Talk:Anti-Russian sentiment/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

A separate article instead of a redirect

I think the topic is worth its own article rather than simply being a redirect to -phobia. A word "Russophobia" exist in modern English and, as defined by the "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language", a Rus·so·phobe is the "One who fears or dislikes Russia or its people or culture" and an opposite to a Russophile. I will try to come up with a stub one of these days. Irpen 18:22, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I agree but seems like most people who have been inspired to create the russophobia thread(mostly came out from caucasophobia article) are more specialised in deleting other people's artickes or their parts and aren't really into writing the artickles of their own...

Not much of the writers so to say.. -Gabrichidze

Gabrichidze, please calm down. Where and when did I (of most of the people) delete anything from any of other people's articles, at least without a detailed explanation? As for Mikkalai, we often had our disagreements, but to say he is mostly "specialised in deleting other people's artickes" is a plane lie. Just look at his contributions list. Anyway, unless you would like to say anything about this article, please don't use this page for other purposes. --Irpen 19:07, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Other ethnic and religious phobias

List of phobias has:

Afrophobia Anglophobia Chinophobia Christophobia Dutchphobia Europhobia Francophobia Germanophobia Islamophobia Nipponophobia Judeophobia Mikatikoindicaphobia Papaphobia Polonophobia Russophobia Satanophobia Sinophobia Staurophobia Theophobia Walloonophobia Xenophobia

At least some of these appear to be jokes. Some of the actual articles suffer from ideosyncratic POV, usually without rebuttal. (Afrophobia, Islamophobia) Some do have rebuttal. (Polonophobia) Some actually have relatively neutral historical content. (Anglophobia, Judeophobia, although content pushing a POV is probably attracted to the much longer Anti-semitism instead.) One could also list Anti-Americanism which is another long article.

Overall, I don't think these -phobia pages are a great idea as they are likely to have content with an axe to grind, but it does seem they are established. ----JWB

To have it or not

In vain, at the vfd for caucasophobia I tried to explain that it is not the goal of wikipedia to do original research. Therefore the question should we have russophobia article or not is trivial. If we have books or research articles to draw information from, then the article is a must (probably not exactly under this title). If one wants just to collect paper clippings from all around the worls, then I say "nay".

So please start from the list of academic references. mikka (t) 03:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think much Russophobia is gone, since the Soviet Union went bust. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If we need references first of all, we could start with this:

• Anatol Lieven, "Against Russophobia" [1], World Policy Journal, Volume XVII, No 4, Winter 2000/01, and references thereof.

This is of course not a complete study of the issue. -Irpen 22:00, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

The letter can be inserted in "External Links" chapter. As for the Lieven's article, he is a well respected author with a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. It's easy to google some of his books and articles. -Irpen 06:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

How about this lovely website:

The expert phobia team at CTRN's Phobia Clinic is board-certified to help with Russophobia and a variety of related problems. The success rate of our 24 hour program is close to 100%.

Time to send congrats to Vladimir Putin? mikka (t) 06:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Russian version

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)

Russophobia in Poland, Baltic States, Eastern Europe. NPOV

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)

That is I am all for specified examples.However loose "they are russophobic" is not enough.Especially without mentioning history such as invasion and occupation of Baltic States by Soviet Union, Partitons of Poland, deportations to Siberia etc, Praga Massacre in Poland etc. --82.139.13.231

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)

The issue of Russophobia is often brought up in connection to the Eastern Europe that was under the influence of Moscow, sometimes heavy-handed, for the most of the 20th century.

Ok.

1. brought by whom ? Any examples ?
2. Eastern Europe.That is a big area.Poland(which was earlier) isn't in Eastern Europe.Is whole Eastern Europe alledged to be Russophobic ? That would include Serbia ?
3. Sometimes heavy handed.Could you point to moment where this wasn't heavy handed ?
4. Most of 20 century.Now that is again false since countries in Central and Eastern Europe where under Russian occupation in previous centuries.
5. Influence ? Why not occupation ? If you want to be precise.Occupation(Baltic States)and puppet governments created by force and with Soviet army presence in those countries.--Molobo 22:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Give some examples.Without this, these are simple allegations of POV nature.Eastern Europe ? Including Belarus and Serbia ? Be precise. I am waiting for comments.--Molobo 22:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

I don't think it's possible to cure the West of russophobia. There are no universal values. Every historical fact can be brought under different sauces. Speaking about Poland: if any of us did open a history textbook they could read that separation of Poland was NOT good for Russian politics. And that Russia rose it's voice AGAINST it. The position of making Russian always wrong and undecent of their territories, their resources, their voice among all other peoples is highly convenient for all western ideologies. Noone will ever remember that Russia saved Western Europe of nomads from steppe, sacrificed millions of its people to freeing from Napoleon and the Nazi. The reason is fundamental differences in culture, which makes the West consider it's values self-suffucient. So-called "universal values" and "human rights" are standards born in the West not so long ago. As you can see in this very talk they don't provide peace, they provide misunderstanding and intrusion. What is the most rediculous is that the "russophobes" are trying to teach Russians that their life is not what they think about it. Well, I don't think there is any point in trying to develop a "neutral" article on this topic. At a Western site I am quite ready to read about "never-to-be-right Russians" and "always-right" Polish, English, Americans and all other nations who have much to quarrel but always become loving friends when it is time to show Russians their place. -- S.

NYT

The article is only available by payment.Thus can't vertified. --82.139.13.231

You must be kidding. Have you ever heard of public libraries? Even if you cannot read it, you have a full reference. mikka (t) 00:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Where ? Why link to link that can't be readed.

First of all, it can be read. Pay and read it. Second, it can be read via many libraries that subscribe. Third, it can be read via other indexing sites, since you have an exact day and title. Also, knowing the exact day, you can walk to the library and get a paper copy. Link is relevant and please leave it alone. --Irpen 22:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Is it about irrational Russophobia or worsening of relations due to real facts and events that cane be interpreted as hostile(justifing Yalta, attempts to takeover energy sector etc) ? --Molobo 22:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Why didn't you google yourself for a mirror copy? [2]. I am sure with a good faith, an acceptable phrasing can be found. Please understand that even if the topics like "occupation", "oppression", etc. are close to your heart, it is better to keep them in their narrow articles and not spread them all over WP throwing a thought here and a thought there. BTW, take a look at coverage of RU in Polonophobia. No one there tried to make it appear an invalid issue and less so delete things. --Irpen 23:21, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Once again

Please cease to add chaotic remarks on who hated Russians from out of one's head or from newspaper clips. Everyone hated. So what? Everyone knows that. We need an input from solid sources and mention actual facts, to make an encyclopedic article. If you have no time for some book reading, leave it as is.

For example, Irpen adds: the issue of Russophobia is often brought up in connection to the Eastern Europe. This is a weasel phrase and it gives absolutely no information, nor any ways to find an additional info. I may add exactly the same phrase about Russophobia in China, Vietnam, Uzbekistan, Baltic States, Finland, Sweden... Solid facts and research, please. mikka (t) 22:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It is a fact that the RU gov and mass media like to emphasize russophobia of Eastern Europe for whatever reasons (political? could very well be). That's what I meant. In fact, the paper whose quote I removed myslef simply interviewed a Russian influential political figure. That's why I removed the phrase, BTW. It was simply misleading to attribute the words of a notorious Gleb Pavlovsky (a Kremlin political technologist) to the NYT. But it is correct to say, that the charges are indeed made in Russia.

I modified the text to say it more clearly. As per my comment, you are welcome to modify it. You can delete it too if you have such an itch. But that would not be correct IMO. The charges are indeed made (true or false is a different q.). One can argue that this is for political expediency. Fine, then say so in the article. This is the fact that the talk of Russophobia is mostly brought up in RU in connection with the Eastern Europe. I had no intention to use the phrasing that approves or disproves these allegations. It is presented because such allegations in Russia are popular which make them notable. You are welcome to edit further. --Irpen 22:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. It is sad that I have to explain the ABC to an aged editor. What you just did is called original research. You presented a quotation from a newspaper. What makes me to believe this is not an isolated opinion of an extremist, rather than by "Russian government"? What you wrote is your opinion, your interpretation of what you see. A wikipedia article admits only opinions of external experts published elsewhere. I could have provided a bunch of examples myself, from all over the 'net. But any generaization will still be my original research. mikka (t) 00:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, the burden of proof that "such allegations in Russia are popular" is on you. And I know that I am welcome to edit further, but unlike some others I prefer opinions from books and journal articles. But not from newspapers. I am way too old to believe them (but some still do, looks like...). mikka (t) 00:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Mikka, your "sigh" wasn't necessary. Now, to the issue. I am afraid, that we can't agree here, because we are talking from different perspectives. You said earlier elsewhere that you were not following the news from Russia for the last 7 years. However, if you did, you would just know that the Russian media, as well as statements from the officials, including Putin himself, are full of such accusations directed towards Eastern Europe. Rightfully or not, they just seize on those things and this is not "some clippings", that's the overall atmosphere.

Of course, it would be best to supply every statement in WP with a reference, but I am afraid that even you don't always do that. When something is a common knowledge, or at least so feels to us, we just write it. When I was saving GKO or Kolyada from VfD, I didn't look up any sources because I was writing on a stubbish surface level and things I wrote seemed to me a common knowledge. You're right that we need to be extra careful when writing on controversial topics, and I was. I tried to make sure the article doesn't say, that Poles and Balts are Russophobic, because I know for a fact that they aren't, BTW. I wrote that they are accused in that, and substituted a shady sourcing (originally "NYT observed that Poles...") by removing the phrase taken out of contexts and giving an exact ref to an article.

Now, the reputable press, in Russia and in the West (like NYT), certainly would not blindly pick up this info from "programma Vremya" to disseminate it. They would more likely observe the trend in other media and report on it withholding their judgement. That's what NYT did. If you do a search in the RU media, you will see that there is the trend there to accuse the neighbors in Rusophobia. And this would not be just some clippings, but this is a predominant mood that you could only see if you follow it. What good would it make to fill the refs section of the article with such links? It would be impossible to tell whether or not these are just "some clippings" as you like to put it. If necessary, go to any news search engine, and you will find all this stuff. I don't think it will help anything if we add those links though. If you are still not convinced, and want to delete the info, I can't prevent you from doing this and I am not interested in this topic enough to keep arguing or rephrasing. I felt that the info is relevant but was presented in a misleading way. I tried to make it better. If you think it is now worse than it was, feel free to correct it yourself. --Irpen 03:21, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion subsided. Is this because the current version is suitable unlike the original? If so, I would remove a POV. If not, just raise your objections. I don't think the article is anywhere close to a decent shape, but neutrality and completeness are two different kinds of issues. Edit the article as you see fit. --Irpen 06:19, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I am removing the POV tag since there were no posts to this page in response to my call. If someone feels like restoring the tag, please explain in view of discussion above. --Irpen 23:47, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

disputed section

"However, while it is probably the main reason now, it is not the only historical reason of it. Russophobia has a long tradition and already existed many centuries before Russia became one of major powers in Europe. Russophobia was closely connected with religious aspects, since some, predominantly Catholic neighbours of Orthodox Russia, for many centuries aimed at gaining control of this vast resource-rich country and converting its inhabitants into Catholicism. To justify that, Russians were portrayed as uncultivated infidels and Asiatic barbrarians and these views became spread throughout Central Europe. The history of the long Russo-Polish conflict for the heritage of the ancient Kievan Rus (which Poland eventually lost) and the loss of Polish imperial status surely contributed to these dislikes.

In the 18th century, when Poland was not yet partitioned, Catherine the Great was known for her words: "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"." I think its more rather modern Russian nationalistic theory then objective version of events-there wasn't much care in Poland about Russia, as it was concerned more with internal conflict and in no position to challenge it.Catholicism wasn't strong in Poland at that time also, and Poland was not in a position to aim at Russia, since it was a highly decentralised state where every attempt to raise army or centralise power was met with veto of the nobles...--82.139.13.231 23:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Second that. --Lysy ^(talk) 21:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Every word in this section is true. Poland was consequently turning people in the occupied Ukraine and Belarus to Catholicism. Look what the once Orthodox Western Ukraine and Western Belarus look like today. In the Central and Eastern Ukraine there was a strong resistance to that, resulting in many Cossack uprisings. There is much classic literature on that, for example Taras Bulba of Nikolai Gogol, or poems of Taras Shevchenko. Moreover, Poland wanted to subjugate Russia, as it conquered much of it and eventually Moscow in 1611, using the "Times of Troubles", until Poles were expelled by a national peasant army.

However, the section speaks not only of Poland, but also of other Catholic neighbours of Russia, for example the Teutonic knights, who tried to subordinate Russia in order of Rome, until they were beaten by Alexander Nevsky.Voyevoda 21:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

What part of the history are you referring to ? It seems you've completely mixed up 20th, 17th and 19th centuries. The statements like "To justify that, Russians were portrayed as uncultivated infidels" are pure soapboxing. --Lysy ^(talk) 05:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Nothing is mixed up. The section we are talking about is about the period before Russia became a major power - before Peter the Great. It's abot 13th till 17th century. You should read more about the Northern Crusade of the Teutons which, although not mentioned in the Wikipedia article, also included subjugation attempts of Orthodox states, such as Novgorod, Pskov and other parts of Russia. Read about the Polish repressive policy in Ukraine and other Orthodox regions.--Voyevoda 18:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

"Read about the Polish repressive policy in Ukraine and other Orthodox regions." You are mixing up XX century with XVII century...Also this is article about Russia not Ukraine...Hardly anybody cared much about Orthodoxy in Poland anyway besides occasional power struggles. --Molobo 21:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

This artice is not about Russia. It is about Russophobia, and historical roots are relevant. Or are you saying that Muscovy was not portrayed as uncivilized, barbaric, asian, retarded, infidel, drunk, etc.? mikka (t) 23:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it would be good to see some examples either here or in the article. I think it could be useful to have this discussed, as it seems clearly to be a matter of POV. I'm not suggesting that the Russian POV is any worse but I suspect it has its roots in tsarist propaganda and fabrications. I don't think that editwarring is a good solution for POV-related issues. Try to consider a compromise. --Lysy ^(talk) 06:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Major expansion

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)

Thank you for your compliments Irpen! While I try to be objective when writing (having in mind that this is particularly important when you're writing an encyclopedia article), I will admit that I sometimes let biases sink in. Having said that, I believe there is and cannot be such a thing as an article without bias. The good thing is that this is the Wikipedia, and whoever disagrees (or more accurately, has their own bias) can express their opinions. With respect to Ukraine, first of all I was refering to what the Russian media had written about it, and second to what I have heard from acquaintances and strangers living there. Many people seem to agree that there is a strong East/West division in the Ukraine, and that there have been some excessive cases of Russophobia in the past in certain regions of the country. I do agree that maybe "particularly grievous" would be too strong a phrase.

I also want to justify the section on the vocabulary of Russophobia, as I think it is particularly important when trying to identify the phenomenon. Having been the target of Russophobia myself (I'm half Russian and half Belarussian), I can say with certainty that whenever someone uses the word 'Muscovite' or 'Moskvich' without first bothering to find out what city you're from, the intent is almost always racist in nature. I feel that 'Muscovy' is used in a similar context when referring to post-Kievan Russia historically (with the intent being somehow to show that the evil 'Muscovites' are responsible for all the imperial ills, never mind that Moscow always constituted the minority of post-Kievan Rus). Obviously, you know someone has a bias when they use the word 'Muscovy' to refer to Russia in a contemporary setting. Moonshiner 01:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Added tag

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)

You probably forget your own President's recent statement that "Ukraine without Russia is much better than Ukraine with Russia". Please point to the statement.Yes Poland prefers indpendent Ukraine from Russian controled one.Its hardly Russophobia. --Molobo 16:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC) Like in Pilsudski's days, the Polish elite is dreaming of partitioning Russia and of Caucasian Prometheism Please point to such statements.What I know is that Poles often have symphathy for nations conquered in late XIX century who are longing for independence.--Molobo 16:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC) Your President elect named a street in Warsaw after the terrorist Dudaev. It seems you posses quite incorrect information the President didn't named anything but local council members of city district did. Secondly it was a square.Secondly Dudayev is named by some freedom fighter, by another terrorist.The fact is that he fought for independence from Russian, the occupation of Chechnya costs money and lives of Russian people.So its rather disputable if it was anti-russian gesture. --Molobo 16:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The last tour of the Bolshoi Theatre in Warsaw was booed and obsctructed for political reasons, the BBC reports. Again you are incorrect.The reason for the lack of interest was the fact that this theater wasn't the Bolshoi, and claimed so... The Russian children were beaten in Poland this year. As were German, American,French...But only Russian government decided to use a simple criminal of theft to engage in nationalist PR campaign...--Molobo 16:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I could continue the list of Russophobic acts for hours Please do-so far you haven't listed any. --Molobo 16:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC) 3.Statement of Catrine before partitions seems like propagandic justification of aggression on Poland.I wouldn't put Hitler's words on Jewish hatred for Germans in germanophobia article for example.. --Molobo 11:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

the Polish people take great pride in their cultural and civilsational superiority as compared to Russians Please point to the article. --Molobo 13:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

Tone of the article

The article as it is now is IMHO overhiesterical and should be toned down. Reading this article a user can get an inpression that Russians are whinning wingers obsessed with conspirative theories. IMHO it is incorrect and harmful (Обиженных - ебут, pardon my French).

Anyway we should separate facts and opions. Facts should be either sourced or being accepted as facts by all the editors. Opinions should stated as such (and better attributed and sourced) and ideally balanced by the opposite opinions.

E.g. it is a Fact that Pilsudsky was the President of Poland and had to defend Poland with annexed Ukraine and Belorussia. The statement that his actions were caused not by the rational thoughts but by Russophobia is an opinion. In ideal should be stated as such and such historians attribute such and such actions of Pilsudsky to Russophobia as they were obviouly harmfull for his presidency, etc.abakharev 08:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Pilsudski started that war, dreaming of Poland in the borders of 17th-18th century again. You cannot speak of "defending". The Bolsheviks were in the middle of a bloody civil war and seeked peace and easement in the west at any price just one year earlier. The last thing at that moment they could wish is another war.

Again, Pilsudski dreamed of a Great Poland and since Russians were always the main obstacle for such plans, it couldn't be without Russophobia. These cannot are directly connected, just like thunder and lightning. Voyevoda 17:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, Pilsudski had NOT started the war. The war was started by Bolsheviks and their drive to the west (operation Vistula)- and not by Polish OFFENSIVE, one of mannny others, after unofiicial cease-fire (Kiev operation - this was not the start of the war, but just another offensive!)

"Russo-Polish War" article in today's EB. starts like this: "...military conflict between Soviet Russia and Poland, which sought to seize Ukraine". Anyway, take who started the war to the Polish-Soviet War and Kiev Offensive talk pages. --Irpen 19:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Second, Pilsudski had not dreamed about "Great Poland". This was Dmowski's dreams. Pilsudski thought about confederation of independent nations under Polish leadership. Szopen 19:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Check talk:Międzymorze and also the same talk pages above about Polish version of Federalism. It is a non-trvial issue but somehow Polish neighbors tried in history the confederations under Polish leadership and felt that they had enough. --Irpen 19:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Voyevoda and Irpen, would you read once more what Alex wrote and think a bit?--AndriyK 19:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

AndriyK, check what I wrote earlier [3], [4], [5], . It is very much in line with what Alex wrote. I fully agree with him. --Irpen 19:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Entered a period of imperialistic expansion

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)

I like most of the other edits by User:Moonshinerabakharev 08:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Religious

Russophobia is closely connected with religious aspects. In the centuries following the East-West Schism of 1054, the Roman Catholic Church led several efforts aimed at gaining control of Russian territory and converting its inhabitants into Catholicism (see, for example, the Northern Crusades of the Teutonic Knights and Polonization in Ukraine and Belarus). Orthodox Christians were vilified as heathens and heretics, and Orthodoxy itself labeled backwards and barbarian. Today, a similar anti-Orthodox view can be seen in some media accounts seeking to vilify Serbs due to their involvement in the Yugoslav wars.

Now this seems extreme and incorrect on several points -Russia didn't exist at that time -Polonisation was cultural assimiliation mostly -it speaks about Ukraine and Belarus-not Russia -It speaks about Orthodox Religion not Russians(who can be of various faith I believe) -it reaches hight extremism at the end-it speaks about Serbs-not Russians, and only about Orthodox religion, not to mention that the accusation is quite strange, as Orthodox religion is simply ignored by Catholics and West these days

So-its full of unsources and extreme accusations, isn't on topic etc. Thus I have removed it.--Molobo 11:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

No

• Polonization meant consequent removal of Orthodox nobility from important positions. It meant additional burdens and religious segregation. It meant converting large Orthodox areas to Catholicism by force. There is much literature on policy of religious intolerance in the Rzecz Pospolita.
• Russia exists since 862 and the founding of Novgorodian Rus the latter Kievan Rus which was all the same at that times
• Russians were 99% Orthodox and the dislike towards Orthodoxes is pretty relevant to understand where the dislike of Russians (ethnically) origins in. Voyevoda 11:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

1. I could agree with your remark of forcible removal of Orthodox nobility of anything or religious segregation if only you could provide any evidence of such behaviour. Perhaps in the churches the religions were segregated (that's why Orthodox and Latin are two rites and not one), but certainly not in the Diet and not in the offices. Religious intolerance - perhaps, especially during the reign of ultra-Catholic Vasas, but this was not primarily aimed at Russians. In fact the Vasas allowed the Catholic church to persecute some of the Protestant communities econimically (!), that's about it.
2. And again, in Russian there is not much difference between Russia and Ruthenia. In English there is. Live with it.
3. Note that in the times of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth a large part of the szlachta were Orthodox themselves - yet many of them fought against Muscovy or Russia. If anything, they might've hated Russia's politics, not the religion, which was their own as well. Also, your claim that 99% of Russians are of Orthodox faith does not seem too credible, especially that a large part of Russia is inhabitated primarily by Muslims... Halibutt 00:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• • And now you deny the polonization of Ukraine. Pathetic. Bodgan Khmelnitsky broke into insurrection because the Poles were too tolerant, apparently. And *all* the princely houses of Ukraine and Belarus converted to Catholicism and started to use Polish names of their own volition. That's the Polish historiography at its purest. --Ghirlandajo 02:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Ruthenia is yet another hollow term invented and promoted by Polish revisionists. Halibutt, honestly, you should issue a dictionary of Polenglish. --Ghirlandajo 02:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Russian Muslims are not *ethnically* Russian. They are rossiyane but not russkie. Look at what Voyevoda was talking about. --Ghirlandajo 02:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

1. We were speaking of "polonization" of Russia, not Ukraine or Belarus. But again, can you prove that the Ruthenian nobility was forced by anyone to convert? Was there some sort of a royal ukaz there? My dear, apparently you're treating 16th century Poland as if it was 19th century Russia, where all the unites were forced to adopt Orthodoxy. In PLC there was nothing similar, except perhaps for the Polish Brothers. And - believe it or not - nobody really gave a darn whether the master is Catholic, Orthodox or Buddhist as long as he obeyed the laws. While it is easy for you to say that, for instance, the Vasas forced Jarema Wiśniowiecki to convert to Catholicism, then you are completely wrong. As a matter of fact he converted on himself. And, soon afterwards, he almost drowned Ukraine in blood against the will of the Sejm or the king. But still, according to your theory he was forcibly converted (which was anti-Russian, apparently) and forced to hate his fellow countrymen so much that he killed them in hundreds... right... I forgot to add that Khmelnytski was a Polish noble himself, though Soviet historiography often portrayed him as a leader of a national revival movement... Before you continue to claim that the Chmielnicki's uprising was started because anyone was forcibly polonized or catholicised, read a little bit more on why the Cossack unrests were a common problem back then (hint: Registered Cossacks vs. peasants and the case of economical freedom).
2. Ridiculous. No need to write new dictionaries, the existing ones suffice. Also, I believe you should at least read the wiki articles on Ruthenia and Etymology of Rus and derivatives before you continue writing such nonsense.
3. Now I'm completely lost. Are we talking about hathred towards ethnic Russians (whomever they are) or Russians as nation (in terms of state, independence and international law)? If it's the earlier, then I really see no such phenomenon in Poland, neither historically nor presently. In fact even during the harshest times of Soviet domination the majority of Polish intelligentsia were Russophile anticommunists, as Jacek Kaczmarski put it. The love for Russian culture has always been strong in Poland, at least since 19th century. At the same time the hathred towards Russian imperialism was strong, but it was not fear or hathred towards any particular group of people, rather towards Russian politics. Also, in common knowledge (and phobias are in most cases an effect of stereotypes and common knowledge and not based on scholarly works) there is no distinction between ethnic Russians and Russians who have some distant Azeri or Siberian ancestry. Sorry to say so, but for an average European it's all the same. In short (sorry for the comparison), if he speaks Russian, drinks vodka and sings Katyusha - he's a Russian. Halibutt 04:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, since Ghirlandajo took my comment above out of context and used it as a proof of my alleged Russophobia (which is strange considering my love for the Russian culture and language; one the girls I love the most is Russian BTW), it needs a bit of explanation. Contrary to what Ghirlandajo wrote at my RfA page, the above comment is the following: in common knowledge (and phobias are in most cases an effect of stereotypes and common knowledge and not based on scholarly works) there is no distinction between ethnic Russians and Russians who have some distant Azeri or Siberian ancestry. Sorry to say so, but for an average European it's all the same. In short (sorry for the comparison), if he speaks Russian, drinks vodka and sings Katyusha - he's a Russian, not just the last statement I put in quotation marks.

This comment was not aimed against Russian people and I was merely referring to the fact that most people do not distinguish between ethnic Russians, Russians by declared nationality and Russians by citizenship and that IMO such distinctions are rarely made by those who fear Russians. Similarily, most Anti-Semites do not aim their anger at any particular group of Jews, not against people of Izraeli citizenship or people believing in JHVH. Instead, they hate an archaetypical Jew, the guy with skull-cap and long beard. It is a stereotype, but that's how phobias work. Another example: ask any of your friends in Russia what do they think of Spaniards. Most probably none of them will actually distinguish between Asturians, Castillans and Galicians, or between Spaniards by citizenship but not necessarily by nationality or culture.

Anyway, Ghirlandajo, if you really misunderstood the comment above - I'm sorry if you felt offended. It was not my intention and I'm sorry that you thought that I might want to offend you in any way. Halibutt 15:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, my disagreement with what you wrote here stems not from the quote which I understood had no ill will of yours. But, as I have pointed out earlier, you, as well as many others who studied history from Polish textbooks, are deluded by many historiographical biases perpetuated there, particularly, about so called "equality" of Polish and Ruthenian nobility (or let's say Catholic and non-Catholic nobilities) and alleged religious tolerances in the PLC. If you consider Russian or Ukrainian historiography also biased to the contrary, you can look at the works of international scholars. Start with Britannica (I have full access if you need me to provide you with quotes).

On the other note, I think that the term Russophobia applied for the time of PLC's sentiment to Russia and Russians is somewhat an anachronism. If the term was coined relatively recently by Shafarevich (a jerk himslef, BTW, if you ask me), we should be careful with where it is applicable. It certainly is applicable to modern negative sentiment towards Russia and Russians. It is also applicable to frivolous history alterations (Finno-Ugric tribes, Muscovite "aggression, barbarism and stupidity" while Polish decency and bravery during 16th-19th century wars) but much stuff I would rather call an "anti-Russian sentiment" rather than with a modern term "Russophobia". OTOH, those phenomena are connected and it would be pointless to keep this in separate articles. Perhaps, we should just elaborate on the history of the term, its usage and connection with earlier conflicts between Russia and the West in general and Catholicism vs Orthodoxy in particular. Maybe a section on that is in order. Just my thoughts. --Irpen 18:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Symmetry

For the sake of symmetry, I suggest to pattern some passages after Anti-Polonism. For instance, the following passage from that article can be easily retouched into a list of Russian grievances with Poland - both modern (beating Russian children, naming streets after Chechen terrorists, boycotting Bolshoi Theatre, etc) and historical (the massacre of 60,000-80,000 Russian POWs in Bereza Kartuzka, anti-Russian agression, etc.):

Anti-Polonism is currently believed by many Poles to have grown recently in the Russian media, mainly because of Poland's involvement with the War in Iraq, Orange Revolution in Ukraine, disagreements with Russian government on topics of the Northern Gas Main under the Baltic Sea and Russian involvement in war at Chechnya. It is believed that the rise of polonophobia in Russian media is also due to Poland's role in the fall of Communism, breaking the Warsaw Pact, liberating itself from the influence of the Communist Government of the Soviet Union and allying with NATO and the European Union. Historically painful topics such as mass murders, the forced removal of Polish captives to Siberia and the placement of Polish prisoners in Soviet concentration camps (Łagry) during World War II by Stalin and KGB, coupled with the refusal of successive Russian governments to admit any wrongdoing has further exacerbated Warsaw-Moscow tensions, thus giving Russian government-controlled media arguments to raise Polonophobia.

Is anyone up to the job? It could start with: "The anti-Russian hysteria has been rampant in Polish and Baltic media for 15 years now". Anyone reading Russian and Polish media will agree that Russian media generally don't heed the Poles as too boring a subject for discussion or lazily retort to the most paranoic of Polish assaults. So let's speak with our Polish friends in the only language they understand. --Ghirlandajo 12:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

beating Russian children Criminal mugging.What does it have to do with Russopbobia.Are Poles USAphobic becouse Americans are robbed in Poland too ? naming streets after Chechen terrorists Well to you he might be a terrorist for trying to regain independence from Russia.But not all people see him that way. the massacre of 60,000-80,000 Russian POWs in Bereza Kartuzka Where did you get that absurdity from ? It's ridiculous to say the least. The fact that it was established in 1934 just one example... anti-Russian agression Like trying to regain lands taken in Partitions ? ;) --Molobo 13:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

And what has the Northern gaspipline to do with Anti-Polonism? Until such a passage exists, there should be a symmetrical passage in Russophobia for NPOV sake. --Ghirlandajo 14:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

An attempt to be able to block Poland from oil and gas deliveries and pressure it politically like it is already done in other countries such as Ukraine can certainly be viewed as hostile to Polish state.

Using your own language, "an attempt to be able to block Russia from delivering oil and gas to Western European customers and pressure it politically like it is already done in other countries such as Ukraine (which continually blackmails Russia to block her transit) can be certainly viewed as hostile to Russian state".

Nope, Russia has option to sell to China, Japan, and different routes.Russia isn't dependend 90 % on Poland like Poland is on Russia when it comes to oil --Molobo 15:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

When did Russia block any country from its oil, can you cite a single example? Is it Polish oil to discuss it at all? As for Ukraine, you probably know that they steal huge quanitities of gas, although they pay only a third part of the market price for it. Why should we suffer it? Why should Russia feed unfriendly regimes which have been spitting in her space for decades? And why should we care about all these nervous Russophobic countries on our fringes?

When did Russia block any country from its oil, can you cite a single example? Several times in regards to Ukraine, also using price as political blackmail. ' you probably know that they steal huge quanitities of gas' Yes I know Russians have created such accusations to put Ukraine in bad light. --Molobo 15:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC) Why should Russia feed unfriendly regimes which have been spitting in her space for decades? What do you mean by unfriendly ? Independent ? --Molobo 15:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

We still remember that when Gazprom offered your government to lead the pipeline through the Polish territory, they refused on account that Russia wants to make them dependent on her energy.

still remember that when Gazprom offered your government to lead the pipeline through the Polish territory, they refused on account that Russia wants to make them dependent on her energy. '

Nope, again your information is incorrect. Poland refused because it would make Ukraine dependent on Russia, and Polish policy supports independent and free Ukraine.--Molobo 15:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Now when Russia decided the issue without Poland, it is her again to blame.

Since it is Russia that tries to create a situation where she can deny Poland 90 of its oil supplies.

--Molobo 15:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again, can you document a *single* example when Russia denied oil supplies to her neighbours? Poland is free to buy oil in Norway, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, anywhere in the world. Then you will be free from Russia and happy at last. --Ghirlandajo 15:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Whether Russia leads the pipeline through Poland or not she will always be held responisble for all the evils that rock Poland. It is always easier to find enemies abroad than at home. --Ghirlandajo 15:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It is always easier to find enemies abroad than at home.

What do you mean ? Poland has enemies at home ? Russia's policies aren't hostile to independence of Poland, Ukraine or Belarus ? --Molobo 15:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Wake up from the spell of your brainwashing media and see that you don't live in Pilsudski's days any more. --Ghirlandajo 15:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid this comment proves that you aren't an objective contributor. --Molobo 16:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

However Antipolonism is defined differently by Polish dictionary then Russophobia.Its more a hostility towards Poles and their state rather combined with phobia rather then just a phobia itself. I also confess that I didn't see the addition, I have much material on it but the article is attacked at once by German friendly posters every time one puts some mention of atrocities by German state,the contribution you pointed out isn't most important one in my view just to clear up.--Molobo 14:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

There is indeed nothing Polonophobic or Ukrainophobic in Russias decision to build a bypass line and if Polish present it as such, it is ineed an unhealthy sign. The gas is Russia's to sell and it is Russia's policy's, like everyone else's to use it's resources to leverage its interests internationally as well as to have safeguard if the relationship with other countries turn bad enough so that they could use their control over the pipelines as the way to pressure Russia. OTOH, Russian media is also biased and the popular whining there that Ukraine "steals huge quanitities of gas" shows just that. Russia isn't stupid and the gas that enters and leaves Ukraine is metered when it enters and leaves the country. This "stealing" ended well in nineties and even at that time, the stealing parties were not "Ukraine" as a whole but a group several clans close to Kuchma and Lazarenko and the profits were shared with Russian partners. Otherwise, the Russians, again because they are no stupid, would not have tolerated it. The icing of the cake was that because of the connections of corrupt businessmen, it was done in such a way, that the price of the slolen resources was assumed as Ukrainian national debt and that was an additional kickback to the Russian side. This all, however, is an inetersting material for the Russia-Ukraine Relations article and not for this one. I just wanted to show that both Polish and Russian media are at fault here. It is absolutely correct to speak both about Russophobia in Poland and Polonophobia in Russia with both sentiments being encouraged for political reasons. --Irpen 17:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I love the idea that there were dozens of thousands of POWs killed in Polish POW camps during the Polish-Bolshevik War. I happened to read all three books on the topic (two Polish and one Russian) and all of them agree that, while the situation behind the front was severe and the losses among both Polish civilians and Russian or Ukrainian POWs was hard, the number of POWs to die in Polish camps by no means exceeded 20.000, and that number includes mostly victims of typhoid, typhus and Spanish flu. So, unless Ghirlandajo is able to provide any sources other than newspaper articles appearing in Russia from time to time, I find that incredible. Halibutt 14:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Please give sources

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)

See the blatantly racist description under "Kaliningrad's future" section of the old Kaliningrad edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaliningrad&oldid=27062165 You should know something about that since you're the one who deleted that paragraph after my corrections to it. Moonshiner 02:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Use notes

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)

Panslavism

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) a matter of fact. Whether Russia wanted to incorporate their lands is

• a) doubtful. Even in the Treaty of San Stefano of 1878 victorious Russia didn't try to incorporate Bulgaria and Serbia from defeated Turks.
• b) irrelevant. The pro-Russian sentiments would have existed in Austro-Hungary, whatever Russians' ambitions would have been. And this sentiments would have made trouble to Austro-Hungarian government anyway. And this is the main thing. It is absurd to accuse the Russians, since you suggest, the Russians' ambitions alone would have created such sentiments. Why didn't it work in the 20th century?

So, please, leave this text passage without your Polish POV corrections. Voyevoda 16:51, 9 Novemver 2005 (UTC)

Since the version of Panslavism ideology adopted by Russian thinkers and some thinkers of nations of Southern Slavic origins had often expressed an idea that all nations will controled by Russian Empire thus puts Austro Hungarian reaction in different light and doesn't make it irrational as it now stands in the article. --Molobo 18:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

And this was not the official policy of the Russian Empire. Tsarist Russia adopted panslavic movement and encouraged it, at the same time those panslavist ideologists talked about integrating all Slavic people under Russian control.Since many ethnic groups lived in Austro-Hungary, its worry about Russian desires is understandable. Likewise I wouldn't be surprised to fidn Slavs worried about such Russian projects who enjoyed a relative great degree of freedom in AH compared to what they could expect under Russian Empire. --Molobo 19:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC) here were in deed some intellectuals who wanted Russia to liberate Slavs under foreign rule, for example Dostoyevsky Well they wanted Russia to rule over them, so its hardly a liberation, if they supported freedom they could agitate to give freedom to Slavs that were opressed by Russians at this time. But this is of topic,just to correct you. --Molobo 19:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC) 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? As you can see Russia interfered in AH sphere of influence and followed a course led out by some panslavists, this means that AH had every right to fear Russian designs. --Molobo 19:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

History of the Habsburg Empire by Robert A Kann page 337 Panslavism was primarily directed by authoritarian, if not despotic, ideologies in tsarists Russia.The showdown between Austria and Russia would probably have led to empire's dismemberment, from which Russia would have benefited more then Germany, which would gain only Alpine lands. The Slavic people, and possibly Magyars would come under tsarists heel. --Molobo 20:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You won't prove me anything with your biased citations. What to Balkans, Russia fought not AH, but Ottomans and unlike Austrians it had a moral ideal and support of the Balkan peoples to do so. If Austrians were too weak or too little motivated to forestall Russia in the Balkans, the only one they could blame were they themselves. There was no legitimation for morbid Russophobia they allowed to themselves.

But back to Austrian Slavs. Their sympathy with Russia is a historical fact, despite your claims of Russia being authoritarian. In Austria they were subjects to ruthless germanization and social segregation. They knew what they wanted. In Russian Empire foreign peoples were treated very liberally. The best example is the Principality of Finland, which had a complete self-administration and (being part of Russian Empire) introduced the first ever women suffrage in 1906. If it was within the Russian Empire, you can imagine that friendly independent countries would be treated with even more tolerance. An exception was Poland, but it was its own guilt, since it constant betrayals (Napoleon) and uprisings forced the Russian authorities to drive a harder line.

And still I'm awaiting an oficial source which proves that panslavism was Russian official state ideology at that time.

--Voyevoda 21:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

" And still I'm awaiting an oficial source which proves that panslavism was Russian official state ideology at that time." It was definatly seen as such by people of that time.Just for fun, Engels : http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/02/28.htm It is crystal-clear that the Russian invasion is bound to give a new impetus to the pan-Slavist movements of the Czechs and the Southern Slavs. These nationalities who have for a long time been used to look to the Tsar as their natural patron and ultimate liberator, are now receiving striking proof that Austria has neither the power nor the will to ensure their national development. And now for the first time the Russian Tsar enters upon the stage, acts for them at the decisive moment and confirms with deeds the Hopes which they place in him. Thus the Tsar now appears before the Austrian Serbs, Croats, Czechs etc. as the supreme protector of the Slav nationality as he did previously before the Turkish Serbs. And that the Slav national aspirations can be as menacing for the Austrian “united monarchy” as the armed resistance of the Magyars we have seen repeatedly.

With the Russian invasion of Transylvania the Tsar has taken a new step towards the realisation of pan-Slavism. He has proclaimed the alliance of the Russians and the Austrian Slavs and made himself the de facto sovereign of the Austrian Slavs. The others are of course already under his sway. The Poles are his servants, the Turkish Slavs his vassals, and now he poses as the protector of the Austrian Slavs too. Only one more step and Austria falls completely under his suzerainty just like Turkey. At this price the “united monarchy” saves itself for a few months from destruction at the hands of the revolution!"

In Russian Empire foreign peoples were treated very liberally. http://www.acls.org/crn/network/ebook_gatagova_paper2.doc THE CRYSTALLIZATION OF ETHNIC IDENITY IN THE PROCESS OF MASS ETHNOPHOBIAS IN THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE (The Second Half of the 19th Century) "In the second half of the 19th century, the Russian empire underwent three mass manifestations of ethnophobia (with different levels of intensity): Polonophobia, Germanophobia, and Judophobia." "Practically all of the Russian government, bureaucracy, and society were united in one outburst against the Poles. The phobia that gripped society gave a new powerful push to the Russian national solidarity movement. This was undoubtedly facilitated by the ethnic character of the Polish liberation movement."

"In Russian national consciousness, the image of the Pole as one from a foreign religion was formed long ago. The Pole's everyday behavior and his clothes were perceived as signs of his Catholic affiliation. Moreover, the Catholic was associated with dark powers. Because in the folk sphere the reflection of historical reality is very often transferred into the unconscious level, the complex, centuries-long history of Russian –Polish coexistence have "accumulated" a great mass of myths and legends. These unceasingly feed the dangerously antagonistic relations between the two peoples. Here are some small examples of folk creativity expressing negative stereotypes from one side: "The Polock is a cursed soul" "cursed unbelievers" "dishonest Polocks."

"The organs of the Russian press, for all their multiple private disagreements, completely agreed on the necessity of "increasing Russian nationality in the western provinces."25 Criticizing government action in these provinces, they complained about officials who, in their opinion, were incapable of action to strengthen Russian nationalism and defend it from Polonism."26 In the report of the Third Section [the Government Censorship] for 1866, it is said that in spite of all the "strong measures" undertaken by the government in the western region, the polish population "has not changed in its political convictions, its feelings for the government, or its feelings towards Russians in general."27 We can find a very typical illustration of the mindset of Russian society of that time in the composition of A. Vostokov, entitled "A Russian's Instruction to His Son Before his Son is sent for Service in the Southwestern Russian regions." Cautioning his inexperienced offspring against possible mistakes, the caring father exclaims: "In all your service in Western Russia do not forget that although the Polish and their kind have Slavic blood, they are all irreconcilable, cursed enemies of Russia and Orthodoxy, breathing hellish hatred…"28 Commentary, as it is called, seems unnecessary." --Molobo 23:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

Subject

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)

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)

Muscovy

Muscovy is not a russophobic term. It is used frequently in many highly respected historical works published in the English language. For evidence, see this Google Print search. We even have a Wikipedia article with that title, for crying out loud. Balcer 22:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

While not a russophobic term in itself, it is favoured by those anti-Russian media which presume that in Russia the drunk bears roam the streets with nuclear weapons in their paws. The fact is worth noticing. Also I don't understand why you deleted my remark that the most odious Russian politicians - Catherine II, Alexander III, Trotski, Stalin - were not ethnically Russian. It seems instructive that Dzershinsky, the founder of gulags, was a Polish nobleman. --Ghirlandajo 22:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Please, could you provide some specific examples where the exact word "Muscovy" is used by "anti-Russian media"? I am truly curious. Sure, some people may write "Moscow wants ..." to refer to Russia, but in the same way they may write "Washington wants ..." to refer to the USA. It is just shorthand, with no insult intended.

If you want to restore information about Stalin etc. not being ethnic Russians, feel free. I simply did not see what the usefulness of that information was. Do you mean to imply that if Stalin did happen to be Russian, then Russophobia would be somehow justified? Surely you don't mean that. Balcer 23:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The name Moskale used historiclly in Polish to describe Russians (as opposed to the Ruthenians) isn't antirussian, just consider the poem "Do przyjaciul Moskali" by Polish national poet Adam Mickiewicz. It is simply and anachronism replaced today by Rosjanie as opposed to Ukraincy/Bialorusini.

Oh yes it is antirussian. The fact that some rapper calls his friend yo nigga does not mean the word is not offensive. There was even a Ukrainian verb "moskaliti" with the meaning "to swindle". mikka (t) 00:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Was it generally considered anti-Russian in 1832 when Mickiewicz wrote the poem? I am not sure, but I would guess it was not. Of course I do agree that using the term to refer to Russians today would be highly offensive. But hey, the meaning of words evolves with time. What is politically correct today may become highly offensive in the future. Balcer 00:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

My dear friend, I hope you understand that you may guess, but your guesses must not influence the writing of an article, only your knowledge counts. And your guess is wrong here. Although it is an interesting question as to when the word appeared and whether it was derogatory from the very beginning. mikka (t) 01:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Mikka why do you think it is derogatory ? It is as neutral as "Russian" is in English. Maybe it has some negative connotations in Russian but not in English language. 82.111.149.2 17:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

What word are talking about? (I was not talking about "Muscovy") mikka (t) 21:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Indeed I assumed you were referring to "Muscovy". 82.111.149.2 10:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Muscovy is a word favoured by russophobes and Ukrainian/Polish/Belarusian nationalists who want to deny Russia's relation to Kievan Rus/Ruthenia. They don't like to use the similar sounding term Russia since in their propaganda Muscovites are a foreign barbaric Finno-Ugric and Mongol people. For them, the legitimate successor of Kievan Rus is Great Duchy of Lithuania and later Poland (no matter that they never were part of Kievan Rus, are of foreign ethnicity and religion). Russia is not Rus for them, but a mutated Moscow principality - that's why they call it Muscovy. Muscovites are a strange enigma and nobody knows where they came from and how to categorise them culturally. Probably they are descendants from the family of Ursidae.

Muscovy - terra incognita (Ukrainian) http://www.geocities.com/dir88de/moskovija.html

Voyevoda 23:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You forgot that the word Muscovy has a clear, definite historical context and meaning. Non-Russian historians prefer to refer to the Moscow-based state as Russia when speaking of pre-Great Sorrow times and I see nothing wrong with that, especially that Muscovy was not equal to Russia back then and, though it tried really hard to dominate the region, it was not the only state to unite all of the lands of historical Ruthenia (called Rus' by Russians, Ruś by Poles, Ruthenia by Brits and known by many more names in the world). Of course, usage of the term in modern context might indeed bear some negative feelings, but the historical context is ok. It was not coined to deny anything to anyone. It's simply more accurate as that was the name of the state (Princedom of Moscow or simply Moscow, to be precise) and it was not the only successor state of Kiev Ruthenia. Halibutt 03:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't mix the term "Principality of Moscow" with the broader use of Muscovy for the time when Moscow rulers were already crowned Tzars (early 16th century) and started to use the title the "Sovereign of all Rus'" which they were in fact increasingly becoming expanding the territory they controlled. However, the term Muscovy is often aplied well past that time and into the most of 17th century even though usually without ill intention, but perhaps incorrectly. --Irpen 04:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Certainly it can be used incorrectly as any other word does but nevertheless it has no derogatory meaning. At least in English language it does not. 82.111.149.2 10:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Well in all Russian publication this point in history is always referred to as Moskovian Rus, and the dwellers of that place were Ruthenians. When Ivan the III changed Ruthenia to Russia. Dwellers of Russia became Russians which consisted of Ruthenians, Tatars etc. Try Gumelyov for example. Now after Russia regained all of the lands of Kievan Ruthenia, dwellers of those lands became Little and White Ruthenians, whilst dwellers of original northeastern Ruthenia became Great Ruthenians. However all would have been had the name confusion in the late 19th/early 20th centuryies not happened when Great Ruthenians became Russians; Little Ruthenians became Edge-dwellers (nothing offensive; I am just sticking to original terminology here); White Ruthenians became Belarusians. Now this is how the problem with original terminology looks in Russian, derictely translated into English. --Kuban kazak 10:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This whole article and disscussion is absurd

I've been to Poland a few times, both during Soviet times and recently and can personally atest that Poles, who are presented here as rabid Russian haters, are in fact very friendly and sympathetic towards us. People in Poland are indeed very suspicious towards Russia, and with good reasons too, but that doesn't translate towards their attitude towards the Russian nation. The argument raised in this disscusion are simply absurd, they seem as if though written by provocators.

Please sign in before posting comments, it makes communication a lot easier. Having a portion of Polish blood and a Polish surname myself, I'd like to agree with you, if it were not for what I read everyday in Polish media and for the behaviour of certain Polish editors on Russian-related articles. They often tend to disregard the millions they lost in Nazi genocide and concentrate on several hundred they lost in Koniuchy massacre, Katyn massacre, and other such self-devised "massacres". Reading their masochistic fables, it seems like the only future of Poland is its past. --Ghirlandajo 23:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I will take you up at your word. You say that you daily read anti-Russian articles in the Polish media. Very well, could you please produce a list of, say, seven such articles published in a given week (links would be useful). It's easy: every day when you read your daily anti-Russian article, make a note of the link or source, and next week post them all here. If you can't, then please retract your statement. I am being somewhat facetious here, because I follow the Polish media and I do not see anti-Russian articles appearing with anywhere near to daily frequency, though they do occur from time to time. In fact, given that we now have a potential trade dispute between Poland and Russia over meat importation, this might be a good week for spotting some.

As for actions of some Polish editors on Wikipedia, remember that Wikipedia editors are very far from being representative of the population at large. At present I would count less than 10 Polish editors regularly working on articles related to Polish history in the 20th century. What do the actions of these editors say about general attitudes in Poland, a nation of 38 million people? Absolutely nothing. Balcer 00:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)