Jump to content

Talk:Anti-Russian sentiment/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Racism

"Russophobia" is racism, but somehow it is not viewed this way in society, neither it is reflected in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.71.148.156 (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It is fashionable to label any negative generalization about a given ethnic group as racism. This trivializes the term racism. Russians are white and mostly Christian, so they are not subject to the level of prejudice which people with dark skin and Muslims have to deal with in Western societies. – Herzen (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
@Herzen - you are artificially limiting racism only to the actions against non-white and non-Christians, which is definitely not logical. There is discrimination of Christians, say, in some countries; there are recognized cases of racism against whites. In this specific case we are talking about non-tolerant attitude towards an ethnicity/nationality (depends on how to threat the word 'Russians'), which is pretty much a form of racism (at least Wikipedia says so).--Klomb (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Mixed bag of cherry-picked statements and very general findings (a.k.a. "fluff")

Two things surprise me at the first sight: overly wide spectrum of this article and its general single POV

  1. Despite of the name the article rarely discusses russophobia but mostly documents a founded antirussian sentiment (it is hard to be surprised that the people fear of or dislike the country, governments and supporting them people who perform ethnical cleanses and deny them or violate borders without actually declaring the war - even now, in 2014). In result, the article is full of a fluff which may be used to proclaim a "russophobia" around the world, which is not.
  2. The article bases generally on cherry-picked statements and POVs (e.g. of sides which may found it useful to proclaim others "russophobic"). Starting a section with Russian officials claim is not very fortunate, as Russian officials claim many things, like that the Russian soldiers invading Crimea at the moment are "local self-defense forces" - and they have a huge backlog of such blatant lies.

I know it is extremely hard to not write this article in sucha a way. My kudos for everyone who worked to police this article - this is pretty obvious it has been a hard work and a lot of things with obtaining sources etc. have been done. However, wouldn't it be more fair to actually name this article as Anti Russian sentiment or even make an article attitude towards Russian state, attitude towards Russian culture, attitude towards Russian people etc. etc.?

Then maybe one could present in a better way a mixed bag of opinions, without branding them as phobias or, on the other hand, being a useful idiot. Otherwise, maybe it should be split and here only actual phobic examples should be presented.

Just my 2 cents, aegis maelstrom δ 10:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

aegis maelstrom: I do see your point; the only problem is, how are editors to make a firm distinction between a genuine phobia, and legitimate or at least understandable (and generally more temporary) hatred caused by immediate events. It's rather like Islamophobia: while I think most editors would agree both phobias exists, in both cases I don't see a general consensus regarding how widespread that phobia is and how it might be defined. Both phobias, I'm afraid, are subject to a) political manipulation/promotion; b) subjective POV. So it's probably better - as in the Armenian subsection of this article (as it stands at present) - to make clear where Russophobia generally doesn't exist, and why there might be anti-Russian feeling at certain times. This, perhaps, helps to clarify/gives perspective on other sections of this article. Alfietucker (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with aegis maelstrom . This article is even a redirect from "Anti-Russian Sentiment" and this is in fact the only article in the Template:Anti-cultural_sentiment with -phobia in its title, making it sound like it is considered OK to have anti-X sentiment except for Russia, which is an irrational phobia. This is even more bizarre considering how there are several countries that have very real and clear reasons for despising the Russian government, including the entire list of countries mentionned in Chapter 2.1 Former Soviet Union and chapter 2.2 Former Eastern Bloc. Consider how that distinction is already for Jewish people, i.e. Antisemitism (irrational hatred) and Anti-Zionism (political opposition). So to be consistent, either this article needs to be renamed "Anti-Russian sentiment", or two separate articles Russophobia and Anti-Russian sentiment need to be written. Willa wonky (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Willa wonky. The main problem with this article, Alfietucker, is that this is simply a Russian propaganda article. This article notoriously fails to provide neutral and scientific sources claiming we are dealing with a phobia. Some sections, like Russophobia in Poland, are lists of some Russian individuals (why them?) claiming, there is a such a thing like a Russophobia in Poland. I am sorry but these are not credible sources. The other quote is about anti-russian feelings - which are clearly something very different than phobias.
I find it hard to find proofs of notability and verifiability of this "phenomenon".
Using these low standards, we can populate Wikipedia with thousands of articles called NewYorkCityPhobia (people accused of having negative feelings towards New York City), Volleyballphobia (the ones not liking a glorious game of volleyball), Bieberphobia (the ones daring to not love Mr. Bieber), Androidphobia (people complaining on Android phones and system in general) etc. etc.
As far as I know, neither ICD-10 nor DSM-IV (DSM-V?) holds such an item as russophobia - therefore, even the notability should be proven. Even if this is done, the article (if it is to remain as a Russophobia) should be cleared from unproven claims of phobia. In its present state, I don't see staying much, TBH.
On the other hand, Stalinist "psychiatry" has a long tradition of depicting the political opposition as "mentally ill". This obvious resembliance tells that phobia stunt is just an old trick in a propaganda book and this article is a political spin, propaganda item. Personally I do not like a situation when some officials are using Wikipedia to insert their agenda into the mainstream.
Therefore, if you like keeping an anti-Russian sentiment, like anti-American sentiment, anti-EU sentiment or anti-NYC sentiment - I am fine with that. Otherwise, I call it a biased article with a purpose.
Kind Regards, aegis maelstrom δ 12:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Well if you consult the dictionary, the term "Russophobia" exists to describe strong negative feelings towards Russia (possibly irrational, but not necessarily so) As for anti-R sentiments, below I suggested to create an article, under a neutral title Public opinions about Russia. Please also keep in mind that while some negative attitudes against Russia may be objectivized, the negative attitudes against Russian people or culture are either clean cut Racism or overgeneralization based on bad personal experience (with Russian mafia, girlfriend, hotel attendant, etc.) Therefore the two must be clearly separated. -No.Altenmann >t 16:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The concerns you raise about feelings being rational or irrational could just as well apply to all other articles in this category, and I cannot find any legitimate reason why this article should be treated any differently. So I completely disagree with making an article titled "Public opinions about Russia", the whole point is that this article is inconsistent with other articles on the same topic. We don't need to create further inconsistency just because it's Russia. I propose to rename this article to "Anti-Russian sentiment" and if anyone wants they can write an article about "Russophobia". Willa wonky (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so unless there are any remaining legitimate objections, this article will be renamed Anti-Russian sentiment Willa wonky (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Russophobia by country section

How does a poll talking about whether a country has a positive or negative influence in the world count as Russophobia? And does it deserve a full chart denoting all the responses from all countries? The topics are related, sure, and the poll can be mentioned in a paragraph or so.Kingsindian (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Who says that the poll "counts as Russophobia"? Also: re: "from all countries": last time I looke at the map, there was way more countries than the table shows. Table is good. Simply mentioning the poll is useless. -No.Altenmann >t 19:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Poll tables

After some thought, I removed polls for a simple reason: they lump together both rational and stereotypical opinions about Russia; indeed, in last two centuries Russia gave plenty of valid reasons to have negative opinion about it. Indeed, how do you imagine a poll: "Please select one of 4 bullets: (a) You are Russophobic (b) Russia hurt you and you hate it (c) A Russian hurt you but you still love this bitch (d) That's a cool ipad you are using in the poll!" Jokes aside, these tables say nothing about prevalence of Russopobia, and hence irrelevant. -No.Altenmann >t 15:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

On the other hands, it would be a reasonably encyclopedic article, Public opinion about Russia, and a neutral title, too. Whoever created these tables, please make a new page. And link it here, e.g., in "see also" section. (I could have done it myself, but I don't want to snatch your glory of priority. :-) -No.Altenmann >t 15:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

We have been using gallop poll for longer period. Having negative opinion can be concerning with the anti-russian or russophobic sentiment. Later paragraphs(about countries and its population) had enough content that anyone could consider this poll to be legit. Yes there is deep anti-russian sentiment in those countries, wouldn't need to question that how they couldn't. You had any thoughts about replacing poll with other content? Bladesmulti (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I have an impression that you did not understand what I wrote why these polls are not for this article. I don't see how you disprove my argument. I also suggested where to put the polls into wikipedia. -No.Altenmann >t 01:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
How? Already wrote, that because they provide an idea about the sentiments, they have been used for a longer period. These polls are more common when we are writing about the specific countries and their relations e.g. "France-Russia relations", in those articles, polls like this would be necessary. You may wonder why I haven't reverted your edits, its because of your argument above. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems you have no idea how wikipedia works. Here is a simple question for you: per wikipedia rules, please provide references to reliable sources which state that these polls homehow characterize Russophobia or how they can distinguish irrational anti-Russian sentiment (the topic of the current article) from the rational one (i.e., the one that may be rationally explained by politics of Russia). -No.Altenmann >t 03:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, you have trouble with logic. Yes, they characterize Fr-Ru relations. Yes, I suggested they may be included in the special summary article Public opinion about Russia. But this has nothing to do with the question whether they are relevant to the discussed article. And this relevance does not depend on a wikipedian's opinion. You have to provide reliable sources which establish this relevance. Otherwise it is called "original research", disallowed in wikipedia. -No.Altenmann >t 03:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems like you are having some serious issues with the understanding of basic policies and language. I am doubtful if you know about the longevity of the sourced material. Without verifying the sources and making up weird opinions cannot be helpful. It seems to be impossible if you are going to look around, but whenever you will do, you would better know that the "BBC Service poll" has been extensively used by the reliable sources and academics for describing the prevalence of Russophobia.[1], [2], [3] If you try different terms like "against Russia", "anti-russian", you can find many resources using this poll. Thus your suggestion about creating an article like "Public opinion about Russia" is just nonsensical. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing real references into the discussion. Now we may talk wikipedians talk. One problem with these sources: they are passionate pro-Russian propaganda pieces. Just one example: in one of them, one of features of Russophobia is claimed to be "The image of Russia’s ruthless pursuit of expansionist and imperialist agendas is commonplace." Russophobia? Oh, really? Especially in view of recent events? But never mind. Yes the pieces are called "Russophobia". The please pay attention how the poll data are used:

"Various polls demonstrate that Americans do not agree with the assessment that Russia is a threat to the United States' values and interests. A recent BBC World Service poll revealed, for example, that 45 percent of Americans have a mainly positive attitude regarding Russia's influence in the world, compared with 36 percent who have a mainly negative attitude."
"assessment that Russia is a threat" is not Russophobia. It is ..er.. assessment for national security purpose. Or it is an assessment to beef up military business. In the latter case it is indeed called "russophobia card". On the former case it is not. Back to my major point again: the quote does not discuss how much of these 36% are Russophobia. -No.Altenmann >t 17:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

And finally, you seem to peristently ignore my major comment (also voiced in the talk page before by others) that "Russophobia" and "anti-Russian" are not the same. And how on Earth my suggestion of the article with a neutral title is nonsensical? -No.Altenmann >t 18:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. In addition, since this has gone back and forth at least five times (some with discussion, some without), move protecting the page; if a further move is warranted or desired, please initiate a new discussion before moving the page. Dekimasuよ! 17:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Russophobia → Anti-Russian sentiment – this article is inconsistent with other articles on the same topic, e.g. Anti-French sentiment in the United States, anti-Mexican sentiment, etc. We need to rename this article to "Anti-Russian sentiment", because its content is not necessarily about an irrational phobia, and calling it such is not politically balanced and we need the proposed more neutral term. This article has been renamed back and forth over several years, this needs to stop, and the topic has already been discussed at length on this page. Willa wonky (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

re "politically balanced" -- the subject of Russophobia or even "anti-R" is not politically balanced at all. -No.Altenmann >t 04:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
calling all opposition "-phobia" is politicising the issue by suggesting that it is irrational, whereas "anti-X sentiment" does not make any kind of implication. People are not going to like all kinds of things, that doesn't mean it's a phobia. I have not seen any legitimate argument on this page in favour of treating opposition to Russia as a phobia but accepting "anti-X sentiment" for other countries.Willa wonky (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Easier for other users to understand, there are more citations about anti-russian sentiment than russophobia. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
much as you don't like "bludgeoning", but how else can I make you to prove your statements? google search does not say what you say.-No.Altenmann >t 08:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Willa wonky (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - aegis maelstrom δ 18:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC) ICD-10 and DSM-V are mum about russophobia; moreover, as it is an article about negative attitudes towards Russia (regardless if grounded), it cannot be called a phobia. If anything, russophobia can be an article about some propaganda/political term if good sources are found.
    • Regardless or not are different topics. and DSM-V is irrelevant. There is no Islamophobia in DSM-V either and the article subject is not about medical condition. -No.Altenmann >t 04:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Actually, your example of the article on Islamophobia is perfect; that article has a lengthy criticism section, including a reference to the Associated Press Stylebook where " The terms no longer appears on the online stylebook, and Minthorn believes journalists should employ more precise phrases to avoid 'ascribing a mental disability to someone'.". Which is precisely the problem with the present article. Furthermore, that article is specifically about hatred or fear of muslims, while that isn't the scope of the article on "Russophobia" as it includes any and all kinds of opposition to Russia, legitimate or otherwise.
Nobody is stopping you from writing an article titled "Russophobia" and nobody is denying its existence, what is being said is that this article is not about a phobia, you can't list all opposition under the heading "-phobia" so the title is not correct.Willa wonky (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The title proposal creates ambiguity - is it about a sentiment against Russia or the Russian people? It's better to leave it as it is, because this Latin-based expression is both common and clear in its meaning when compared to the alternative. Overall, this RM feels like a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because it's in line with other titles doesn't mean it's good. - Anonimski (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to whether or not an article should exist. "In Wikipedia discussions, editors point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy" Nobody is advocating any such action. The article title is inconsistent and does not represent a neutral point of view, both of which are requirements under Wikipedia:Article titles
Furthermore, while "-phobia" does indeed exist(it's Greek, not Latin), it is not used in the context of general opposition, which is what this article has as actual contents. Phobia: "an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation" Willa wonky (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I know that - although a parallel can be drawn to this case as well. Also, -phobia can be used in other cases than literal phobias, especially in cases like this where it's used for a commonly established term that people are familiar with. Anonimski (talk) 09:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. It is clear what Gregkaye is talking about. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
no it is not clear what hes talking about. he makes a statement of fact, not just an opinion. i cannot verify his statement. -No.Altenmann >t 06:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and support similar moves, too. Red Slash 22:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The suggested renaming changes article scope. Irrational, stereotypic dislike of Russians is a topic separate from dislike and suspicion of Russia as a state. -No.Altenmann >t 04:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Support Changed opinion after reviewing the last version of article. Indeed, it seems at this moment it is much easier to rename the current article and write a new "Russophobia" page from scratch, although earlier in the talk I suggested an opposite way of splitting. However in the current page rational and irrational dislikes are hopelessly mixed, so it is technically easier to rename. -No.Altenmann >t 15:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC).
    • Your argument would work if "irrational, stereotypic dislike of Russians", which is more in line with the concept of russophobia, were consistent with the content of this article. It is instead used as a term for the overall opposition to any kind of Russian thing. That is not a phobia.Willa wonky (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Why do you care so much about this? You have made all of 18 edits, and half of them are about this article renaming proposal of yours. Why the sudden shift in interest from ice hockey to what title English Wikipedia should use for the article about anti-Russian sentiment/Russophobia? – Herzen (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
In the future, please ensure your comments are in compliance with Wikipedia:Civility. Questioning someone's motives is a personal attack. If you can't make your case without resorting to such arguments, it wasn't worth bothering to write it.Willa wonky (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Gavleson (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Russophobia" is the universally accepted term in Russia for anti-Russian sentiment. The simple fact that most Russians think that there is a phenomenon the proper name for which is "Russophobia" makes it necessary for English Wikipedia to have an article on Russophobia. I see that there is an article on Antisemitism. Renaming this article to "Anti-Russian sentiment" would make as much sense as renaming the Antisemitism article to "Anti-Jewish sentiment". Also, the Wikipedias of 24 other languages have an article named "Russophobia", so that English Wikipedia dropping the term would isolate it in its own Anglocentric bubble. That alone makes this move proposal a complete non-starter. To summarize: the concept of Russophobia is a central component of Russian culture. In short: for Russian Wikipedia not to do this concept justice would involve Wikipedia not performing its encyclopedic function when it comes to Russia. – Herzen (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no phobia like Russophobia. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you think that the term "homophobia" shouldn't be used either, because you find that there is no phobia like homophobia? – Herzen (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
It is a well established term, unlike Russophobia, and at least Anti-Russian sentiment is more common. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
If the Wikipedias of 24 different languages have articles with the title of "Russophobia", I think it's safe to say that Russophobia is "a well established term". And for your information, in English, the word "Russophobia" is capitalized. – Herzen (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
It is not even a matter. Neither 24 different languages have to do anything with the common standard(see Wikipedia:Article titles), and how we have named other relevant articles. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Your arguments are flawed.
  • It is not relevant to the english-language wikipedia what is considered the accepted term in Russia or any other non-english-speaking country other than as a sidenote.
  • Your example of antisemitism is actually perfect. There is already a distinction between antisemitism and antizionism, precisely because a distinction is needed between racist attitudes against Jews and political opposition to the existence of a Jewish country.
  • the term antisemitism does not include "-phobia" in the title either, which is precisely the whole point of this requested move.
  • I've reviewed the articles on russophobia in 3 other languages which I speak (French, German, Spanish) and they are mostly sticking to russophobia. Also, the German one is going through the same arguments on the talk page specifically along the same lines as this English-language article.
It's worth emphasizing that nobody is arguing against the existence of an article titled russophobia, you can go ahead and write one if you want to, we are arguing that this article's content has nothing to do with a phobia and is mostly about political opposition to Russia -- actually not unlike antizionism -- and that as such the title is neither neutral to the topic nor does it reflect the content nor is it consistent with articles about other nations.
Please provide a relevant and valid argument for why anti-russian sentiment should be treated any differently than anti-X sentiment for any other country in Template:Anti-cultural_sentiment because such a thing has yet to be written here. Willa wonky (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose – No reason given for moving away from the established word, which is more WP:CONCISE and clear. RGloucester — ☎ 20:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Rename or rewrite this page. Term "russophobia" denotes dark racist feelings towards people of certain ethnicity, something along the lines of antisemitism. This is a legitimate subject. However, this page describes something very different. Typically, it tells something like this: "Russophobia in Armenia has historically been very low. According to a July 2007 poll, only 2% of Armenians see Russia as a threat, as opposed to 88% who view Russia as Armenia's partner." or "According to a 2012 poll, 35% of Georgians perceive Russia as Georgia's biggest enemy". Well, this is not "Russophobia", because these peoples can reasonably see Russian state as their friend or their foe, based on the previous history of wars or whatever. That does not mean ethnic hatred, but only ethnic hatred can be reasonably viewed as "Russophobia". This is getting ridiculous because even sciences are now declared a subject of "Russophobia" [4]. What is this? An inferiority complex? My very best wishes (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I just removed Russian science as an object of Russophobia. Don't know why that was put in there. You linked to my edit, which undid two edits, on of which was yours. I explained why I undid your edit: "Russophobes dislike Russian policy, not politics". What don't you understand about that explanation? – Herzen (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
You appear not to be a native speaker of English, which may explain why you do not understand how the word "Russophobia" is used in the English language. Let me give you some examples.
Putin's Complaint
Russia and the Russians are routinely demonized in Washington: they are the one people it is perfectly okay to hate – unless, that is, you are a member of "Pussy Riot," or a has-been chess champion who’s taken up Russophobia as a second career. That is, unless you’re a traitor to your own country and allow yourself to be used as an instrument in Washington’s hands.
The west's new Russophobia is hypocritical - and wrong
With two weeks to go before Vladimir Putin hosts the G8's first summit in Russia, criticisms are pouring in from western thinktanks and politicians. Some are legitimate, but many are wildly prejudiced. Russophobia is back. In the latter category was a speech by the US vice-president, Dick Cheney, in Lithuania. His denunciation of Russia's lack of democracy was the harshest US attack since the fall of communism, though it turned out to be a lesson in double standards. Cheney went on to Kazakhstan and praised its president, whose elections are more flawed than Putin's. …
Russia's independence in foreign policy is a new factor - and may be the real reason Washington is uncomfortable with Putin.
Washington’s Iron Curtain in Ukraine
Russia is no threat. But to vociferous Russophobes in the Baltic States, Western Ukraine and Poland, the very existence of Russia is a threat. Encouraged by the United States and NATO, this endemic hostility is the political basis for the new “iron curtain” meant to achieve the aim spelled out in 1997 by Zbigniew Brzezinski in The Grand Chessboard: keeping the Eurasian continent divided in order to perpetuate U.S. world hegemony.
All three writers describe Russophobia being directed not at Russian ethnicity, but at Russia acting like a sovereign country, acting in its own interests, as opposed to submitting to the will of the United States. I have chosen as examples of usage one libertarian, one liberal, and one left-wing commentator. Thus, across the political spectrum, native English speakers use the word "Russophobia" in this political sense.
As for the original proposal which started this thread, it is based solely on original research and ignores how the word "Russophobia" is actually used by native language speakers. – Herzen (talk) 05:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Some more examples.
Washington Post: Yes, Americans hate on Russia too much.
"There's a fine line between fair criticism and schadenfreude, and the Western press has been largely well on the side of the latter," the New Republic's Julia Ioffe, who is not soft on Putin's Russia, wrote. "I'd also argue that there's something chauvinistic, even Russophobic in it."
Guardian: Battling Russophobia
A Russophobia virus has infected the air. What is it? It is when an English literature teacher in a good school, explaining how to answer an exam question on comedy, tells your daughter: "Don't worry, simply write – I am Russian, I do not have a sense of humour." Or the ease with which jokes like "You are Russian, you must know all about corruption," are made. A BBC documentary presenter asks his Russian interpreter in the Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad: "Do you feel Russian or European?" What does he expect the woman to say?
Bram Stoker and Russophobia: Evidence of the British Fear of Russia in Dracula and The Lady of the Shroud
I contend that in Dracula the Eastern menace facing England should be read as Russia, England's greatest imperial rival of the nineteenth century, and her hereditary allies among the Slavic people of the Balkans. In the groundbreaking 1950 study The Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain, John Howes Gleason has argued that early on in the nineteenth century the English public developed "an antipathy toward Russia which soon became the most pronounced and enduring element of the national outlook on the world abroad". Spurred on by imperial rivalry in the Near East and Central Asia, Russophobia, Gleason contends, was a defining feature of English foreign policy and military planning, eventuating in the ill-fated Crimean War of 1854–1856. Russophobia would continue to influence the English worldview well into the twentieth century.
I would say that last quote from a scholarly work clinches it: the English became Russophobes not because they don't like Russians because of their ethnicity, but because Russia was England's main geopolitical rival. What these six eamples taken together show is that "reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject" (to quote WP:NC) – which is largely the perception of Russia as a threat – using the term Russophobia. – Herzen (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Did you read what the yellow box above says? It says: "Please base arguments on article title policy". "Let's stick to something … less uncomfortable" is just a way of saying I don't like it. None of the people here "voting" support (but this isn't a simple vote; people are supposed to provide arguments) appear to have read article title policy. – Herzen (talk) 07:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - as one is 'supposed to provide arguments', - one of your sources above is an op-ed , which begins 'what is the russophobia virus '? - sounds like complete rubbish - and then follows an anecdote about how a teacher told her children Russians had no sense of humour - sounds a bit trivial really - how should material like that sit with say HUngarian 'russophobia' after 1956? - anti-Russian sentiment seems better to me anyhow- 'Russophobia' sounds like a neologism, would the Polish people of the warsaw Urpising, betrayed by the Stalinists looking on indifferent at their struggle, have said they felt 'russophobic'? - I don't know, but I doubt it - anti-Russian sentiment covers all eras kind of thing better imo - that's my arguments , such as they are, such as I can think of off-hand - another source you use above herzen is jonathan steele, he is a pro-Assad regime, pro-Putinist , no? maybe the Putin lovers use this word a lot but I don't hear it on the news tbh. - its a western putin-lovers usage maybe - not mainstream usage Sayerslle (talk) 10:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Apparently you don't understand Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. The Guardian is a reliable third-party source. Thus, that the Guardian saw fit to publish an op-ed with the title "Battling Russophobia" the first sentence of which is "A Russophobia virus has infected the air" is very strong evidence that the word and concept "Russophobia" are utterly mainstream and in common use in the Anglosphere, so that English Wikipedia absolutely must have an article about Russophobia. Your using the term "Putin lovers" twice suggests that the proposal to rename this article has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. – Herzen (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@herzen - 'that is what the USG has unleashed on the Ukraine' - what are you here for? - your white Russian crusade - your endless pov pushing - you said pussy riot aren't proper Russians or soemthing daft , no?- so are you pseudo-Russo phobic? - anyone expressing hatred of people they consider not proper russian ? White Russians prefer these Donetsk rebels to pussy riot do they? - and you consider yourself a leftist? - wow - Sayerslle (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Note One observation that could be relevant: A lot of languages seem to have word constructs with -phobia that are equivalent to the English term Russophobia in their structure. A move may violate the general task to keep a worldwide view on subjects that are represented on Wikipedia, even if this RM attracts a majority that wants to perform the move anyway... - Anonimski (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Get out of the Russian orbit ?

The article contains the phrase 'get out of the Russian orbit', which I find hard to understand.

Does it appear in the cited sources ? If so, might it be poorly translated ?

I would suggest to improve this for example by replacing it with something like 'get out of Russia's sphere of influence', i.e. using a well-known phrase that has some similarity to 'the Russian orbit'. Lklundin (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Polls on Anti-Russian sentiment

Some days ago, article used to have BBC and Gallup poll about the likeness and dislikeness among Russians, but those polls were removed by Altenmann. Shall we consider bringing them back? There are numerous citations who have used the term Anti-Russian sentiment as well as Russophobia and referred to the polls. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, such polls are present in other similar articles: Anti-German sentiment, Anti-Iranian sentiment, Anti-Americanism, etc. --Երևանցի talk 19:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
They are just everywhere, only Altenmann has problem with them. I will bring them back to the article if there's no opposition for another few hours. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
i explained why i removed them. your argument about 'everywhere' does not refute my reasoning. however since the article renamed, ie changed its subject, now i have no objection: they will be on topic now. -M.Altenmann >t 15:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
PS. by wikipedia guidelines the "another few hours" must be at least 24. your colleagues live around the globe, in different time zones, and most of them have real life as well. -M.Altenmann >t 15:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Of course. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Rise of Russophobia in Poland

Two good sources about increasing Russophobia in Poland[5][6] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The first one is basically pro-putin text. Russophobia is covered only a little; and mostly declaratively, not analytically, of which 78% preacing that russophobia is bad for your health. -M.Altenmann >t 13:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The second one is a kind of conspiracy theory about the rise of russophobia in poland, alleging that nothing in current direct polish-russian relations may be a legitimate reason for this rise, so there must be some political plots fomenting hatred towards russia. It also spends quite some time telling that russophobic view on ukrainian events makes poles forget about ukrainian atrocities in poland by UPA, which is now glorified in the ukraine. -M.Altenmann >t 14:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
From the net: "W sumie tekst Bielenia jest dla mnie klasycznym przykładem stanu umysłowości PRL-owskiego inteligenta. Furę książek przeczytał, wielu języków się wyuczył, a i tak nic nie rozumie. A szkoda." Xx236 (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The two sources are with mathematical certainty bogus. The proof is that there is already anti-Russian sentiment among 100% of the Polish population. And for good reason. Lklundin (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The proof is that there is already anti-Russian sentiment among 100% of the Polish populationI am Polish and I am pretty Russia friendly.There are many others like me.So that 100% is pretty far fetched.In general I would estimate the pro-Russian segment of the population at 15-20%.And the majority of Poles do not want war or become a cannon fodder in war for foreign interests, even if they don't like Russian policies.Out of experience, the loudest anti-Russian "Poles" on internet, are usually Americans with some distant Polish heritage, which I believe serves to reinforce their identity(besides eating pierogi).Similar thing ironically is observable with "German" nationalists who usually turn out to be Americans as well.But that is just a personal observation.Poll results regarding Russian relations with Poland are available btw, if needed I can dig them up, they shown constant sympathy for Russia among circa 15-20% population.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
re: "15-20%" - in the article already. -M.Altenmann >t 20:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Russia threatens to use tactical nuclear weapons against Poland. I understand that the Putinists live in the USA, so they will survive. Xx236 (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Negative views of Russia - but not necessarily Russians

This article provides sources for unfavourable opinions in many countries of Russia and its government [7]. This article also gives the impression that there are negative views of Russian people and culture in many countries but provides very few sources for this. On the countrary, in a survey, a mediocre number of russian immigrants in EU countries indicate that they had experienced at least one racially motivated crime [8]. Until sources saying something else are provided, can we avoid statements about negative views of russian people and culture, for example in the section about Finland? I make an attempt to remove it again. Mange01 (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

your own source provide proof--Crossswords (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_images/hatecrime_pr_graph.jpg

That's true Turks for example are the most unpopular immigrants in Germany, although Germans have a negative view on the Russian policy and Putin.--Galliard Prides (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The Vanishing of the Russophiles

The problem exists, however quoted sources are Bulgarian only.Xx236 (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

misrepresentation of sources

Re this edit summary. I'm sorry but there's nothing in the sources about "Russian policy". In fact the source given just defines the word ... "phobia". Not "Anti-Russian sentiment", not even "Russophobia" but just "phobia". Definitely nothing about "Russian policy" (which frankly, it's absurd to call that "anti-Russian sentiment").

Please stop misrepresenting sources. Please stop edit warring. Please stop engaging in disruptive edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The other sources there are specific to ... Bulgaria. Not sure what the relevance is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Part of the removed text is "While these political feelings were previously expressed mainly in the West during the Cold War while the Eastern Bloc did not allow free public discussion of them, in the present day they are highly observed in Ukraine, Georgia and also members or candidate members of EU or NATO that wish to leave the Russian sphere of influence." I think this makes enough sense that it should stay, with a 'citation needed' template until a source can be found. Alternatively, it can naturally be readded with an actual source. Lklundin (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, the citation should be found *before* the text is added. It seems that some editors are trying to push the line that "opposition to Russian foreign policy is equal to anti-Russian sentiment" or "Russophobia". This of course is bullshit, which is why there are no reliable sources being used to support this POV. Instead we're getting things like a link to the definition of the word "phobia" or stuff about Bulgaria. It appears to be intentionally misleading and disruptive.
The implication is that where it says that "Ukraine, Georgia" etc. it is trying to imply that these countries' desire to "leave Russian sphere of influence", having disagreements with the nationalistic tendencies in the Russian government, or simply not wanting to get fucked up by Russia amounts to ... "Russophobia". It's obnoxious POV pushing. Either reliable sources are provided or this goes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

"самоедство" (self-hatred)

The article fails to address a well-known plague of Russian intelligentsia on 19th century, which has nothing to do with Shafarevich's concept of Russophobia of the "small peoples" (his euphemism for the Jews). An example would be:

«Можно было бы дать анализ современного явления, приобретающего все более патологический характер. Это русофобия некоторых русских людей — кстати, весьма почитаемых. Раньше они говорили нам, и они, действительно, так считали, что в России им ненавистно бесправие, отсутствие свободы печати и т.д., и т.п., что по-тому именно они так нежно любят Европу, что она, бесспорно, обладает всем тем, чего нет в России. А что мы видим ныне? По мере того, как Россия, добиваясь большей свободы, всё более самоутверждается, нелюбовь к ней этих господ только усиливается. И напротив, мы видим, что никакие нарушения в области правосудия, нравственности и даже цивилизации, которые допускаются в Европе, нисколько не уменьшили пристрастия к ней. Словом, в явлении, которое я имею в виду, о принципах как таковых не может быть и речи, здесь действуют только инстин-кты, и именно в природе этих инстинктов и следовало бы разобраться» - Письмо к дочери Анне от 20 сентября 1867 г. // Литературное наследство. Т. 97. Ф.И. Тютчев. Кн. 1. М., 1988. С. 306).

Discounting the valid criticisms of the social order in Russia, one can find plenty of derogatory comments towards Russian people as a whole: lazy, inept, slow, dirty, etc. I am pretty sure there must be texts towards this end, I just have no time. -M.Altenmann >t 03:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky critizes also the social order in the USA, but that doesn't mean that hate his own people and his own nation. Self-hatred is a phenomen that you can find everywhere for example in Israel, Germany, France and many other countries.--Galliard Prides (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you understand my question? I don't ask about self-hatred in Israel. This talk page is about improvement of the article about Russia. - üser:Altenmann >t 20:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-Russian 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 25 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move the article has been established within the RM time period and thus defaulting to not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 talk 13:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


Anti-Russian sentiment → Russophobia – Initially, as I was having trouble with the inconsistency in anti-national sentiment article titles, I thought a general naming convention should be used. This is what I proposed here. However, the consensus of that (with which I have come to agree completely) was that the format "anti-x sentiment" is awkward and takes it far too lightly (as one user accurately pointed out: ""Anti-English sentiment" sounds like cracking mundane dental care jokes or something."), as well as often going against WP:COMMONNAME. And yes, "Russophobia" is and has long been its common name.

Now, to put it bluntly: the move arguments and reasoning above were poor to nonexistant. Supporting statements included "more comfortable" and that it shouldn't be "politicized". Many of the "support" reasons argued semantics over it not being a real phobia. Half of didn't add any arguments. In the end, I fear it came down largely to personal opinion. And the legitimacy of carrying anti-Russian sentiment as perceived by Wikipedia editors should not dictate its article title. The user requesting the move, who was bothered by the title supposedly being an exception to the "anti-X sentiment" format other articles had, failed to notice Albanophobia, Anglophobia, Anti-Americanism, Anti-Canadianism, Francophobia, Hispanophobia, Hungarophobia, Anti-Italianism, Lusophobia, Anti-Mongolianism, Sinophobia and Anti-Turkism.

But what bothers me about the vote was that it forgot Wikipedia is not a democracy. I'm more than willing to support a consensus where actual arguments are used. So please, let's discuss it instead of just voting. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Call me skeptic, but I don't think that is the primary reason. Please, don't decide by your views on Russia. But if it is truly the reason, I ask you to show sources that prove your claim. Despite the ongoing Colder War, "Russophobia" is still common in our news. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support as nom. I believe I have sufficiently backed my reasoning. Besides common name, WP:POVNAMING and WP:RECENTISM must be considered here. I will accept the consensus either way, but hope that Wikipedia isn't going to dictate names by what our media calls it today (and because of political conflict, no less) instead of what it has been known as for centuries. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. After checking our Category:Anti-national_sentiment, one can see that majority of such pages are actually "anti", not "phobia". Both expressions are widely used based on Google books searches. Obviously, the search for a single word produces more hits than a search for the combination. That does not mean much. "Anti" sounds more politically correct, but "russophobia" is more like a propaganda/slur. I would prefer to keep "anti". My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Because the majority of those don't have another common name. This has been repeated a few times now. There is no such thing as austrophobia, for instance, because that name is almost never used. And the search for a single word does not "obviously" produce more results when one uses quotation marks such as this: "anti-Russian sentiment". Either way, a google search is not a valid alternative for discussion (see WP:GOOGLE). Reasoning about it sounding propaganda-like is irrevant (see all the examples above of similar terms) and you have stated that it comes down to personal preference. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, Google search does not mean so much - that is what I am telling. These words have partly different meaning. "Russophobia" is “the hostility towards all things Russian as well as Russian people themselves, considered dangerous for other nations” [9]. But we are talking here about any suspicious, unfriendly, hostile attitude towards Russia and Russians, which is a wider subject and can be better defined as "anti". My very best wishes (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
That's not necessarily true. As said above, we have many such articles. Anglophobia also means "a hatred or fear of England or anything English,"[10] and yet there it is, and not "Anti-English sentiment". But as I said before, please don't let your views on Russia or Russians affect your stance. I say this as a non-Russian in every way, for what it's worth. The "-phobia" suffix is common in other terms (homophobia, islamophobia, xenophobia) that don't necessarily mean one "hates" or "fears" the subject. Its use has long moved beyond what it exclusively meant in Ancient Greek. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Addendum: See also -phobia on Wikipedia. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, that is what I am talking about. "Phobia" is fear of someone or something. This term normally apply to psychic diseases or conditions. In contrast, "anti-sentiment" means merely a negative attitude towards something. This is a wider subject. This is closer to the content currently on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
In my comment I tried to explain specifically that "-phobia" does not nowadays refers exclusively to a fear of something, and anti-national sentiment falls under its scope. Every nationality-related "-phobia" article starts has the words "Anti-X sentiment" in its first sentence, if not as its very first words. I understand your point, but feel that this was sufficiently disproved in my previous proposal here (with which I now disagree, for the record). Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I am not telling that "Russophobia" is not valid subject, but only that it is a slightly different and more narrowly defined subject. If renaming passes, all materials that are not defined literally as "Russophobia" in multiple secondary RS (rather than in nationalistic blogs) must be removed from this page. Well, maybe this is not so bad, after all. My very best wishes (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Why give such a strange condition? If that is truly your opinion and not just your feeling on this particular subject, you can start by removing all content in other -phobia articles that doesn't mention the word. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Consider an example. Why Marquis de Custine was included on the page? Yes, he wrote something famous and critical of Russia. But same was done by Radishev. Should he also be included here? Of course not. None of them should. My very best wishes (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
But you didn't react on what I said. This article, like other anti-national sentiment articles, is about a widespread feeling that may have a (good) reason but which is still a feeling or sentiment towards the entire nation/people, not mere criticism of some of its aspects. A Sinophobe does not run away screaming when he sees a Chinese person. For criticism of various aspects of things going on in Russia, go to Human rights in Russia or Media freedom in Russia. This article is not "Criticism of Russia". Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
But some parts of this page (here) are actually about criticism, not phobia. Other large parts of this page (here) are about opinions. Having a more or less negative opinion about something (like, for example, abortion) does not mean phobia. My very best wishes (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Then, depending on the outcome of this RM, they will either remain or be removed/moved. And we don't judge terminology. Anti-abortionists call themselves "pro-life", but their opponents don't consider themselves to be "anti-life". Its common usage is important. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Support -- Here's an interesting chart (from 1900 to 2015) that shows that Russophobia has a long "track record" and has been used consistently more frequently vs "anti-Russian sentiment": Google nGram. The use of "Russophobia" is higher than "Francophobia" and "Germanophobia. I therefore support the nomination as more reflective of what can be found in historiography. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I have a strong suspicion that the word "Russophobia" is being actively used by Russian nationalists as an ad hominem accusation against anybody who dislikes Russian policies. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
      • As can be seen from the nGram, the peak of the usage was in the 1950, which is consistent with the outbreak of the Cold War. Another peak can be observed in the 1970, at the height of the Soviet-American arms race. The usage of the term has been declining in the past decade, so I don't think that aligns with the rise of Russian nationalism as has been suggested. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
      • That's completely unrelated to the discussion and only reveals your own bias against Russia. If you're calling me a "Russian nationalist" you can drop that, because I'm neither. That being said, I'm severely bothered that I have to "defend" a country on Wikipedia to defend its reputation (Wikipedia's), just because so many people want to turn it into their personal soapbox. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Please avoid personal attacks. Do you agree or disagree that the term "Russophobia" is popular among Russian right? This question has a direct relation to the discussion about article title. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
          • You accused me of supporting the "Russian nationalist" agenda which I found very insulting. I never made personal attacks, I based my statement directly on your comment. And I can not answer that because I honestly do not know. I can't even read Russian, how would I? Political views are irrelevant. Self-hating Jew is popular among the Israeli right and has much opposition. Doesn't mean we're gonna avoid the term or the topic. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
            • Please cite my words where I accused you of something. Accordingly, your personal attack was "only reveals your own bias against Russia." And you don't have to read Russian to answer my question, you have only to read the Google News search you yourself linked here, e.g., this one. Reading it alone is a strong support form my opinion agains confusing the concepts "Russophobia" and "negative attitudes towards Russia". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – I concur with the sentiments arguments of Prinsgezinde and K.e.coffman; this word has a long history and can be broadly construed as being prejudiced against, fearing, disparaging, hating or being merely suspicious of Russian people, their history, their leaders or their customs. — JFG talk 08:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment – Many of the Syldavophobia articles start with "Anti-Syldavian sentiment is …", which smells of spurious attempts to inject allegedly non-offensive language into perfectly well-understood anti-Syldavian attitudes. This should be simplified wherever the -phobia word is attested. (Replace Syldavia with your favorite enemy nation to get my point.) — JFG talk 08:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. "Russophobia" is much narrower topic. There is plenty of justified anti-Russian sentiment. If anybody wants to write a separate article about Russophobia per se, i.e., about Anti-Russian prejudice, then the article may be split. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
This is personal opinion again. "There is plenty of justified anti-Russian sentiment." shows you may have an axe to grind. Who would say the Indians or Boers have no just reason to carry anti-English sentiment? And yet that's not what consensus agreed on here. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes it was my personal opinion about a possible way of covering the topic. And yours is your second personal attack. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
And I maintain it was not a personal attack. I say "you" based on your post there, and nothing else. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Your phrase "shows you may have an axe to grind" is a personal attack, and nothing else. Any accusations against a fellow wikipedian is a personal attack. In this case you are casting doubt on my personal integrity. I strongly object and expect apologies. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Personal attack would be saying you're a Russophobe because you're Polish. This edit in which you say anyone using the name is a Russian nationalist again solidifies to me that you're unable to treat this neutrally. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely yes. If you are saysing I am a Russophobe, it is personal attack. If you are saying that I am a Russophobe because I am Polish, it is a racist personal attack. And "This edit" does not say that "anyone using the name is a Russian nationalist". Staszek Lem (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Friend, I never called you a Russophobe nor a Polish Russophobe. I said "Personal attack would be..." Apologies if I gave that idea. But my objection was to you saying ""Russophobia" is being actively used by Russian nationalists as an ad hominem accusation against anybody who dislikes Russian policies." Since I was proposing this change, it felt quite accusatory. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is an accusation, by Russian nationalists, against anybody who dislikes Russian policies. Just like the term "liberal democrats" is an mockery and accusation against Russian opposition by Russian conservatives. The term evolved from "so-called liberal democrats" to simply "liberal democrats", and if you see the words "liberal opposition" in a Russian text, to understand what the author means, you have to know the political views of the author. Political lingo of a country may be quite confusing. Take America: there is the Democratic Party, but this does not imply that all others are un-democratic. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
That is true, although my doubts are how much influence Russia could even have on an English word. The word itself was first in English, and came (obviously) partly from Greek (-phobia). Russians will overwhelmingly be using Russian terms. I have no idea what words Russians use in their own language, but only their English publications like RT can contribute to a word's popularity in English publications. And not many English news sources quote or support RT. This is also one of those topics where foreign usage is irrelevant (we use English names, after all) which all the more convinces me that the term will only marginally be affected by Russian "nationalists"/"apologists" etc. My argument has mostly favoured the historical perspective and its use in the understanding of Russian relations for centuries. It's among the oldest and most commonly used nation-related "-phobia" words, in fact. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
We don't need more "opinion"s. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Who are "we"? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Russophobia is an old and well-established term, an idiom used for centuries by different authors and politicians. It has a clear meaning, often met in media and literature (no matter the context). In comparison: people rarely say "anti-Jewish sentiment" today, they use the term antisemitism, even though Semitic people is a much broader group that consists mostly of Arabs. But it became common to refer to those who despise Jews as antisemitic. Same case here. "Anti-Russian sentiment" is artificial. AveTory (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is old and well-known term, and with a well-known meaning, too. But the current article covers a broader spectrum, and IMO it impossible to chunk this spectrum into pieces. Therefore the descriptive title is used. And it is not so artificial: this term or its synonyms are pretty much common. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
      • How is it broader than, say, Anglophobia (from the article: Anti-English sentiment or Anglophobia (from Latin Anglus "English" and Greek φόβος, phobos, "fear") means opposition to, dislike of, fear of, or hatred towards England or the English people. The term is sometimes used more loosely for general anti-British sentiment) or Francophobia (from the article: Anti-French sentiment (Francophobia) refers to a dislike or hatred toward France, the French people, the French government or the Francophonie)? Those are EXACTLY same topics discussed here. And for the very same reason (old terms long in use) the names are still valid. And so does Russophobia. I don't understand why people here feel the need to invent new terminology "just because it doesn't sound right". AveTory (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
      • You failed to notice that there are in fact two articles, Anglophobia and Anti-British sentiment. In other words, each case is unique and must be judged in its own merits, per WP:OTHERSUFFEXISTS. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Russia is not a kingdom, simple as that. There are no countries - inside or outside of the continent - combined under the name of Russia, and thus no need for two separate terms. Especially since there's already a separate article on Anti-Sovietism which refers to the Soviet ideology and the USSR as a "Union of Republics" (the official title). This one concerns Russia and Russian people, just like the article on Anti-Polish sentiment is about Poles and Polish culture. AveTory (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the terms with "phobia" part imply some of attitude of xenophobic kind: unjustified hatred, prejudice, fear, etc., i.e, one side of the dislikes spectrum. If renamed, large parts of the text, such as country polls (such as "Views of Russia's influence by country"), must be removed: it is impossible to figure out which part of the "Views of Russia's influence" is phobia, and which is a reasonable judgement. The best example is Ukraine: our text shows reasonably well how generally positive attitude to Russia and Russians, with a reasonable share of xenophobia switched to well-justified hate. On a personal note, as a Russian speaker I feel the term "Russophobia" is permanently marred by Igor Shafarevich's use of the term. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, it is an alternative name. But your edit summary here contradicts this. My very best wishes (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per arguments made above, including (1) the fact that Russophobia does not appear to be the common name for the concept, (2) that the two terms do not mean identical things - not everyone with anti-Russian sentiement is a Russaphobe, and (3) the suggestion that it is not a WP:NPOV title (and also doesn't satisfy the criteria for WP:POVTITLE, namely that everyone calls it that); Russophobe seems to be used as a perjorative term, to denote people with an irrational or prejudiced hatred of Russia. Some people might have some sentiments against aspects of the country but strongly deny being Russophobes.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
    • All of these issues have been adressed. It is the common name, we do equate them on every other article including this one, and it is therefore NPOV. No one claims that all those who criticize Russia are Russophobes, but the collective concept term has always been "Russophobia". Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Yes it is a common name, but not for the current article content. We do not equate them on every other article. The collective concept is "Anti-Russian sentiment", of which Russophobia is an extreme of the spectrum. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per My very best wishes and Altenmann. The majority of the article is about anti-Russian sentiment, not Russophobia, which is on the extreme end. EtherealGate (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Russophobia" and Russian apologists

The following my addition -

On the other hand, Russian nationalists and apologists of the politics of Russia often use the allegations of "Russophobia" as a form of xenophobia to counter the criticism of Russia. [1][2]

References

  1. ^ "The Putinverstehers’ Misconceived Charge of Russophobia: How Western Apology for the Kremlin’s Current Behavior Contradicts Russian National Interests", Andreas Umland January 21, 2016, Harvard International Review
  2. ^ "Do you suffer from Russophobia? The Kremlin thinks you might Lucian Kim (Reuters), 8 March 2016. Quote: "In February, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov assailed the "fashion of Russophobia in certain capitals" during a visit to Germany. Then Russia's defense ministry accused General Philip Breedlove of Russophobia. <...> "Russophobe" has become a convenient label for anyone who disagrees with Russian President Vladimir Putin's aggressive behavior at home and abroad. You are not criticizing an authoritarian leader and his erratic policies; you are instead attacking the Russian nation."

- was reverted with edit summary "Rv blatant POV pushing. Save it for after". This fact may be referenced to numerous sources. The refs quote Russian politicans accusing the West of Russophobia in best traditions of "And you are lynching Negroes". I fail to see how this addition constitutes "blatant POV pushing". If my English is not the best and the phrasing looks POVish, please edit for style, but the fact itself is recognized by numerous observers.

Also I am inviting opinions of other editors to check the validity and neutrality of the statement. I don't rule out the case that this statement comes only from Russophobic observers. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Given your battleground attitude, I object this addition. Please show first it reflects the majority opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Me? Battleground? Aren't we confusing me with someone else here? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • There are two parts here. (a) yes, it is frequently considered as a form of xenophobia, just as other anti-national sentiment - there is no controversy/dispute about it, and (b) yes, indeed, it is frequently used in ideological disputes, also this is nothing special. Given that, I do not see any reason for reverting edit by Stazek. Actually, this is the most common usage of the term "Russophobia". In particular, Tutchev who invented the term, used it specifically for such polemics. My very best wishes (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Can there be anymore systemic bias? This is like putting on the page Anti-Zionism that "Israeli nationalists and apologists of the politics of Israel often use the allegations of "anti-zionism" as a form of xenophobia to counter the criticism of Israel." Yes, SOME sources may say it, but it's still provocative political nonsense unworthy of at the very least the lead. I am indeed annoyed by someone who thinks they can use WP:NPA when they are so blatantly trying to defame an entire nation/people. And now I am also in doubt if you're here to build a Wikipedia or to insert a certain view. Once again, my "attacks" (they are, in fact, criticism) is of the POV you're trying to insert here for whatever reason. 12:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Also, you have not made clear yet that both of the sources you cited were blog posts. Further proof that it's an opinion and not a fact. And you are lynching negroes was used by the Soviet Union, not Russia. I am fully aware that some see modern Russia as basically the same and that they ARE the legal successor, but that's still quite an antagonistic remark. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the antisemitism and even "Anti-Zionism" is a form of xenophobia, or at least it was claimed to be such in multiple RS. If this is not mentioned in the corresponding WP pages, it means the pages were censored by POV-pushers, nothing more. Same with any other "anti-national" and strong nationalist sentiments. My very best wishes (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussed paragraph does not say that "is only used politically by ...". Staszek Lem (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
But it does not discuss other uses and focuses only on this one. Furthermore, the "however" is placed such that it implies the previous can be doubted in its entirety. I advised to wait because the move discussion may determine the relevance of this paragraph in the lead either way. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I revert it because inserting such a thing in the lead needs consensus. And since it's relevance in the lead (instead of in a section) is determined by the name we choose, I suggest we wait. But most of all it needs to be properly discussed per WP:BRD. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
This question is completely unrelated to renaming. Regardless to renaming, the term "Russophobia" belongs to this page, and this is something you actually agree about, right? However, if the term/concept belongs to this page, then the sourced criticism of the concept (that is what you are trying to remove) also belongs to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I fixed quotation by removing one source that might be seen as non-RS and adding an academic source. My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead war

user:My very best wishes: regardless of what either of us thinks I have repeatedly asked you to not insert that paragraph to the lead before reaching consensus, as you are ignoring WP:BRD. The tone, relevance and place of that paragraph are all controversial. Sneaking it in by edit warring is not the way to go about it. I have repeatedly called for consensus before inserting things but instead you add it and change it even more each time. Also "euromaidanpress" is only a recent advocacy group that I absolutely object to using as authority in the lead. This kind of national slandering reminds me of freedom fries. I didn't want to call for dispute resolution or something but it now seems to have been conveniently stonewalled in. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is my edit. Here is diff with previous version. As anyone can see, I did not insert "euromaidanpress". To the contrary, I created a compromise version by replacing another source with a better academic source. Also, "xenophobia" was replaced by another word. Please did not accuse other contributors, especially of something they did not do, if you want to contribute constructively.My very best wishes (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
You may ask, but you may not force people not to edit. If you want consensus, please state your objections and discuss them. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the burden lies with the person inserting or restoring the material. I have repeatedly voiced my complaints. It's unfit for the lead and makes a mockery of the concept by alleging it only exists in the minds of Russian nationalists. This would be unacceptable on any other -phobia page, but is apparently acceptable when editors feel that way about a country. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
"makes a mockery of the concept by alleging it only exists in the minds...". Yes, sure, because this is not a concept, and it only exists in minds. There is legitimate criticism of Russia, Russians, etc, but it should be probably described elsewhere because the legitimate criticism of something is not a phobia and not just a "sentiment". My very best wishes (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Prinsgezinde, please don't repeat straw man arguments. The article does not allege that "it only exists in the minds of Russian nationalists". Staszek Lem (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Indeed the article does not allege this and I have no problem with the article. My problem is with the paragraph in question that you have added to the lead, and which does do exactly that. I never said it was intentional. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
No it does not say "exactly" that: it misses a small, but important word "only", which completely changes the meaning. However I agree that the lead must also include other notable usage of the term, otherwise it becomes a bit unbalanced and indeed may leave a mistaken impression that only Russian nationalists prominently use the term. - üser:Altenmann >t 10:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Google Books shows significant scholarly use of the term "anti-Russianism". IMO it also must be listed in the lede as a synonym. Since the article is protected, currently I am only adding a redirect, anti-Russianism. - üser:Altenmann >t 14:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Forget it, the only people active in this page actively want to paint it negatively. Let them enjoy themselves. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

View of Russia in Western media

There exists an almost scientific measure of the Western media attitude: Has any, allegedly anti-Russian, journalist propheted the annexation of Crimea, War in Donbas and destruction of a passenger jet? If not, so the media were pro-Russian.Xx236 (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

How is this related to the improvement of the article? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
BTW, illogical: a prophet of annexation of Crimea could have been pro-, anti-Russian, and even indifferent. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
How do your comments help to improve the article?
Would the prophecy of the passenger jet destruction be pro-Russian in the Netherlands? Are you sure about your logic?Xx236 (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Would you please stop soapboxing. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Would you please stop teaching me? Xx236 (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I did not, but thanks for reminding me that you are a disruptive user. I actually forgot about it.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Neutral sources

Source 10 is not reliable at all, it is written by a very anti-Russian editor and the article itself has no neutral place, where is the neutrality in it? It Trying to make a page as neutral as possible by using an non-neutral source doesn't help at all, it is as if you were using RT to counter anything on Wikipedia and slam it on the first paragraph. Fix this already, no one needs such agenda in this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stopitnowok (talk • contribs) 10:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

First, the source is not written by a Wikipedia user, as far as I know. Second, it is certainly reliable. To remove it, you would need to bring other non-affiliated sources and prove that this phenomenon does not exist.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Anti-Russian 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 14:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Poland

Disinformation: dating to the late Middle Ages, when the Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Muscovy - Polish–Russian Wars Lithuania, not Poland and 1507 wasn't Middle Ages.Xx236 (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hanlon's razor. WP:SOFIXIT. BTW Ru-Lith indeed date by late Middea ages. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Kievan Rus' wasn't exactly Russian nor Lithuania Polish. We are on the border between propaganda mythology and encyclopedia, I'm not sure on which side of it.Xx236 (talk) 07:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
The Katyn crime paragraph misinforms, it's not the past:
Russia doesn't cooperate with Poland, keeps many documents classified.
Prominent Poles died on the road to Katyn in 2010 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash, Russia refuses to return the wreck of the plane.
Russia uses Anti-Katyn propaganda. Xx236 (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Russia claims to not have the Belorusian Katyn list. As far many Soviet documents didn't exist but miraculously emerged.Xx236 (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Vlad Sobell

  • He works currently probably in Prague, so the note should be corrected.
  • The quoted opinion comes from 2007, I have changed the tenses, please verify. I'm not true if the opinion deserves to be preserved, there are millions of experts who publish plenty of opinions.Xx236 (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-Russian 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 19:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Anti–Russian sentiment among Vietnamese

Hi.

I just need to tell that the Russophobic sentiment among Vietnamese people is real and that shouldn't be ignored, and I think you guys need to know about this.

Due to people often read that Russia is "good friend" of Vietnam, they totally ignore the feeling of fears among Vietnamese towards Russia has been growing in a large number in a level that even BBC itself on its poll has failed to recognize this. Because of this, there has been no English sources about the Vietnamese view on Russia. It is a big loss.

I hope you guys can help to discuss about it and to write a real report about it.

Cheers. – User talk:ZaDoraemonzu7 11:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC+8)

We can't write original research on any subject matter. You would need to provide reliable sources to substantiate these claims. Reliable sources do not have to be English language sources (see WP:NONENG), but they must be reliable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
This editor has already been told that they should use citations and also edit summaries, neither of which they are doing. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
The Lithuania section they wrote, although it had some true facts in it, was totally uncited, and veered deep into WP:COATRACK territory at various points, talking more about Anti-Polish sentiment than Anti-Russian sentiment... I've removed it. At least have sources if you're going to write something like that, and try to observe NPOV.--Calthinus (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
To be exact, the entire section was cited to Daily Mail, which is not acceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, this article is a hodgepodge of awful WP:SYNTH in desperate need of updating and removing WP:GEVAL and WP:POVPUSH from both sides. There's a gaping chasm of difference between encyclopaedic content and throwing verifiable 'stuff' together. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Nope Ymblanter, not even the Daily Mail was used for the Lithuania section I removed [[11]]. Iryna, A lot of this dates back to the happy time when the article was called "Russophobia" and there were edit wars galore (including over the ordering of sections). It seems the solution was a hodgepodge which did manage to reach a semblance of balance as both views are represented. Personally I prefer not to open Pandora's box and if that means tolerating a page with certain things I would otherwise call undue weight (i.e. the whole Slucis affair), I'm fine with that. If you think you can do it without causing those issues to reemerge I salute you though. --Calthinus (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
[12]--Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
My bad, stricken.--Calthinus (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Calthinus, have you ever asked a Lithuanian wikipedian user to talk about their fear towards Russia? Or how about the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaDoraemonzu7 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, the user does not seem to comprehend basic Wikipedia principles. Moving to a block per WP:COMPETENCE?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I haven't interacted with this guy before so my instinct is not to WP:BITE so soon but perhaps there's a history I'm not aware of and you're the mod, after all. --Calthinus (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
By claiming I am a mod, okay. Is there someone after you trying to project that Lithuanians are fans of Russia don't you? It is not just the first time but repeatedly the fears of Lithuanians over Russia I have tried to explain has been vehemently deleted by someone who want to falsify the fact that Lithuania doesn't have anti-Russian sentiment. I failed to understand why Lithuania has always been "excluded" from it when Lithuania was one of Russia's historical grievances. -- ZaDoraemonzu7 —Preceding undated comment added 01:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
No, Ymblanter is a mod, not you. You are still welcome to add information sourced with citations that match WP:RS to a section about Lithuania if you so desire and have adequate sources. That's how Wikipedia works.--Calthinus (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
ZaDoraemonzu7, no one is trying to falsify the contents of this article. I was being a bit harsh about the imbalance in the article as, in general, it's fairly comprehensive. If I believed it to be truly WP:POV, I would have tagged it as such and pursued outstanding issues via other forms of active discussion as set out by, and condoned by, Wikipedia per its policies and guidelines.
Calthinus, no, I certainly don't want to dredge up the spectre of Slucis again. In precisely the same vein, however, the section on Ukraine is heavily loaded (both images and text) with WP:UNDUE/WP:GEVAL depictions of an extremist nationalist organisation engaging in neo-Nazi activities (flag burning, printing deeply offensive posters, etc.), and reads as the depiction of the entire Ukrainian population as being embodied by a tiny percentage of extremists - who happen to have a high profile as the result of recent events not addressed in the section - were a balanced representation. As regards the section on Poland, how is "The most contentious issue is the massacre [...] in Katyn Forest in 1940..." not WP:SYNTH. It's an issue amongst many, but according to whom is it the 'most contentious issue' in more recent history? These may seem to be minor issues but, when added together, they add up to a lot of lopsided and pointy content littering the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy Fair enough. I quickly removed Katyn superlative, and also an SYN inclusion in the Ukraine section as the source never linked its contents to anti-Russian sentiment [[13]]. I suspect the Svoboda-Right Sector stuff may be more delicate; I'll leave fixing that to others. --Calthinus (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@Calthinus: I'd agree that your fixes were appropriate. More dramatic changes would require a well discussed overhaul. The "Ukraine" section is tagged as requiring attention and updating, so it should stand as is until someone gets around to it. Whatever condition the article is in, it's become CON by default until challenged. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anti-Russian 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 07:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Final sentence in the intro paragraph

"On the other hand, Russian nationalists and apologists of the politics of Russia use the allegations of "Russophobia" as a form of propaganda to counter the criticism of Russia."

Really? Isn't this a violation of Wikipedia's rules on neutrality by assuming there's something inherently wrong with 'Russia' (what is criticism of "Russia"? the government? then here it's implied that the current government is axiomatically representative of Russians as such, isn't it?), which is to be asserted without controversy, or would it be acceptable to include a racist tirade in the article on racism against African-Americans if it was couched in similarly vague language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.6.8 (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, it's quite acceptable to put use such assertions on Wikipedia these days. I propose the deletion of that particular line in the intro. --Reollun (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Russophobia in Vietnam!?

Alright, I maybe ridiculizing a bit. Please remember it is my private opinion.

I seriously never realized there is a strong Russophobia in Vietnam before. As I was heard from Bulgaria, people often see Vietnam like Russophile country until now. However I am totally surprised with a high level of Russophobia in Vietnam recently.

Although I understand why increasing Vietnamese people hating Russia, but... if there is an increasing anti-Russian sentiment in Vietnam, then why Pew Research Center still list Vietnam as the most Russophile country? I have seen more Vietnamese in Facebook or other websites like Quora started bashing Russia a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismail Hassan Ismaili (talk • contribs)

Selective Facebook and Quora posts don't seem the best way of measuring anything. Just like history forum posts you added as a reference. Please don't edit this article if you're too emotionally invested in this matter and can't uphold reliable reference standarts or refrain from drawing your own conclusions. –Turaids (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

List of anti-Russian slurs

I have removed a list of anti-Russian slurs. As well as citation issues, I don't think it really adds to this article, which is already confusing enough as editors on this talk page have made clear. If properly cited, some of these belong at List of ethnic slurs, not here. --Bangalamania (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

i can't remember the name of the text...

...but i remember reading a history book in the late 90s that was very old (1940s.) and tied the ideas of russophobia to a very specifically british fear of mongolian expansion into western europe. this text certainly picked up the narrative around the great game. but, it was actually quite detailed in it's extrapolation of russophobia as an idea that developed in the middle ages from a kind of fear of white christian genocide at the hands of these expanding mongolian hordes, not dissimilar to the anti-semitism that came up around the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.190.102.169 (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you manage to find the mentioned book and it's identified as a reliable source you are welcome to add it to the article, but the talk section is not the place for mini-essays like this. –Turaids (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Article "statute"

@Turaids:: After our minor edit war I start appreciating your cleanup of this article. Articles like that tent to accumulate WP:TRIVIA of various incidents, which of course abound in some countries. IMO we must focus on:

(a) summaries of important pieces from secondary sources of research type which consider the problem in general in the world or in particular countries
(b) incidents which have led to lasting consequences in the politics or law and dismiss others even if they created some temporary splash in the media like with this Ukrainian singer. The rest must be dismissed per WP:TRIVIA, similarly to WP:NEVENT, unless decided otherwise after a discussion.

Do you (or other page watchers) have more ideas on the "article statute"? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, Ukraine could probably have a separate page on this subject at some point. One thing I really try to watch out for in this page is ambiguous content that your first edit seemed as, because the quote mentioned no Russians. After you added Skrypka's clarification, where he went straight to Russians, he himself made very clear that the statement was indeed mostly aimed towards Russians, so I stopped having problem with it being on this page.
One important thing for point a would be specificity and avoiding weasel words when dealing with numbers and statistics. Sections on Azerbaijan, Lithuania and Czech Republic have this problem. I also find the use of words like "scandal" generally objectionable as the presented facts should speak for themselves without Wikipedia indicating what should the reader think or feel about them. Reactions from Russian officials also seem obvious to anti-Russian acts, unless it adds something new to the information already present.
@Kawnhr and Calthinus:, maybe you have your own two cents to add? –Turaids (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm in full agreement with the above messages; events should only be included if they caused furor or are from otherwise notable people. I would also add that it's important to consider context of such events, lest this page become (again) a list of every time a country has done something not in Russia's interest. For instance, a (now removed) example of anti-Russian sentiment in Canada was Canada saying that Russian should be banned from the Olympics… which sure sounds bad until you realize the editor left out the important detail that this call came in response to widespread doping. At that point, it can only be seen as "anti-Russian" through a very narrow lens.
Weasel words are also a problem, as is framing events through a Russian POV. The Norway section had this problem (and still does to some degree), where the examples of anti-Russian sentiment come from Russian officials talking about it… surely it's better evidence when coming from Norwegians, or any other country in question, rather than Russians.
The other thing I would urge caution on is citing historical tensions. Because while historical relations are absolutely relevant, IMO many of the instances of it on this page were vague statements like "[country] has a long history of clashes with Russia…" that just generally read like WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or simply trying to craft a narrative where a given country is locked in some tribal warfare with Russia. Again, historical events, clashes and tensions absolutely can inform modern anti-Russian sentiment; I just think it should be handled with more substance. (This isn't a problem on this page anymore as I removed most of these, and Turaids cleaned up the rest; but it's something to keep in mind for future revisions.) — Kawnhr (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Aivars Slucis isn't notable

Maybe the part about the minister is important, but the rest of the paragraph should be removed.Xx236 (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The author was User:Russavia, banned from the project.Xx236 (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@Xx236: I've removed it per WP:POVPUSH. Op ed rants by someone who is clearly not notable are WP:POINTy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
sorry, this is part of longer narration, and Slucis is quite notorious in his radical speaking against Russians in Latvia. In addition to sources cited you may see [14] [15] [16] (book ref), (monograph about right-wing populism in Baltics) etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Given the additional sources, I'd agree that he, and his rhetoric, is recognised as being significant as a representative of anti-Russian extremism. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
One of your sources is listed twice. Xx236 (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
To discuss the problem one should know a little about history of Latvia: Soviet colonization of the land. French people colonized Algeria and later were expelled from the land (Pied-Noir, BTW - the expulsion is not mentioned in Francophobia). The SU apparently promoted Russian speakers and allowed them to settle in best places: Baltic republics and Crimea. Xx236 (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
A Russian source about Baltic states: http://ecsocman.hse.ru/data/517/836/1219/2004_n3_p98-130.pdf
The Russian Wikipedia accuses Latvian film The Soviet Story to be anti-Russian.Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

There was a considerable difference between French and Soviet "colonization". France did nothing to development of colonies only sucked resources out of them. On the other hand, Belarus, Moldova, Estonia, etc. before "Soviet colonization" were backwards agrarian backwaters. Soviets built highly developed industries there. (Of course, by the end of the Soviet Union these industries were worth nothing, but this is another story.) Further, population transfer during "Soviet colonization" moved two very different categories of people. One is communist functionaries (see eg "Yestonians") and military. Another was skilled industrial labor to man the factories and plants. There is nothing unusual that the first category was despised. The second category was actually Stalin's slaves, who were moved not to gulags, but to factories, coal mines, etc. on the peripheries, akin to black slaves brought to America to cotton plantations. (Well known is that Soviet peasants were deprived of passports to prevent them from fleeing. A little-known fact is that the abovementioned industrial "migrants" were forbidden to leave their factories as well (although for a limited time, typically 5-10 years).) But they were treated as "occupying force" by locals as well.

Therefore in this respect, most economic drain was suffered not by "Soviet colonies", but by Soviet satellites (COMECON) due to artificially disproportional currency exchange rate. I remember on 1970s when Soviet trade union-sponsored tourists came to Poland. They were allowed a small amount of currency to exchange; I believe, 30 roubles, but they went back home hungry, but with huge bags of goods. I was told that because of this in Hungary the prices for children's goods were hiked in parallel with salary hikes, to prevent Soviet tourists from emptying shelves. Same happened in industry. I remember Polish computers MERA (actually clones of PDP, VAX, etc) were shipped for ridiculosly low prices to Soviets. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

In fact, a significant part of Russian population is well integrated in "post colonial" post-Soviet states, e.g., even in modern ultra-nationalist Ukraine. And BTW the mayor of Riga (capital of Latvia) is Russian. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I generally agree with you, here is a source abour 1930 economy, not described in this Wikipedia [17].

Xx236 (talk) 07:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from using Wikipedia as a soapbox, and try instead to discuss improvement of the article. Lklundin (talk)
The Estonia paragraph (and several others) lacks context. Adding the context will improve this article. Economical context is important, beacause it can be measured. Xx236 (talk) 08:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Letter of 40 intellectuals should be probably mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
A text by Slucis http://lpra.vip.lv/holocaus.htm (probably the mentioned op-ed, I don't like his Holocaust wording, but the problem of Soviet crimes against Latvian people wasn't known at that time.) According to Werth 16.500 Latvians were shot, not 75,000 . [18] Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I would not call these "integrated Russians" Russians as they don't speak Russian and know nothing about Russian culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.173.131 (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Propose to remove 'On the other hand' remark in opening paragraph

Can the "On the other hand" sentence from the opening paragraph be removed? That sentence mentioned how the Kremlin is sometimes "using propaganda" to spin "criticism of Kremlin policies" as Russophobia. Whether that happens or not is not relevant to the article, because this article is supposed to give information about the phenomenon of Russophobia / anti-Russian sentiments. There are, for example, no 'on the other hand' sentences on articles about Anti-Semitism. By having that remark there, this article seems to attempt to justify Russophobia, which in my opinion, discredits this article. Russophia has nothing to do with current politics, it is simply a phenomenon that exists for a long time. Chernovorn (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

It is relevant, because the subject is the concept of Russophobia to describe behaviors observed in various societies.--Calthinus (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The subject is Russophobia and not current political machinations of governments. Russophobia is: "negative feelings, dislikes, fears, aversion, derision and/or prejudice of Russia, Russians or Russian culture". It says so in the opening sentence. If you want to specify possible reasons etc, then how about this: remove that sentence from the opening paragraph and create a new section on the article page somewhere below, calling it "Propaganda, current political conflicts" or "Influence of the Russian government" or something like that? Why have that in the opening paragraph? A new section then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chernovorn (talk • contribs) 15:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Russophobia is also a subject of discourse and this page also concerns that. In any case any sentiment has a context, for example the page Anti-German sentiment discusses the context of the World Wars.--Calthinus (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
There is a clear anti-Russian bias here and a false equivalence with the anti-German sentiment. The article about Anti-German sentiments does not contain any 'contradictory' remarks in the opening paragraph like "On the other hand, Germany did attack this or that country..", or "Although the German government is using/has used Germanophobia as a pretext for this or that..". By having that remark in the opening paragraph, this article tends to focus more on the modern-day politics and events rather than on Russophobia as a historical phenomenon, like all other phobias (like Germanophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-whatever).. So why not just move that remark into it's own section like I proposed? Chernovorn (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Its presence would be comparable to a citation of Beyond Chutzpah and other work of Norman Finkelstein in the lead of the antisemitism page. Which is to say, undue and inappropriate.GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Again, you can't compare anti-national sentiment with anti-people sentiment. Anti-Americanism also mentions the political context. Why do we need a double standard for when it's Russia?--Calthinus (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
From the lede of Anti-Americanism : Political scientist Brendon O'Connor of the United States Studies Centre suggests that "anti-Americanism" cannot be isolated as a consistent phenomenon, since the term originated as a rough composite of stereotypes, prejudices, and criticisms evolving to more politically-based criticism. -- again, why do we need a special exemption for Russia?--Calthinus (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Also consider Anti-British sentiment, which says it is … usually because of British Imperial past; or Sinophobia, which posits that factors contributing to sinophobia include disapproval of the Chinese government, historical grievances, fear of economic competition. — Kawnhr (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
But people manifestly do use "Russophobia" to suggest criticism of Russia is unfounded or unfair, as can be seen in the past revisions of this very page. It therefore seems perfectly relevant to note "on the other hand…"— not in the sense of offering a correction, but to reflect how the word is used and the discussion around it. This is an imperfect example, but just look at how the lede for Anti-Zionism discusses the controversy about the term: Many notable Jewish and non-Jewish sources take the view that anti-Zionism has become a cover for modern-day antisemitism, a position that critics have challenged as a tactic to silence criticism of Israeli policies. So why can't similar be noted about Russophobia? — Kawnhr (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
So why doesn't this article say something similar, like: "Many notable Russian and non-Russian sources take the view that criticism of Russian policies has become a cover for modern-day Russophobia"? Chernovorn (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Because that's not what the sources say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree that there's no objective reason for removing the paragraph, but it could use a couple more citations since it does seek to partially discredit anti-Russia(n) sentiment, as well as better wording, because it makes the seeming assumption that everyone who accuses someone of anti-Russia(n) sentiment/Russophobia is either a Russian nationalist or apologist. –Turaids (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Mass removal of material by My Very Best Wishes

Can we please talk about why those specific sections were removed? PaulCHebert (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Did you read this section? It tells: "According to a July 2007 poll, only 2% of Armenians see Russia as a threat, as opposed to 88% who view Russia as Armenia's partner" and so on. So, this is not about Anti-Russian sentiment, but about the opposite, This is the most pro-Russian former Soviet republic. Why it should be on this page at all? My very best wishes (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know and I don't really care. I just understand that massive removals of text should be justified with more than an edit summary. You've been editing long enough to know that. PaulCHebert (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Now, that thing. Here someone is trying to make a point that Karl Marx was guilty of an anti-Russian sentiment, just before mentioning Hitler. Well, if anything, this is just a reasonable comment by the philosopher, unlike views by Hitler. My very best wishes (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
There. Was that so hard? PaulCHebert (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Was about to remove repeated POV pushing by Tobby72 on the education reform in Latvia, but decided to wait for a third party. As you can imagine, the allegations of it being Russophobic is just one of many sides of the coin and the reform has a lot more to it than just language. –Turaids (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

What's up with Netherlands?

PEW 2018 poll lists it as No.1 country as far unfavorable views of Russians, but our article doesn't even have a section on this. Can anyone find anything explaining this weird data blip? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Piotrus One Dutch viewpoint [relations] (unclear if this page is about relations with or fear of Russians -- I've noticed a questionable trend of describing any policies not friendly to Russia being placed on this page as examples of "anti-Russian sentiment"). There's also [very recent and publicized attempt of Russian interference] and also election interference exposed by Dutch intelligence [[19]]. Granted the same has occurred in many places. I don't really think Pew should be taken as exact figures, they're numbers year by year often show crazy oscillations of around 30% that are hard to explain. Good for trends in aggregate, not for exact figures imo.--Calthinus (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Scope creep, round 2

It's been a while since I last looked at this page, so I was surprised and disappointed to see a bunch of rubbish had been snuck in again (no disrespect to fellow editors intended— I understand we all have lives and other interests, and it's not as if I had been keeping an eye on it— it's just disheartening to see the page back to a similar place when I first noticed the issues half a year ago). So, I rolled up my sleeves and got to work, junking several sections built around vague suppositions, false citations and overall dubious claims. These sections matched the same criticisms I outlined before, so I don't think I need to elaborate much on my thought process any more than my edit summaries already do; but I understand it was a fairly big deletion of content, so if anyone has questions or disputes the edits then give me a shout. — Kawnhr (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, so I've seen parts of my edits reverted, which is fair, but following WP:BRD I'd like to discuss and ask for clarification/consensus on this. So, one thing I've come down on, now and in the past, is statements from Russian officials describing something as anti-Russian, eg: A deputy foreign minister of Russia in Oslo stated that Russia views the October 2018 Trident Juncture NATO military exercises in Norway to be "anti-Russian" in nature or Russia has characterized Canadian participation in NATO drills which as "act of aggression". My view is that since these statements come from Russian officials, they cannot be said to be neutral or objective (particularly since, as mentioned in the the lede, "allegations of "Russophobia" [are used] as a form of propaganda to counter criticism of Russia.") and so using them as a source is giving more weight to the Russian characterization of a dispute— and therefore as anti-Russian. But like I said, these pop back up pretty quickly, so I'm left wondering: am I "fighting the good fight", or am I in the wrong here and should back off, or what? How do other editors think this should be handled? — Kawnhr (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

government statements are generally not neutral--which country is an exception? Bit Wikipedia does NOT ban non-neutral quotes. the rule is clear enough: While Wikipedia is required to present a neutral point of view, sources on the other hand are not expected to be neutral. = WP:NEUTRALSOURCE When a spokesman for government X denounced government Y that is clear evidence of trouble between them -- which is what we are talking about here. Solution include both statement from X and statement from Y which says we are not in opposition to X.Rjensen (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
My understanding of this page is that it's meant to chronicle things such as discrimination, historical grievances that effect lingering distrust, double standards and the like— not just instances where a country disagrees with Russia and causes "trouble". A country can pursue foreign policy goals and disagree with Russia without there being a sinister motivation behind it. If we accept a Russian official blasting a country over something or other as evidence of anti-Russian sentiment, then what this says is that any disagreement with Russia is inherently wrong.
And I think it's worth repeating that the specific "troubles" here, the inciting point of these tensions, is NATO membership and participation… characterizing that as "anti-Russian sentiment" is a bit much. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Kawnhr Imo, what the scope of hte page is should be clearly spelled out in the lede. On the one hand, it is true that at many points in the past people have added items to this page that appear to portray anything that doesn't equal an expression of geopolitical love and devotion to Russia can be portrayed as some sort of "Russophobic" racism that bizarrely gets compared to anti-Semitism. On the other hand, see also Anti-Americanism, a page that critically analyzes the existence of aversion in public opinion of various countries to Russia and how it may have emerged in the past -- a combination of actual bigotry (often against "Asians") but also some arising from objection to perceive imperialism, outrage at widespread interference in other countries' domestic affairs, concerns about democracy that are actually motivated by compassion for the Russian people, unaddressed perceived grievances such as this and this and this and this as well as current events like these and more. Likewise Anti-Americanism correctly notes a combination of bigotry mixed with disgust for certain aspects of the US' percieved societal system as well as some things in the past and in the present like the Trump_administration_family_separation_policy, the latter of which, I have no doubt will be on that page in the future. I think the latter critical approach of a multifaceted subject of anti-Russian sentiment coming from various sources (bigotry or history) is probably more appreciated by readers too.--Calthinus (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Touché. I'll be more cautious and discerning in the future. — Kawnhr (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I think there is at least 3 layers of Russophobia a person from Moscow can encounter:

  • The modern one, related to after-USSR society;
  • The anti-USSR set of sentiments;
  • The pre-1917 set of fear of "people living so far from civilized Europe they can't use perfume and wear furcoats with fur inside out".

And, aside from all of this, there is a general "huge empty country" claim (Mercator Projection visually enlarges Russia's appearance x2, mostly bloating empty near-polar areas). Uchyotka (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Framing VOA, RFE/RL, Deutsche Welle as propaganda

This article is framing VOA, RFE/RL, Deutsche Welle as propaganda. Are there any valid reasons to do so? It's a common trick, when censored and controlled mass media (propaganda) attempt to frame opposing opinion sources as propaganda. But I didn't expect them to be that successful here. Azazar (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Anti-Russian organizations.

A lot of the Anti-Russian stuff comes from state funded organizations such as polygraph.info, bellingcat, Atlantic Council and Integrity Initiative. Can we have a section on those? Keith McClary (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, this whole article is on a non-existent issue. For several centuries, Russia has been an empire (and still is), and its aggressive foreign policy and repressive domestic policies (in different forms) have created resentment among oppressed ethnic and religious minorities and neighbours. Likewise, most organisations mentioned above are not anti-Russian people; they are opposed to (some of the) policies of the Russian government. BorisG (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC) BTW I am Russian BorisG (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Boris G you must be joking! All what you say about Russia holds true for US! You are an americanized Russian, right? You view on Russia reminds me the typical American (or British) Propaganda. The US is an Empire and has an aggressive foreign policy (illegal wars against for example Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria) and repressive domestic policies (signs: Mass Surveillance, militarized and very violent Police, expanding and partly privatized Prison system). The drug laws in US are very racist because there are for example different punishment levels for consumption of identical drugs (crack cocaine and powder cocaine) with the consequence that blacks are overrepresentated in prisons. Indigenous Siberians live better than Native Americans. The war crimes in Chechen wars are comparable with those of UK in Northern Ireland or with the human rights violations of Spanish Intelligence Services in Catalonia and Basque country during Anti-Terror-Operations. There are no discrimination of religious minorities in Russia in opposite to Iran or Turkey. China, UK, Spain and Portugal also have an imperial history and China and UK still have neo-imperial ambitions. The Russian "Wars" in Georgia, Ukraine and other countries are and were no aggression wars anyway. The de-facto-Regime in Transnistria is in opposite to Kosovo are functioning Quasi-State for example and the whole conflict in Moldova is based primary on the different two languages. South Ossetia and Abkhazia were de facto independent from Georgia since 1990ties and the Georgian Army committed war crimes there for example so the Narrative of Russian Aggression is not plausible. Demonizing the government as a Dictatorship is actually very stupid Propaganda because there is no reliable study that proves that Russia is a Dictatorship. If Russia is allegedly an authoritarian state why Singapore is clasified as an incomplete Democracy in Democracy rankings? The Peoples Action Party rules centuries in Singapore. Why Montenegro is not clasified as a Dictatorship? Dukanovic rules much longer than Putin. Kaczynski is a Fan of Polish Dictator Pilsudski and dreams of Intermarium while the accusation that Putin wants to restore the USSR is only a fake. Bellingcat and the Institute for Statecraf are Pseudo-NGOs who are controlled by the British Intelligence Services and the main mission of these Organization is to realize the interests of the British Elite. The Altantic Council adivces the American Elite and creates concepts for the neo-imperial policy of US.--92.74.255.241 (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

With Due respect, if you have come here to debate Russian, American or British policies, or to attack contributors, you have come to a wrong place. Wikipedia articles have to be based on reliable sources, not your or my opinions. Most of your comment has nothing to do with article. And no, I am not joking and I have never lived in the US. BorisG (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I didnt attack you and didnt debate policy of countries I just corrected you. Your comment contains a lot of wrong informations. By the way a lot of Germans in Germany and Poles in Poland are also americanized without living in US. You can be also americanized through consuming American Media or Media that promotes official Narratives of American governments for example. All I said is proved and is not only my opinion. The Integrity Initiative is for example just a British Propaganda campaign which also included for example faking proofs for an alleged Russian inferference in Dutch parliament elections so the Institute for Statecraft is an anti-Russian Organization. Faking proofs for an inferference in foreign elections has the purpose of manipulating the public opinion in Netherlands.--88.65.184.214 (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Russian_sentiment/Archive_7&oldid=1136524063"