Jump to content

Talk:Anti-Georgian sentiment

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Now only Putin and Navalny are mentioned in the article. In 2008, Navalny was a completely unknown young man. To discuss only his statements is an obvious overkill and attempts to discredit a living person, which is unacceptable. PailSimon, you claimed that "within Russia he has (at least up until his poisoning) been a fringe figure" [1]. That is, you are sure that he was a "fringe figure" in 2020 (although this is certainly not the case), but you defend the presence of a large section dedicated exclusively to Navalny in 2008. It looks pretty lousy.--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you construe my edits as politically motivated is perhaps an instance of projection but nonetheless lets avoid WP:PERSONALATTACKS. Navalny is undeniably no longer "completely unknown" and is obviously very well known now even if he does not have much support, also it is not a "large section" it is three meagre lines.PailSimon (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't say a word about your political motives, just pointed out the illogic of your position. So that WP:PERSONALATTACKS are coming from your side. And you still haven't answered why three sentences are dedicated to Navalny, a young man completely unknown in 2008, and only one sentence to Putin, while all the other political figures and propagandists who are really guilty of inciting hatred are not mentioned at all.--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You accused me of "attempts to discredit a living person". Other individuals view are irrelevant to the discussion, we are talking about Navalny here.PailSimon (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This statement is not true. As far as I can see, the information was added [2] by this user: [3]. In any case, I did not mean anyone, and I admit that it was done with good intentions and only describe the situation that turned out.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the controversial statement should be mentioned in the article. After the poisoning case, Navalny is one of the best known politicians in the world.--Mhorg (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop WP:NOTLISTENING. What does his current fame have to do with the Anti-Georgian sentiment in 2008?--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please, let's discuss calmly, because of the sockpuppet User: LauraWilliamson the previous discussion has already been a mess and it leads nowhere. And I don't know how convenient it is for you to accuse me of WP:NOTLISTENING because in the discussion article of Navalny I have already shown you how you avoid considering my answers. About Navalny, what a famous politician has done in the past matters, he was already involved in politics, he had already played a leading role in the Yabloko party, he had founded the "Narod" movement the previous year.--Mhorg (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was only in the Soviet Union that the history of the Second World War was rewritten so that the leading event was "Malaya Zemlya" and the marshals came to Brezhnev to confer. Personally, I don't feel nostalgic for those times. Further, Navalny was not in a "leading role " in Yabloko, and the ""NAROD" movement never took place, and Navalny was only one of the ten founders. In reality, you need to find a source that emphasizes some special role of Navalny in fueling anti-Georgian sentiments.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nicoljaus, you throw it too much on politics. I'm not here to defend Putin, Russia, Navalny, we're not here to talk about politics. Also, the NAROD movement existed, and caused international scandals (the two Narod videos, which many western RS talked about), as I previously said. We have at least 2 RS (and tons of Russian sources) talking about the racials slurs against Georgians, the "rodents" therm, such as Al Jazeera and Rolling Stone, and this should be removed from the article.--Mhorg (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the rule WP:BALASP at all? We are not interested in what is written in a couple of sources, such as a blog site or a music magazine, we are interested in what is said "in the body of reliable, published material on the subject". It's very simple - you look at several works, better "scholar" ones, in a peer-reviewed publication, devoted to anti-Georgian sentiments in Russia and build an article in accordance with it. I looked at a couple of them and I don't see the slightest emphasis on Navalny.--Nicoljaus (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nicoljaus, it is very particular your concept of "undue weight", about a politicians that proposed the deportation of Georgian citizens from Russia, callind them "rodents". Such a statement, for any politician who had not been under the magnifying lens, given the current events, would have been quickly writed on both the politician's article and an article like this one. Let me again doubt your sincerity, too many times you have slipped politics into discussions that have nothing to do with politics, but with correct and neutral information. Also, Rolling Stone it is not a music magazine only, please don't try to disqualify RS.--Mhorg (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not writing nasty things, I'm reporting things reported on RS. Your involvement in attempting to defend the politician in this is self-evident, and it is not the right behavior to have here on Wikipedia. Here the sources speak, if you have sources that contrast what is being said, do well to report them. I was the first to support you when you specified what was written on Navalny's blog, even using a primary source, on the Georgian question. Now you are backing off instead, and trying to protect the article with this "undue weight". I think this is unfair.--Mhorg (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yes, this is totally undue on the page. We are not going cite an opinion by every Russian politician and activist. We should use statements by the government or by organizations that specialize in public opinion, human rights organizations and researchers on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Unless reliable sources mention this in the context of discussing anti-Georgian sentiment in Russia and make a case that these opinions are somehow representative they should not be in this article. Alaexis¿question? 19:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Navalny's comment on Georgia was just a high-profile illustration of what was going on in the Russian social media and elsewhere. He did not invent that pejorative from the scratch. The guy just employed the word that had already been in use. Not only Navalny's attack has been reported by reliable news outlets (eg., Moscow Times), but also mentioned by academic sources, such as the biographical entry on Navaly in the Historical Dictionary of the Russian Federation by Professor Robert A. Saunders (see page 480). No matter how hard some would try to whitewash this fact, Navaly's slur-laden rant was just an outburst of general Russian sentiment, a high-profile one, voiced by the public figure who was deemed to be a "liberal". Hence, it is both important and relevant, not least because it undermines the vision of "two Russias" sometimes entertained by certain groups in the post-Soviet space. --KoberTalk 20:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you list would be good for the article about Navalny - even though even there they should not have undue weight. This article, on the other hand, is about the anti-Georgian sentiment in general. Unless there are reliable source discussing Navalny's words in this context, it's WP:OR. This can't be a bucket list of nasty things Russian people said about Georgians - compare the Antisemitism article. Alaexis¿question? 20:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I agree, the article on antisemitism is a good example. It is well sourced. @Kober. "an outburst of general Russian sentiment". Great, please include as much sourced info about the general Russian sentiment on this page as you wish. My very best wishes (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Kober:, this is just the tip of the iceberg. I invite you to come and see [4] [5] what is happening on Alexei Navalny's article.--Mhorg (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic slur

[edit]

[6] - please provide a dictionary or philology type supporting RS if you think that such slur actually exists in Russian language. My very best wishes (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being a Russian-speaker, you just have to google a simple set of key-words and look through the Russian social media. You are not supposed to have any pejorative neologism in a dictionary or " philology type" bluh-bluh. --KoberTalk 20:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly my point. One can find a lot of BS in social media. But we need a solid secondary scholar RS. One can find such RS for any notable slur like "Moskal'", etc. My very best wishes (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found such a source: "В некоторых случаях пейоративность достигается путём намеренного искажения фонетического облика нейтрального этнонима: рузге – русский; узбак – узбек; в большом количестве встречается также каламбурное обыгрывание (использование в качестве пейоратива похожего по звучанию слова или телескопирование этнонима с таким словом), причём данной операции могут подвергаться как нейтральные этнонимы: абэвэгэдэец. - адыгеец; гогошар – гагауз; грызун –грузин..." [7]--Nicoljaus (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are talking about pejorative distortions of words rather than proper words. There are hundreds of them like "итальяшка – итальянец", etc. Some of them are well known, some others I have never heard in my life. Should we mention them on this page and other similar anti-national sentiment pages? Yes, but only if they are widely used, such as moskal or ukrop, and notable in context of specific page. That one I almost never heard. My very best wishes (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I didn't find anything more specific. It seems that after the Russian-Georgian war, state propaganda stopped inciting hatred towards Georgians on an ethnic basis, and this pejorative did not become widespread.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this veered off topic a bit. The slur does exist, but it's not a sufficient reason to add it to any given article. Otherwise you'd find all slurs from the List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity in Anti-X sentiment articles. Alaexis¿question? 10:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PailSimon, regarding your addition, all the sources are about Navalny. Before including anything about him we need to establish its notability for this article. In other words there should be a reliable source discussing the anti-Georgian sentiment in Russia which would give equal prominence to Navalny's words and to the 2006 crisis. Alaexis¿question? 18:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking again, in which reliable source is Navalny's unfortunate choice of words 13 years ago (for which he has apologised since) linked to anti-Georgian sentiment in Russia? Alaexis¿question? 08:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made this just for you PailSimon

[edit]

This section was made custom for PailSimon so that they could attempt to get consensus per WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN for the text they wish to restore to the page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PailSimon: The place to discuss that is the talk page (aka here) instead of edit warring. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back: Please calm down and count to ten. The discussion is already ongoing above.PailSimon (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see you providing WP:RS above, did you forget to? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need to learn about WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD which you spitting in the face of right now. Please do not waste everybody's time by creating a redundant additional talk page section when there are already two above.PailSimon (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean WP:ONUS/WP:BURDEN (both of those apply to the person who wants to add or restore information to a page, that would be you not me) and WP:BLP. BRD is an optional procedure which just FYI I don’t think you’ve ever followed. Teaching you the basics of wikipedia doesnt really fit in the section above. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lol so I see you read ONUS and realized it f*cked you [8]. This new argument isnt any better. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You need to understand that just because you think you're right that does not give you an excuse to edit war without a consensus, please follow wikipedia policy and stop the WP:WIKIHOUNDING and disruption. The onus is on those challenging the long-term stable version to gain a consensus for their edits i.e you. I would also add that you seem very hysterical right now and emotional and should calm down.PailSimon (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mhmm, per WP:ONUS "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating an obvious Wikipedia policy (gain consensus when challenging stable version) is becoming very boring but again (and for the last time) the onus is on those challenging the stable version to gain consensus. Lets follow this instead of emotionally spasmic reverts.PailSimon (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If its an obvious Wikipedia policy then why are you not providing any quotes or specific links? I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. Besides WP:ONUS WP:BURDEN says "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.” and WP:BLP says “ All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion ... The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you bothered to read the discussions above you would see sourcing being provided. Now stop wasting everybody's time by being a bad faith editor.PailSimon (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, are you talking about the Navalny racial slurs?--Mhorg (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of, we’re waiting for PailSimon to provide a quote to support their claim that "The onus is on those challenging the long-term stable version to gain a consensus for their edits.” The reverts in question are broader than the Navalny stuff e.g. [9]Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Kind of"? Lets just be honest that you have no idea what you're arguing about and are just vindictively pursuing your personal vendetta against me. This is deeply inappropriate behavior for a wikipedian.PailSimon (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is extremely clear, need I remind you you’re the only one of the two of us who monumentally adjusted their argument [10] after realizing that they had accidentally linked something that categorically refuted their argument? Now provide a quote which supports this "obvious Wikipedia policy” you’re basing your edit warring on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's "extremely clear" but yet you are "kind of" arguing about the slur and also vaguely (no details provided) arguing about other things. What a mess. Its simple really, continue your agenda against me and you will find yourself at the ANI.PailSimon (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The HRW quote you removed has nothing to do with Navalny or the slur. You can take me to ANI but might I suggest that you actually read WP:ONUS, WP:BURDEN, and WP:BLP first? I’d also suggest finding that all-powerful WP policy you claim exists yet won’t link to or quote. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have zero interest in continuing with a bad faith editor. Isee that you have a history of these personal venedetta's and have been blocked previously for them. It is dissappointing that you have not learned from your mistakes, I doubt ANI would look kindly on that.PailSimon (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oy vey, not the talk page history and block log! I am defeated! Lol, can you imagine? The policy please. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you see this discussion as a matter of "defeat" or winning says a lot about your character.PailSimon (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The joke appears to have gone over your head. Please name the policy you are invoking. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again I am not engaging with a WP:BADFAITH editor.PailSimon (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not how WP:AGF works, name the policy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary". At least read what you're citing in the future.PailSimon (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there was obvious evidence to the contrary you would have taken me to ANI (perhaps you did?). There isn’t any. Please name the mystery policy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion.PailSimon (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see you took my excellent advice, care to take the rest of it and name the policy that says "The onus is on those challenging the long-term stable version to gain a consensus for their edits i.e you.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this discussion is about the ethnic slur, there is a section for it above, let's keep the discussion in one place. Alaexis¿question? 17:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its not about that, unless that section discusses the block quote from HRW which is unrelated to the ethnic slur (from what I can see it does not). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. Can you explain what is being discussed? Alaexis¿question? 18:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are discussing the failure of PailSimon to abide by WP:ONUS, WP:BURDEN, and WP:BLP on this page, its separate to the content dispute although it does seem related. They appear to be making up a wikipedia policy to explain their actions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article talk pages are for the discussions of the contents of articles. If there is something related to the article contents you would like to discuss, let's create a new section for it. Otherwise please use your own talk page. Alaexis¿question? 09:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Georgian_sentiment&oldid=1204892298"