Talk:Anti-Russian sentiment/Archive 1

message: An anon (probably a Russian) made the following comment in his edit summary:
:"Let's avoid showing ourselves to the world as idiots. We've got an article on our wikipedia (still far from perfect), lets translate it instead of pretending the world is out to get us."
While the Russian version contains a number of interesting and useful facts, I would not vouch for its complete translation. It is a very unbalanced text: it has everyting: unconfirmed facts, large off-topic digression, a whole POV section, and misinterpretation of the results of a Gallup poll (in the part about baltic states: forgetting that these have a huge proportion of Rus/Bel/Ukr population). 
So I'd say, a creative borrowing is required, rather than blind translation. Also, Shafarevich's Rusophobia, which is actually considered to be an anti-Semitic work, deserves a separate article. At the same time, I am aware that some Soviet dissidents, glorified in the West, such as Andrei Amalrik, published blatantly  rusophobic statements, so Shafarevich did have a motivation for his views. 
So the article most certainly has a potential of fleshing out. mikka (t) 22:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian version

message: First of all stating Eastern Europe was wrong, since Poland is located in Central and Eastern Europe.Secondly the assertion that such countries ware under "influence" of Moscow is a little bit light.They were occupied brutally in XX century.Third not only in XX century but they experienced occupation in past centuries linked with Russification, deportations and mass murder.
Fourth, ok can you give specific examples of unjustified fear of Russia ?
--82.139.13.231 00:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is allowed to come with all this out of their head in wikipedia. References to solid reseach is required in such touchy subjects. Especially this one where it is easy to confuse ethnic dislikes with hatred to the oppressing state. In particular, partitions of Poland is irrelevant here. Hardly Polsih schlachta of these times hated Russian peasants. mikka (t) 00:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

text: On whether PL is an EE, I suggest you move this fight to the Eastern Europe article. On other issues: by whom? Good questions that needs elaboration, I agree. More info needs to be added, not just the NYT article, but the charges are abundant. Give it a little time to pop up there. "Sometimes heavy-handed" means that it varied not just from one time to another but from one place to another. Sometimes, the own rulers were heavy-handed enough. Occupation? At times, it was and at times it wasn't. Some countries, handled opposition on their own often effectively.  Finally, don't take deletions lightly. Read Be bold! Also, try to add your thoughts to the article diligently. Don't just throw them in into a random place. Care needs to be taken especially, at controvercial subjects. -Irpen 22:32, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
"Hardly Polsih schlachta of these times hated Russian peasant"
So you mean that szlachta liked Russian occupation ? It certainly didn't.Or do you mean Poles of today hate Russians ?--Molobo 22:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

text: No, Szlachta which ruled it's Ruthenian subjects with a heavy hand too, did so not out of national hatred, but for simpler reasons. Same applies to the Russian rule of the later time. I make no judgement whether Poles today hate Russian, which would be an unjustifiable generalization anyway. There are always tsome xenophobes who hate someone. For whatever reasons, the issue got prominence now. No one said that Poles are xenophobes in general. --Irpen 22:32, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Above posters claim Russian versions has examples.Why aren't they posted here ? It would clear things up.--Molobo 22:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Russophobia in Poland, Baltic States, Eastern Europe. NPOV

message: I find the major expansion to the article by the user:Moonshiner to be very fascinating, informative and questionable at the same time. I am sure, I am not the last who would have some issues with this and I won't even try to list them all. Just one, if I may, perhaps the one particularly close to the topics close to my heart. The new text says:
:These are frequently connected with violations of the human rights of the Russian diaspora residing in those countries (said to be particularly grievous in the Baltic Republics, Ukraine, and Moldova).
I only know from the media about Baltics and Moldova, but as for Ukraine the "particularly grievous Russophobia" is a total nonsense. In the country, where the nationalism itself is a fringe set of ideas totally out of the mainstream, Russophobia is even more of an exotic. Yes, certain excesses in Ukrainization of the educational system took place, state support of UOC-KP may have been also partly anti-Russian but this is not even close to be "particularly grievous". 
Just a recent illustration is the 2004 presidential election where a politician with a proven record of a good manager, with no significant compromat of any kind was competing with a convicted criminal. The reason why the difference was only 8% is due to the fact that the media supporting the criminal ran a massive campaign trying to paint his opponent a Ukrainian nationalist. These, mostly baseless accusations, but widely enough publicized, raised so many red flags among the voters, that some voted for convicted criminal just not to support the perceived Ukrainian nationalism. In Ukraine, being accused in UA nationalism may end the political career or at least hinder it.
You can judge by a Ukrainian community at Wikipedia that Ukrainian nationalism is an ideology of a fringe minority of it. Same in the whole nation. Fervent Banderivtsis exist on the fringe and the support of these ideas is vary narrow and localized. I just don't want to butcher a beautiful writing of a user:Moonshiner, hoping he will moderate this text on his own. I am sure, more editors who have issues with this text will show up in no time. --Irpen 05:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Major expansion

message: 1.The picture from Hotel is hardly russophobic-it mentions people from CIS and obviously they aren't all Russians.We don't know if the price is because of prejudice or some other reason(perhaps a lack of business agreement) or past incidents with people from that area.
2.Statements about Poland are highly dubious.I don't think there is any russophobia in Poland.Examples of Brzezinski or Pilsudski ideas are about stoping Russian imperialism towards neighbouring nations that Russia tries to control, certainly we can't say that opposing Russian imperialism or trying to help establish independent Ukraine is russophobic.
:You probably forget your own President's recent statement that "Ukraine without Russia is much better than Ukraine with Russia". A typical sample of Russophobia which induced appropriate retort from Vladimir Putin. Like in Pilsudski's days, the Polish elite is dreaming of partitioning Russia and of Caucasian Prometheism. Your President elect named a street in Warsaw after the terrorist Dudaev. The last tour of the Bolshoi Theatre in Warsaw was booed and obsctructed for political reasons, the BBC reports. The Russian children were beaten in Poland this year. I could continue the list of Russophobic acts for hours. The article's tone is very soft towards the Poles. It is not flooded with the grisly pictures of executions of Russian people, like the Anti-Polonism is, although the material is not wanting. I remove the tag. --Ghirlandajo 13:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Do we have any examples of Polish russophobia in the ethnic sense ? I always thought that Poles had sympathy towards Russians. Political tension or waging wars in history is of course a different issue. --Lysy (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Read Polish papers. I've been in habit of reading every Russian-related article in Polish media for a couple of years now. Can't remember any article in which Russia was mentioned in a positive context. Judging by Polish brainwashing, the country is a nightmare to live in. Every new article is brimming with hysteria or paranoia. Just yesterday I read a new one which said that "the Polish people take great pride in their cultural and civilsational superiority as compared to Russians". Enough said. --Ghirlandajo 13:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: on the side note, lets not remove the tag for now. I said so (above) that people will immediately be here to say its not neutral. I myself pointed out to a specific issue (R. being "particularly grievous in..  Ukraine") which is just nonsense. I attest so not because I am from Ukraine and not a Russophobe but explained above on a very prominent example. The article expansion was needed. The expansion is well written, interesting but largely goes over the top. This needs toning down and then we can remove the tag. --Irpen 16:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Added tag

message: During the 19th century, Great Britain and Russia entered a period of imperialistic expansion, many times competing with each other - I do not like this phrase for a number of reasons:
*Period of imperialistic expansion - sound like V. I. Lenin's Imperialism as the final stage of 
*Great Britain started accuire colonies 300 years before the 19th century
*Great Britan and Russia were not the only players in the colonial quest. There were also France, Spain, Portugal, Holland, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Japan, etc. The idea of two lone players  is wrong
*It is just too long and looks like an original research abakharev 08:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Entered a period of imperialistic expansion

message: Some people of Eastern Europe blame(...) and economical stagnation afterwords on the local Russian population.
Please give examples of people in Eastern Europe blaming Russians for economic stagnation.
--Molobo 13:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please give sources

message: To avoid disputes, please link all facts in the article with Wikipedia:Footnotes to their relevant Wikipedia:References. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use notes 

message: There is no sense to deny and to remove the mentioning of the eastern orientation of many Austro-Hungarian Slavs in the second half of the 19th century, beginning with the Panslavic congress in Prague in 1848 until even World War I, when many Slavs deserted Austro-Hungarian army fighting Russians. It is--Molobo 18:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There were in deed some intellectuals who wanted Russia to liberate Slavs under foreign rule, for example Dostoyevsky. However you won't find any sources where their incorporation into Russian Empire is demanded. And this was not the official policy of the Russian Empire. Russia wasn't interested in Czech, Slovakia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and other Slavic parts of Austro-Hungary, not even in Galicia the ancient Kievan land. What Russia did is to help Orthodox Balkan nations like Serbia, Romania or Bulgaria to throw off the heavy Ottoman yoke. And yes, the control of Constantinople was another goal of historical (cradle of Orthodoxy) and geostrategical importance. But nothing was done against Austria-Hungary except disturbing its wannabe sphere of influence. But since Serbs and Bulgars greeted and wanted Russia, and not AH, where's the problem? Voyevoda 18:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I know the discussion is going off topic but I just want to correct some factual errors since the stuff is already posted here. Russia, like any empire, was not always tolerant to its subjects and I don't need to post examples. Poland was not the only one. --Irpen 22:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: re: Vostokov: Do you dare to say that it was only a mindset, kind of phobia, unjustified and irrational? That Poles loved Russian Tsar dearly? mikka (t) 19:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panslavism 

message: I am afraid the article went a bit out of control. The term "russophobia" itself has not commonly been used is such a broad context. I'd say it is a rather neologism, and to apply to times long gone is anachronism. All what is written here mat have a title Anti-Russian sentiments and to reserve the "-phobia" title to the article that deals with a pejorative term that refers to irrational and/or unjustified things with recorded usage that were there initially, before the recent major expansion. mikka (t) 21:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree really. Could you move the article then? Also as a temporary solution for the dispute I suggest adding disputed neutrality sign, but leave the disputed contents not deleted; I think the small tags at every disputed sentence are good too, since it helps to actually show what is disputed, as otherwise it might seem that everything what written in the article is; as much things were written here as for the dispute, and it is a common practice to do so in Wikipedia as far as I noticed. Burann 18:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subject