests, Protestant ministers, and foreign workers have caused further tension in the minority Orthodox and Protestant Christian community. Russian and other "foreign" Christian groups have either left the region or been advised by Russian Baptist Union to do so.
From 1991 to 1994, as many as 300,000 people of non-Chechen ethnicity (mostly Russians) fled Chechnya, and an unknown number (some estimate as high as 50,000) were murdered or disappeared.Sokolov-Mitrich, Dmitryi. "Забытый геноцид". Izvestia. Retrieved on 2002, 7-17. At this time, a limited slave trade also re-emerged in Chechnya (the earliest known person taken as a Chechen slave, Vladimir Yepishin, was kidnapped in 1989 and released in 2002, and claims to have come in contact with other slaves kidnapped by Chechens in the mid-80s.Slave of the Caucasus. BBC. Retrieved on 2002, 7-16
It is however difficult to say which of the acts of murder or kidnapping were examples of russophobia and which were the cases of crimes with no ideological background. Some observers also argue that most of anti-Russian resentiments should be seen in wider context of the Chechen conflict.
The facts of genocide of Russian population have not been reported by journalists in Western mass media and by scientific circles, from what appears to be fear of physical elimination by the perpetrators of genocide. Hence, only personal accounts on various non-official websites offer a glimpse into the matter.  At the same time reports of hooligan attacks against non-Russians in Russia are widely picked up and analyzed often with an attempt to paint Russia and Russian people as intolerant and racist.  .
Okay.
My proposed version (added points in bold, other changed):
Some Russian non-governmental sources allege persecution, and even ethnic cleansing, of ethnic Russians in the North Caucasus took place in early 1990s. From 1991 to 1994, as many as 300,000 people of non-Chechen ethnicity (mostly Russians and Cossacks) left Chechnya, and an unknown number are said to be murdered or disappeared.Sokolov-Mitrich, Dmitryi. "Забытый геноцид". Izvestia. Retrieved on 2002, 7-17. At this time a limited slave trade was reported to re-emerge in Chechnya; the earliest known person taken as a Chechen slave, Vladimir Yepishin, was kidnapped in 1989 and released in 2002.Slave of the Caucasus. BBC. Retrieved on 2002, 7-16
It is, however, difficult to say which of the acts of murder or kidnapping were examples of Russophobia and which were the cases of crimes with no ideological background. Some observers also argue that most of anti-Russian resentiments should be seen in wider context of the Chechen conflict, and experts estimate that more than 4 million ethnic Russians have immigrated to Russia from other former Soviet republics in 1990s.  
The impoverished North Caucasian republic of Ingushetia is stepping up plans to persuade ethnic Russians to resettle or settle there, but a spate of violent attacks is undermining the efforts. Following the Ossetian-Ingush conflict of 1992 and the conflict in Chechnya that began in 1994, most Russians fled Chechnya and Ingushetia. Many had already started to leave the North Caucasus in the 1970s and 1980s due to the decline of the oil sector and lack of employment opportunities.   On June 9 2006 Galina Gubina, Ingushetia administrator in charge of a program to encourage the return of ethnic Russians, died after she was attacked by a group of armed men. 
At the same time, some see injustice in a reports of discrimination and violence against foreigners and non-Russian minority groups, as presenting Russia and Russian people in general to be intolerant and racist.  
I changed structure, removed weird and/or unrelated, NPOV-ed, broaded context, and addedd recent developments in (previosuly unmentioned at all) Ingushetia. Discuss. 
Also important: WHERE IS TURKMENISTAN? From what I know, ethnic Russians face simply the apartheid there (and are completely abandoned and forgetten). --HanzoHattori 14:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about Turkmenistan, for disputed, lets mutually work, sorry about reverts I attempted to merge the two versions (and I do agree on some of the retarted points), I also made a note above on making a general arcticle about Russians in North Caucasus rather than breaking the information on a dozen of separate ones. --Kuban Cossack  14:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute on a retarded section 

message: I've removed the unrelated :Image:Merridien Web.png image from the article. To claim that it is Russophobic is plain speculation. We don't know the reason why the yacht club required additional surcharge from its Russian guest. It may be for insurance or any other business reasons. The surcharge is not limited to Russians only, but also applies to other guests from CIS states. If it was Russophobic, it would say something like "No Russians". Different charges for different nationalities is a normal business practice
in many places and does not have anything to do with ethnic prejudices. --Lysytalk 17:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are places in Russia too where foreigners have to pay more than Russians... --Jaakko Sivonen 18:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only in Russia, I have experienced at least in Slovakia and Turkey, that hotel and various service prices depend on nationality (E.g in Slovakia Americans would pay more than Poles who would pay more than Czechs who would pay more than Slovaks). While I may not like it, it is a normal practice in many countries, and to claim that it's Russophobic is clearly a conspiracy theory. --Lysytalk 18:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some foreign banks will not service American clients either but this is not "USA phobia" but just a result of banking rules (liabilities) that a bank incurs when it falls under USA jurisdiction. They avoid that by just saying no-Thanks to clients from United States. - Jallor 22:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed unrelated image 

message: What about the territorial demands of Latvia and Estonia ? The article currently says that "Lithuania chose not to have territorial demands towards Russia" and that "the politics of Estonia and Latvia are different". What are their claims then ? Is there any reference for them ? Who says they are Russophobic ? --Lysytalk 09:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The story of claims between Estonia (I think) and Russia was in the news some time ago (I'll try and find a link to the thing)... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I wonder if it's a history now or is it still pending, and how official and on what level were these claims. --Lysytalk 19:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to start from Abrene district and references thereof for the reasons why Russo-Latvian border treaty is not yet ratified. --Irpen 19:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it says: The Latvian Foreign Ministry has reiterated "that Latvia has no territorial claims to the Russian Federation", which seems so contradict the statement that Latvia "has territorial demands". --Lysytalk 19:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It also says:  On April 29, 2005, Latvia announced that it would sign an interpretative declaration in conjunction with the proposed border agreement with Russia, noting that the border agreement would in no way affect "the legal rights of the Latvian state and its citizens" under the 1920 treaty. As a consequence, Russia scrapped the border agreement.,  which seems so contradict the statement that "Latvia has no territorial claims". `'mikkanarxi 21:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but where are territorial claims in it. Latvia wanted to sign the border agreement with Russia, didn't it ? Also Latvian government confirmed that it has no territorial clams. Only Putin tries to increase the enmity against Latvians by saying that they claim the territory, despite Latvian statements. Where do you see Russophobia in this ? --Lysytalk 21:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: All the Baltic States consider their past adjoinment to the Soviet Union to be Soviet occupation. This however has been so far not recognized by Russia. Upon gaining their independence, Estonia and Latvia did not automatically provide their respective citizenship for their Soviet-time Russian immigrants. Latvia and Lithuania confirmed that they have no territorial claims to Russia.
which reflects more accurately the confirmed situation. Otherwise please provide proper references to confirm the specific claims and how they are related to Russophobia. --Lysytalk 04:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Not quite. At the same time, Latvia makes a mutually exclusive demand that the basis of the relationship should not be the USSR dissolution but the Riga Peace. The former would have meant accepting the administrative intra-Soviet border. The latter means the Riga 1920 border. So, Latvia's claim that it has no territorial claims is in conflict with another claim it makes (Riga Peace). --Irpen 04:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On December 23, 2005, Latvia’s President again reiterated the position that Latvia has no intentions to claim any part of the Abrene region. Do we have any proof of more recent claims of the region by Lithuanian government ? Even if Latvia had some claims in the past, it has them no more. Now, is it all right to restore this sentence to the article: Latvia and Lithuania confirmed that they have no territorial claims to Russia ? --Lysytalk 19:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, Estonia also doesn't have any territorial claims on Russia.--Staberinde 16:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The border treaty between Estonia and Russia, signed on 18 May 2005, was ratified by Estonian Parliament on 20 June 2005. It's not ratified by Russian Duma yet. Does that mean that this is Russia who has territorial claims?
This article is not the place to discuss unproved territorial claims of the Baltic states. Actually, this issue is discussed at the article of Territorial changes of the Baltic States. The conclusion there is that "...official governments of Latvia and Estonia do not support the issue, but it is supported by some, usually marginal, organizations inside these countries,,,,". But this is an issue with almost all bordering countries. Why not list the Karelian issue with Finland, or dispute over northern territories (Kuril islands) with Japan, or disputes with China? Actually the right place for information about these disputes is Territorial disputes of the Russian Federation. Also, saying that territorial claims (unproved, by the way) are proof of any kind of -phobia is very simplified and incorrect approach. 80.235.66.37 08:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baltic states 

message: I believe it's decipting captured Soviet partisans. It's a show (public threat) execution, and civilians would be lined up and shot without trouble with a hanging. Like in concentration camps, hanging was for the failed escapees. --HanzoHattori 13:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hanging photo 

message: Could some Russian editors please persuade Ghirlandajo to behave constructively instead of revert warring ? Thanks. --Lysytalk 07:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unexplained deletion of whole sections may be classified as vandalism. Take care, Ghirla -трёп- 08:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Georgian section is back and ready to be discussed. --Lysytalk 08:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behaviour of Ghirlandajo 

message: --HanzoHattori 01:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-OT (great importance): WWII Soviet POWs and The Holocaust