Talk:Anti-Russian sentiment/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Scope creep and definition drift

I assume this article is meant to cover instances of discrimination against ethnic Russians, historical grievances that drive lingering distrust and cool relations, unflattering cultural stereotyping, and so on and so forth. Yet, there are several sections where the "anti-Russian sentiment" is just any degree of criticism, any diplomatic rows with the Russian Federation over very specific incidents, or just not submitting to the Moscow line. For instance:

• Greece — Greece expels Russian diplomats following the Skirpal affair; rather a stretch to call this "anti-Russian sentiment".
• Australia — Framing the Australian government condemning Russia's role in shooting down MH17, and musing about barring Putin from a G20 meeting in retaliation, as anti-Russian is pure spin.
• Norway - Direct quote: Recently, tensions with Russia is mainly over Russia's militaristic involvements in Ukraine and Georgia, which Norway supported sanctions against Russia and has not lifted it. I think that speaks for itself. The section also provides "being a NATO member" as evidence of anti-Russian sentiment!
• Denmark - This section outlines a diplomatic row, in which Russia even makes a dark warning to Denmark… the only way this can be considered anti-Russian is if that simply means any activity not in Russia's interest.
• Vietnam — Younger generations "becoming aware of Russian atrocities towards its neighbours" does not, in my mind, equal any significant or noteworthy anti-Russian sentiment within the context of this article. This is easily the most tenuous example in the article.

Defining "anti-Russian sentiment" so broadly has a few problems. First, to equate any criticism of Russia to discrimination is both unhelpful and revealing of one's own bias. Second, any diplomatic rows and tense relations more properly belong on pages for foreign relations (eg: Greece–Russia relations). But third— and most importantly— these examples (aside from Vietnam) fall into exactly what the lede warns about: On the other hand, Russian nationalists and apologists of the Russian politics are sometimes criticised for using allegations of "Russophobia" as a form of propaganda to counter criticism of Russia.

I would remove these right away but I wanted to get other editors' thoughts first. Otherwise, I'll come back in a few days and junk them. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You are right in observing the difficulty with which the term Russophobia must be defined, in the strictest sense that would seem to mean primarily a distrust. fear, or opposition to Russian people. However, this term in a more pragmatic sense (particularly within the articles title; Anti-Russian Sentiment), would equate to a distrust or fear of the Russian government, military, foreign policy, etc. It may be an incomplete assessment of the utility of this article, if it were to use the strictest definition of the term Russophobia, thereby relegating all diplomatic relations issues between individual countries and Russia to their respective 'Russia-SomeNation Relations' pages. This is because if a reader wanted to get an accurate depiction of the current state of Anti-Russian Sentiments that may exist throughout various regions of the world, they would have to visit multiple pages to find such information rather than being able to get a more concise and accessible portrayal which this article could provide. To some degree, it would make sense to define the purpose of this article (and therefore the precise semantics of the terms Russophobia and Anti-Russian Sentiment) similarly to other articles such as [2] or [3]. Both of these articles state clearly that fear, distrust, or disapproval of the nation's respective governments may constitute a form of 'Anti-Country Sentiment' or '-phobia', although this is not the case in every instance. In this manner, and following the guidelines in WP:SCOPE, relying on a predetermined and overly narrow scope (that is dissimilar from other comparable articles) may be doing a disservice to this articles readers. If the meaning of Russophobia/Anti-Russian Sentiment is a question, is a fear of an invasion, or nuclear war, regardless of whether that fear is justified, not within the clear definition of a Anti-Russian Sentiment? Is the Russian foreign ministry itself is directly saying that the Trident Juncture NATO exercises are "Anti-Russian" in nature, is that not a sufficient qualifier of the credibility of the circumstances? That being said, I applaud the efforts you have made to remove non relevant and unreliable information in some instances, in other, such as the deletion of the entire subsection on Norway during the ongoing build up of the greatest NATO and Russian military exercises since the Cold War, could cross the line past WP:BOLD. If part of an article is salvageable, it is almost always better to keep what is good and improve what can be improved, rather than simply removing the entire subsection entirely. Criticizing the quality of other editor's words, particularly in this article when they may be translating from a foreign language, is not only contrary to WP:WQ, but the time spent on such criticism could potentially be used for improving the very things you are criticizing. Consensus is built by collaboration, and while I will reiterate that your edits have certainly done considerable work to improve the article by removing some irrelevant and extraneous information, perhaps such efforts could also be used to qualitatively improve and add the content itself. I will be updating the Norway section with WP:RS citations and along with removing any unrelated and unimportant relation, and will edit wording and content where necessary to maintain WP:NPOV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.13.53.128 (talk • contribs)

It seems to me that most of the original underlying issues in the "updated and improved section" are still there as they have to do with the way the text is structured. Like the first sentence of classifying countries into "traditionally Russophobe" and "not traditionally Russophobe" (according to whom?) or the seemingly ORish conclusion links like "Russia believes NATO is anti-Russian (that is valid as an opinion, but not as a proof of Norway's anti-Russianness), Norway is in NATO, thus Norway is anti-Russian as well" and Sweden, Finland, and Denmark have experienced historical conflicts with Russia, Norway is not traditionally considered a Russophobic country (implying that Sweden, Finland, and Denmark must be), but it does share historical and sociocultural ties with them, so that supposedly makes it Russophobic as well. At least that's what I read between the lines. In four words it's Synthesis of published material. Why not include facts and information that speaks for itself? Like poll numbers on Norwegian attitude towards Russia/Russians, opinions of Norwegian officials on Russia and Russians, statistics of hate crimes against Russians etc. –Turaids (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

My criticism of the Norway section had nothing to do with the quality of the writing— which you have undeniably improved— but the content within. I stand by my criticism that it consists of "vague suppositions" and that it lacks "substance", for the reasons Turaids throughly explained above. If you can substantiate that Norway has significant and notable anti-Russian sentiment, then by all means include it in the article. — Kawnhr (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I've been on and off cleaning up the article since July when it looked even worse, so a helping hand is always welcome. The article seems to be an unlikely common ground for people with an actual anti-Russian sentiment that want to "prove" that the whole world hates Russians and the aforementioned Russian nationalists that also want to spin it that, well, the whole world is against them, so anti-Putin, anti-Communist, anti-Soviet, anti-Russia sentiment and even simply "not submitting to the Moscow line", as you aptly put it, is freely and uncritically interpreted as Russophobia.

I've tried to balance someone calling something/someone anti-Russian/Russophobic that is valid as an opinion and should be presented as such and facts that should speak for themselves with concrete numbers and statistics, as well as distinguish the nuance between being anti-Russian and feeling negative about Russia in the section on my own country, but my in-depth knowledge on the matter only goes so far. –Turaids (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I just went through the article again and deleted a couple sections that fit the same patterns as above (Montenegro, Croatia), and some removed lines from other sections that were just wholly irrelevant or uncited (Belarus, Hungary, Albania). I think that's the worst of it gone, now. — Kawnhr (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Turaids Indeed this article seemed to have been taken over by someone with an obsessively tribal worldview (people do things that are against Russia only because they are irrationally locked in some tribal battle against Russia, rather than having their own interests and viewpoints based on experiences). You have my regards and full support in your efforts to clean this up, I've been watching. --Calthinus (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The Thesis about Russophobia in Vietnam sounds ridiculous. A lot of "Russian" atrocities towards neighbours like Polands were committed by Ukrainians, Belarusians or Georgians for example. Do older naive German men who were betray by Ukrainian mail-order-brides became also to Ukrainophobes? --88.65.184.214 (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there a place for sentiment against Russian tourists?

These European polls: https://sg.news.yahoo.com/russians-voted-most-irritating-tourists-european-poll-144512453.html, https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2019/08/30/britons-make-worst-tourists-say-britons-and-spania, https://www.tourism-review.com/travel-tourism-magazine-russians-are-the-worst-tourists-according-to-brits-article970 show a constant negative sentiment against Russian tourists. I know in some countries (mine at least), there is a negative view of the Russian new rich but it is not common. ItalianTourist (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I think only uneducated Spaniards would hate all Russian People in the world only because of negative experience with some rich Russian Tourists.--88.65.184.214 (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality tone is needed

"There is considerable evidence that in fact it was a fake petition with fake signatories aimed at fomenting an opinion about the degree of Russophobia in Latvia." https://www.stopfake.org/en/fake-latvians-want-to-establish-ghetto-for-russians/

StopFake is anti-russian russophobis site, financed by pro-american NED: "This ongoing project relies on viewer support. In 2015, StopFake also received financial support from the International Renaissance Foundation, the National Endowment for Democracy, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic. Nevertheless, StopFake maintains its editorial independence: the organizations and governments supporting the project stipulate how funds are allocated, but not StopFake’s content." https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/4p9yra/ukrainian_site_stopfake_is_financed_by/ https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-funded-projects-in-ukraine-2015-2016 In that article there is not clear evidence that it was a provocation.

"On April 16, 2018 pro-Kremlin activist Aleksandr Gaponenko claimed..." Is there any proofs that he is pro-Kremlin?

"in line with Russian independent anti-government media such as (TV Rain, Novaya Gazeta, Ekho Moskvy, The Moscow Times)"

Independent?? They all financed by pro-american funds! http://www.politonline.ru/interpretation/22882926.html http://www.iarex.ru/articles/62199.html

Alexey Navalny is financing from abroad: http://www.iarex.ru/news/62281.html?utm_source=article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.255.228.113 (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

You're referring a very questionable sources, politonline and iarex. Why do you think anyone should thust them? And even if I pretend to believe for a minute that it's true. Would that undo verifiable Navalniy's investigations? Would that make independent respected anti-government media less truthful and reliable? Their reputation shouldn't depend on their sources of income. It should depend on their actions. Azazar (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Its not a bad argument! NED is a Pseudo-NGO that was found by Reagan to outsource some activities of CIA on a private and inofficial organization. Im pretty sure that there also useful Idiots in Russia for American, British or Turkish Propaganda too but we need reliable sources.--88.65.184.214 (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Russophobic article on Russophobia

Judging by the content and references in this article it was written by people who hate Russians and want to justify ongoing extermination of Russians in Europe as a legitimate action against not-really-humans. Sentiments of this article is very similar to justification of antisemitism, except instead of crucifixion authors use "Kremlin policy". Shame on wikipedia - and hopefully some legal actions against it should come as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.173.131 (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The article opens with a lot of russaphobic sentiment: "Russian nationalists and apologists of Russian government policies and actions often use allegations of "Russophobia" as a form of propaganda to counter criticism of Russian government policy". This is the second senntence of the intro, and while not untrue, it frames the rest of the article with a sense of distrust over any validity over legitimate Russophobia. That sentence should be a whole section, but only one that appears later in the article. Orun Bhuiyan (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

‘Linguistic issues’ section

I removed the section ‘Linguistic issues’ for the following reasons:

1. The whole section should be pretty incoherent even to a casual English-speaking reader (going by paragraphs):
   1) a paragraph about American cinema, then a table with translations;
   2) a link to a popular Russian YouTuber BadComedian as a ‘film critic’ (he is not one professionally);
   3) a paragraph about the aggressiveness of Russian women, then a table with a quote by Bush Sr. and a reaction to it by Yeltsin;
   4) a quote from some U. S. senator, then a fun table of some kind of Brzezinski plan for destroying Russia;
   5) Putin’s comparison of ‘Russophobia’ and anti-semitism, then some kind of anti-semitic screed about how Jews hate Russians (???), then a link to ‘marginal perception’ (I guess supposed to mean fringe) of Brzezinski plan so wonderfully compiled into the table earlier and a lot of retellings of various conspiracy theories;
   6) a mention of some McCain article, then a paragraph of retelling the views of a Russian far-right nationalist (Egor Kholmogorov) on Soviet propaganda.
   What? What does all of this have to do with ‘Linguistic issues’?
2. The tables are especially egregious in their incoherence: first table does not relate to the article at all and has sources that are completely unexplainable, the second one uses primary sourcing and a link to the YouTuber mentioned before, the third one is so wild I can’t say much about it, but at least it did relate to the text.
3. The sourcing in removed text as it relates to content is mix of original research, primary sourcing, non-reliable sources, and unrelated sources. I can go one by one with this, but it seems of not much use considering everything I’ve already told about this text before.

I think this was some kind of trolling act by someone obviously versed in Russian culture (who might even be a Russian nationalist themself) to see how long this whole thing will stay in the article for. If there are some salvageable sources in what I have deleted, I welcome their re-addition, but the whole section as it was did not make any sense and was based on extremely dubious sourcing, at least when it comes to Russian sources.

I thought it would be helpful to explain my actions, as probably not a lot of people have the expertise to know why I would remove 64 kB of information out of the blue. stjn^[ru] 18:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Changes to lead

An IP user or users has/have been repeatedly adding a paragraph to the lead. Per WP:ONUS, you should justify this addition of disputed content here. I have opened this section for you to state your reasoning. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

You are all Surkov plants and the world needs to know about the sprite I profess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:b:a140:c571:cee3:224b:fef9 (talk) 06:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I have to confess I don't know what that means, but it doesn't sound good! Could you explain, even briefly, why your edit is a good addition to the lead? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

If you do not know what this is, you are either too uninformed (I would use stronger language, but won't) to have anything to do with this page, or are maliciously pretending to be such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:A:4C1A:208F:7EFD:92DB:256A (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

other Slavs, an inferior race

False. Very Slavic Independent State of Croatia, Slovak Republic (1939–1945) were German allies. Western Ukrainian nationalists collaborated during certain period creating 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician). Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia had some independence, life contitions there were very good.Xx236 (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Nazi racial theory very clearly described Slavs as untermenschen. Peoples like Croats they were happy to present as having Germanic blood, and they were of course very happy to have Ukrainian and other collaborationists to help them before killing them in Generalplan Ost. Mellk (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no mistreatment of LGBT People and anti-LGBT law in Russia

The Majority of ethnic Russians and Non-Muslim ethnic minorities in Russia are on average not more homophobic than Poles, Latvians or other Eastern Europeans. There is no structural discrimination of LGBT People in Russia because there is no anti-LGBT law and the violence against gays for example are only individual cases that happen also in Sweden for example. There is only a children rights protection law that contains a section that is about the promoting of Homosexuality among underage persons. According to that law you will be punished if you tell an eight years old boy that Homosexuality is something that is great or if you advice a teenager to become Transgender for example. Lithuania had such a law once too and Hungary has it too currently.--Konfuziusfreund (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Konfuziusfreund It doesn't matter what you or I think about LGBT laws in Russia or how such persons are treated in Russia, what matters is what independent reliable sources say about those laws and treatment. If the sources in this article are not summarized accurately, or if you have independent reliable sources that say something different, please offer them. Note that Russian media is controlled by the government and so is not independent. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

What is when the reliable sources dont tell the truth? One independent German Blogger named Thomas Röper who lives in Russia and speaks fluently Russian states that there is no anti-LGBT law and he read the text of the law in Russian and published an Article on his German-speaking Blog on his topic. By the way non-independent media are not necessarily non-reliable. The German media for example is controlled by private Atlanticist Networks according to a reliable Study of a German Scientist. Al Jazeera is also not an independent Media but is used as a source in Wikipedia.--Konfuziusfreund (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Konfuziusfreund Blogs are not usually considered reliable sources as they usually lack editorial control and fact checking. If this study you speak of is peer-reviewed and published in a reputable academic journal, please offer it at the reliable sources noticeboard to attempt to dispute the credibility of a source. That a source has partcular ownership is insufficient, unless you have actual evidence that the owner influences its content. Good luck with that. Per WP:RSP, RussiaToday is not considered a reliable source as there is indeed evidence they fabricate information.

Personally I think that a law that makes it illegal to share who you are with the world but doesn't prevent straight people from doing so is anti-LGBT, since children are not segregated from society, but that doesn't matter. 331dot (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The law only forbbides to present Homosexuality as something extraordinary positive among underage persons so there is nothing repressive about that law. It is not illegal in Russia to tell a child that Homosexuals should not be discrimnated its only illegal to say Homosexuality is equal to Heterosexuality which is from a biological point of view nonsense. Some People in the US think also that the Hate Crime laws are stupid by the way. The accusation of Western Media that Russia Today fabricates information seem to be Propaganda itself. The Study is mentioned in the German-speaking Wikipedia but the German-speaking Authors and Administrators are afraid or dont want to make to many conclusions.--Konfuziusfreund (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

In any event this is not the forum to debate LGBT rights in Russia. I've said how you can proceed. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I know that this is not a Forum but the point of view that the Russian government-controlled Media always lie and that there is a persecution of LGBT People in Russia is not encyclopedic. Homosexuals are instrumentalized for geopolitical Propaganda only otherwise I cant explain why Jamaica is portrayed positively although the LGBT People there are really mistreaten.--Konfuziusfreund (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

20:04 02/03/2022

And maybe there is no russian forces on ukraine right now? they do mistreat a lgbtq organisations and people, just due to Russian propaganda u don't know how much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.8.1.132 (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine crisis Update

I found stories involving russian people being blamed for the invasion even though they had ntohing to do with the actions of the government. I think we might see more hate crimes arise from this

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/russia-ukraine-conflict-brand-name-change-freedom-fries-1314245/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/03/03/anti-russian-sentiment-us/

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/03/04/russians-abroad-blamed-for-a-regime-they-sought-to-escape-a76762

https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/03/02/the-dangerous-rise-of-russophobia/

someone needs to add these into the page--Persesus (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I Found this one https://eurasianet.org/tbilisis-russians-watch-their-countrys-war-with-shame-and-worry

--Persesus (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

https://www.baytoday.ca/local-news/report-alleged-anti-russian-slur-thrown-at-battalion-player-5126841

https://thehockeynews.com/.amp/news/report-ohl-player-an-alleged-target-of-anti-russian-slur

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-wave-of-anti-russian-hysteria-is-sweeping-across-the-west — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus (talk • contribs) 13:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Grammar error

Under History-18th and 19th century- second paragraph—it’s is used as a possessive instead of contraction, it should be its. Tried to fix but page is protected. 67.240.185.31 (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Left wing bias

Sharp criticism of Russia and Russians is not "russophobic", its close to the truth.

93.206.61.173 (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Well what happens if it’s people being attacked based on their race Persesus (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Why is this article put into a "discrimination" category?

There is no legal nor moral duty to like Russians.

93.206.61.173 (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Discriminating against or being hateful towards a person because of their ancestry (Something they can't control I might add) constitutes discrimination. You do have a moral duty in both logical and religious undertones. Logic states that "all men are created equal" and religion states "The Father has loved us so much that we are called children of God. And we really are his children. The reason the people in the world do not know us is that they have not known him. 2 Dear friends, now we are children of God." (1 John 3). Thank you for your time.

FictiousLibrarian (talk). 22:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the IP might be a closeted racist Persesus (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

No, he is being openly hostile towards an ethnic group. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 06:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The articles about anti Russia hate keep in coming

I got more articles from the Boston globe and WaPo https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/08/opinion/this-is-putins-war-anti-russian-xenophobia-wont-save-ukraine/?outputType=amp https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/07/antirussian-hate-putin-europe/ Persesus (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

https://asiatimes.com/2022/03/anti-russian-sentiment-spreading-to-central-europe/ Here is another one Persesus (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Last one from Chicago tribune https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-russian-tea-time-ukraine-20220310-bzsgsu4stjhqrpmq77oqmq4af4-story.html Persesus (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine/Archive_7#Racism_towards_Russians_who_had_nothing_to_with_the_conflict Persesus (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/get-the-hell-out-wave-of-anti-russian-sentiment-in-europe Persesus (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Meta just allowed this

Meta just allowed violence toward Russians to their platform https://thenextweb.com/news/meta-temporarily-permits-anti-russian-hate-speech-sets-a-divisive-precedent/amp Also this from time https://time.com/6156582/ukraine-anti-russian-hate/ Persesus (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

More articles for anyone to use https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/USA/Society/2022/0310/Russian-Americans-face-misdirected-blame-for-war-in-Ukraine https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/opinion-columns/victor-joecks/victor-joecks-wheres-the-lefts-outrage-over-anti-russian-bias-2543413/amp/ https://www.fox6now.com/news/russian-owned-businesses-in-us-face-discrimination-vandalism-over-ukraine-invasion.amp Persesus (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sky news article

This just came from sky news about Russians being attacked in the UK https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-xenophobic-attacks-and-death-threats-reported-by-russians-living-in-the-uk-12561807 Persesus (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

https://diem25.org/russophobia-at-home-wont-help-ukraine/ Persesus (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Chicago incident and jacobin

https://jacobinmag.com/2022/03/russophobia-putin-russia-ukraine-war-discrimination-harassment https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-russian-tea-time-ukraine-20220310-bzsgsu4stjhqrpmq77oqmq4af4-story.html I got this in Tokyo https://www.cityam.com/tokyo-exploits-global-anti-russian-sentiment-to-announce-kremlin-controlled-kuril-islands-belong-to-japan/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus (talk • contribs) 03:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Last article

https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/tchaikovsky-cats-and-vodka-have-boycotts-of-russia-gone-too-far-55514 Persesus (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

More articles 3/20 update

https://www.counterfire.org/articles/analysis/23073-the-dangerous-tide-of-russophobia https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/vandalizing-antiwar-russian-restaurants-russophobia-n1291865 https://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/en/newsdetail/index/6/21585/russophobia-returns-to-the-west-in-full-force https://newschannel9.com/news/local/russophobia-chattanooga-historian-says-prejudice-historically-occurs-amid-conflict https://diem25.org/russophobia-at-home-wont-help-ukraine/ https://www.currentaffairs.org/2022/03/we-cant-lapse-into-russophobia https://www.msnbc.com/ayman-mohyeldin/watch/putin-s-war-on-ukraine-inflames-russophobia-around-the-world-135287877852 https://artreview.com/the-stupidity-of-the-artworld-russophobia-ukraine-invasion-engels-statue/ Persesus (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

3/21 update

So far nothing as of yet Persesus (talk) 06:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/18/1087237667/cultural-boycott-russia-effectiveness-fairness Persesus (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Irish times

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-it-is-vital-we-do-not-play-putin-s-game-of-mother-russia-versus-the-west-1.4832405?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fopinion%2Ffintan-o-toole-justified-rage-at-putin-s-atrocities-must-not-become-russophobia-1.4832405 Persesus (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Should NFRKZ be added in

YouTube commentator NFRKZ has been attacked based on being Russian should this be added in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_4I8Pr73zA Persesus (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

No. NFRKZ is not significant or newsworthy enough to be a notable example, unfortunately. Luckily, he escaped to Georgia.

PulauKakatua19 (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Finland

No mention of Soviet invasion of Finland in WW2? 2001:14BB:CE:5B9B:B09E:B9EE:B749:574E (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Reference 18

Reference 18 does not show increased anti russian sentiment after the 2022 invasion, it's from 2012. Netanyahuserious (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2022

Resolved

 – Was added to the article

Change "Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russophobia saw a significant global decrease. This trend started to reverse as a result of actions such as the Russian anexation of Crimea in 2014." To "Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russophobia saw a significant global decrease at first. However, the negative trend in viewing Russia negatively began in 2012 and continues to increase." Christine, Huang (December 16, 2020). "Views of Russia and Putin remain negative across 14 nations". Pew Research Center. Retrieved May 5, 2021.</ref> Ignat Vershinin (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The source doesn't mention 2012, and the chart shows a much steeper decline beginning in 2014. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I support the edit with a mention of the steeper decline in 2014. The table in the source has roughly 25% drop in 2012 and further 50% in 2014. PaulT2022 (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Statistics and Contemporary Russophobia possible merge

I'm curious, is there a reason why Statistics and Contemporary Russophobia are separate? Both talk about the same period and seem to have almost identical beginning and the end (reversal of the trend after invasion to Ukraine; use of Russophobia by the Kremlin). --PaulT2022 (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Alternatively, remove duplicated facts. I've deleted the last paragraph from Statistics, which had nothing to do with Statistics and was present in Anti-Russian sentiment#As a polemic device. Same for the first paragraph of Anti-Russian sentiment#Russian response. --PaulT2022 (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between anti-Russian sentiment and anti-Kremlin sentiment

We do Wikipedia users a disservice if we fail to emphasize that distinction. The crimes being committed against the Ukraine are not the fault of the Russian people, but rather of the dictatorial regime in the Kremlin.MotherEarth'sChild (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Our sources explicitly say that Russophobia has indeed been on the rise since the Ukraine invasion began. — Czello 11:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Even sources can be deceptive. We've done this song-and-dance before. Remember when the world (including Russia, btw) opposed the George W. Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003? You also remember how the Bush administration responded to such valid criticism with accusations of "anti-Americanism?" Well, they were wrong. There will always be Americaphobes and Russophobes, but these two wars extracted repugnance of the regimes who initiated the wars in the first place - not of the American people and the Russian people themselves.MotherEarth'sChild (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

This sounds like WP:OR, if not WP:NOTAFORUM territory. Ultimately Wikipedia doesn't make its own interpretations, we go by what our sources say (see WP:V and WP:RS). — Czello 12:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Are there any WP:RS that present this? I can only recall this POV in Boris Johnson's addresses [4] [5] PaulT2022 (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually there are no distinction. Russia is the most hated nation in the world and cause a lot of pain and grief to most of the European peoples. Is is strange to deny it as russophobia is probably discrimination and racism, but Russians definitely do everything to deserve it. 188.187.132.222 (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Petition for expansion

Resolved

 – Proposed content added

I am hoping to add another section to this article that talks about contemporary Russophobia. As the article already mentions following the collapse of the USSR, Russophobia has dropped to historic lows however that is no longer the case. Following Russian President Vladimir Putin's authorization to use military force against Ukraine, Russophobia has been steadily rising in the Western World once again. An example of this occurring is harassment many ethnic or descendants of ethnic Russians face in Europe and the United States. This is also having an impact on commerce as the iconic Soviet/Russian Stolichnaya brand vodka is renaming itself as "Stoli" in the west in order to distance itself from Russia in part due to Anti-Russian attitudes in the United States. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 22:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Add that in Persesus (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek, I've noticed you removed this from the article despite apparent consensus on the talk page. Would you mind to explain your reasoning? PaulT2022 (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

What was removed, and where is said consensus? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The story about Stolichnaya having to rename because of anti-Russian sentiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Russian_sentiment&diff=1089987759&oldid=1089987650 PaulT2022 (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The information should be persevered somewhere, but I concur it is not clearly relevant here. " The name change was motivated by a companywide effort to distance the brand from its Russian origin.". We need a source that clearly links this to anti-Russian sentiment, instead of let's say health concerns over low quality Russian food safety regulations or such. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

? The source does say this, that it's rebranding because of boycotts related caused by the invasion: When Russia invaded Ukraine last month... For instance, many states, bar owners, and drinkers began boycotting Russian vodkas. But even these latter gestures haven't gone unnoticed, and now, one of the world's most iconic vodka brands will be officially changing its name. PaulT2022 (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Common-sense wise, this is probably relevant and should be discussed in the form similar to Anti-German_sentiment#Second_World_War. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

NPOV on anti-Russian bias in the media

I've added a mention of the effect of media bias on anti-Russian sentiment to the lead and User:Czello flagged it as an NPoV violation. The initial phrasing I used indeed could've been read as that the bias is the sole source of the sentiment, which is obviously incorrect.

I've edited the statement to suggest that the Russian actions are more important than their representation in press and its closer to NPoV now. There's also a similar statement in the US section ("many examples of events which have been deemed to have caused a rising negative impression about Russia in the United States").

While I feel that what the article says now is close to being neutral, I have unease about how its done. We have several sources for one PoV ('biased press influenced a negative view of Russia'), however there are none referenced (and none I could find in Google) that would argue for the another, that the view of Russia in the western press is weighted and unbiased and its actions are indeed a cause of the sentiment. In effect, the article now represents collective WP:OR: it may be a consensus but its not a WP:NPOV as we're using personal PoVs to 'neutralise' sources that indeed say that anti-Russian media bias exists.

TL;DR: there are sources that say that Western media is biased, but no sources that would explicitly say that Russian action X and Y were negatively received. I think its a WP:NPOV issue that needs to be fixed. (Polls such as Pew try to imply causation but they're only talking about temporal timing of perception vs the events.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulT2022 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Policies targeting Russians by nationality

I think it would be appropriate to add factual information about the policies and restrictions targeting Russians purely by nationality, perhaps to the Business section. Examples: [6], [7] --PaulT2022 (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Sanctions in response to an invasion are not “anti Russian sentiment”. Volunteer Marek 18:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Completely agree. I think its important to highlight that while such policies discriminate Russians by nationality they're not (necessarily) a result of an anti-Russian sentiment and were conceived as a response to the invasion. However, I think it's appropriate to mention them in this article as sentiment and discrimination are often intertwined, which is reflected in this article already having several mentions of discrimination and being added to categories about discrimination.

Would you suggest creating a separate article for Anti-Russian discrimination instead? My thinking was it's more appropriate to add discriminatory policies to this article either as a separate section (something along the lines "Discriminatory policies" or "Restrictions placed on Russian nationals in response to invasion") or expanding existing sections. PaulT2022 (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, I politely disagree with your another argument, that those examples are sanctions.

International sanctions usually mean actions targeted against a country. They can extend to persons that are part of the government or organisations or perceived to be affiliated with them. I believe sanctions against Russian oligarchs or restrictions that apply to Russian residents fall under this category. Wikipedia already has several articles dedicated to anti-Russian sanctions and I'm not suggesting to include them into this article too.

I wanted to discuss in this thread solely policies that discriminate against Russians by nationality alone, affecting persons of Russian origin who don't have any links with Russia. PaulT2022 (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm proposing to add details about the measures to the "Contemporary Russophobia" section to reflect known facts of discrimination and progress work on the "Update" tag in the article.

This article is the best location for this information as it is the only Wikipedia article related to discrimination of ethic Russians and is recognised as such in the Discrimination sidebar. This article is also the top search result for "discrimination of Russians" query in Google and Bing (at least, when searched from the UK).

All measures and restrictions mentioned here are not regular international sanctions despite they were introduced bundled together with international sanctions. They don't target Russia or Russian-based entities and instead affect Russian nationals regardless of the residence, including ones residing in the sanctioning country. This view is consistent with major WP:RS that refer to these policies differently throughout the text. For example, referenced Bloomberg article refers to them as "measures" and "ban"; the Reuters piece published by Yahoo and Telegraph calls them "ban" and "curb" and explicitly says that they amount to discrimination. See also my reply above.

Proposed wording:

Western European countries responded to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine by introducing policies discriminating Russians on the basis of nationality, including Russian citizens living abroad. The measures restricted access to banking and ability to buy property and securities. United Kingdom banned all Russian nationals from having more than £50,000 on bank accounts.[8] Banking industry argued that the restriction violates UK equality laws.[9][10] Sale of euro denominated securities to Russian nationals was prohibited. [11] Further discriminatory measures limiting rights of Russian nationals were proposed as a part of the sixth EU sanctions package. [12] Leonid Gozman claimed that European banking restrictions harmed dissidents who were forced to leave Russia, leaving them without means to survive. [13]

PaulT2022 (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Pretty clear WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. — Czello 15:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Would you support this edit without the first sentence or two? What would be the appropriate way to summarise the referenced WP:RS without WP:SYNTH/WP:OR in your view? PaulT2022 (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit: Plans to ban property purchases in EU apparently were dropped [14] --PaulT2022 (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

While I don't find the content very ORish, it is simply not relevant to the topic here. Sanctions are not a part of "anti-Russian sentiment". Or if they are, we needs sources that would say so clearly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Prejudice and discrimination are usually discussed together both in academic publications [15] and by practitioners [16]. This textbook [17] has an explanation on how they're related. Most of the Wikipedia articles on anti-N. sentiment have examples of restrictions of rights of the nationality/ethnicity.

If you're looking for an even more direct statement how the two are inter-related, and how a policy creates a sentiment, here's one for example: the “educative effects” of policies can be positive or negative, conditioning people's experience with racial/ethnic prejudice. When anti-immigrant policies are proposed and passed, the full weight of the law signals that immigrants and their co-ethnics are less valuable members of the community [18]

Please note that the word 'discrimination' by definition doesn't imply that it has to be unfair. It only means that members of a certain social group are treated differently - regardless of how proportional restrictions placed on members of the group are, whether they're restricted by the sanctions etc.[19]

I agree that policies/restrictions placed on members of given nationality are not a sentiment, but they're definitely relevant to the topic according to the sources, as well as existing editorial practice in other "anti-N. sentiment" Wikipedia articles.

Considering that the relevance of restrictions to the article subject is established by many sources, my view is excluding restrictions placed on Russian nationals by the sanctions from this article violates WP:NPOVFACT.

Is there a Wikipedia guideline or a precedent establishing that restrictions on a members of a nationality are not relevant to the sentiment against the nationality because they're a part of sanctions?

--PaulT2022 (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Right, but you don't cite works that discuss sanctions and discrimination (your sources are about discrimination and prejudice, and about discrimination and anti-immigrant policies). You make an interesting argument, but without backing in sources, it's OR. Are sanctions related to anti-Foo sentiment? Maybe. How about visa policy? Did countries that required visas from Russians before the war were discriminating against them compared to those that didn't, and was it because of anti-Russian sentiment or something else? Anti-Russian sentiment is not the same concept as discrimination against Russians. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The Reuters piece published by Telegraph and Yahoo called the measures discrimination, so there's a source for this claim: Banks claim that the measure – proposed by Boris Johnson last month as part of a crackdown on dirty money following Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine – would break equality laws which prevent discrimination on the basis of nationality. [20]

Regarding your second statement, "Anti-Russian sentiment is not the same concept as discrimination against Russians.", could you help me to understand what exactly do you mean by this?

Are you saying that articles on "anti-N sentiment" should not say anything about N. discrimination because discrimination is unrelated to sentiment and prejudice? Or that discrimination shouldn't be mentioned on the anti-Russian sentiment page only, because, in case of Russians, the measures were legislated as part of anti-Russian sanctions? Or something else? PaulT2022 (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It's a Venn diagram thing. Some discrimination can happen without anti-Foo sentiment or Foo-phobia. Consider this. Law allows for discriminations against criminals, who are put in prisoners and have various rights limited. But while there is anti-prisoner sentiment and prisoner-phobia, they main root of the discrimination against prisoners is not because they are prisoners, is it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This imaginary Venn diagram is why I keep asking, where would the line for including discrimination into the articles about national/ethnic sentiment lie in your opinion.

I've been looking at the description of discrimination of Anti-German sentiment during WW2 too and I really like this analogy. A formal approach of excluding all discrimination by nationality from an article unless a source explicitly claims it to be caused by sentiment as not relevant would detract from the completeness and neutrality of such articles. Most of such measures were described as a just response to actions of the group and claimed not to be prejudiced, especially by the contemporaries.

How could one discuss WW2 anti-German sentiment without mentioning deportation of Germans by the Soviet Union or Canadian internment camps? Both fall under the 'there was a war and it was a law' category and I suspect finding a source that would attribute them to sentiment would be impossible.

My view is that discrimination by nationality/ethnicity should be included into articles alongside the sentiment as a related topic even though discrimination isn't a subset of a sentiment strictly speaking. Would you agree? I'm sure the readers are intelligent enough to not infer more than the sources say. PaulT2022 (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

As the conversation had stalled, I've made the edit with improved wording and sourcing that hopefully solves the concerns that were raised. PaulT2022 (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

As a polemic device - internationalization

And the second related thing, before someone reads the above as an attempt to push Kremlin propaganda. A better way towards being neutral would be to describe uses of allegation of bias by Russian propaganda. It's discussed in 'Within Russia - As a polemic device', but there were a few instances of using manufactured allegations of Russophobia to shift opinions internationally in the recent years. I think they should be mentioned and the section should be given more prominence given the use of Russophobia in the international discourse. As long as such mentions don't imply that the real Russophobia doesn't exist alongside just because some is made up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulT2022 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Re "As a polemic device" internationalization: A source discussing the Russian narrative about East vs West taking hold in the Arab countries https://carnegieendowment.org/sada/87353 PaulT2022 (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

A couple of sources for abuse of Russophobia allegations in international discourse. Quality of this particular sources is questionable, but these summaries are very characteristic descriptions of the PoV on the matter.

Kremlin spin doctors resurrected the word ‘russophobia’ to create a myth that anyone criticising Putin’s actions must be prejudiced against Russia and Russians... The Kremlin’s diplomats dismissed as ‘russophobia’ my country’s outrage when Moscow assassins murdered Aleksandr Litvinenko in London with lethal radioactive material. They accused us of ‘russophobia’ again after the GRU attacked Sergei Skripal with banned military nerve agents in Salisbury, killing a local woman. It is not ‘russophobic’ to protest at crimes that put lives at risk. https://blogs.fcdo.gov.uk/sianmacleod/2022/03/28/the-myth-of-russophobia/

we defined Russophobia in our codebook as: U.S. unfairly hates and punishes Russia, attempting to denigrate and deny the county [sic] its fair place in the world order. Includes Russiagate. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3934064 - not convinced about Russiagate here, seems artificially added to correlate RT&Fox (I don't think RU propaganda ever dismissed or called 'Russophobic' the fact that the RU government was explicitly anti-Clinton in 2016; the article also goes on to say that authors couldn't find correlation with any other definition: "several narratives that were present in enough snippets to attempt machine classification (see Tables 1 and 2), we were only able to achieve reliable results with the machine classifier for the Russophobia narrative"), but the rest of the definition about the "denigrate and deny" narrative seems to be spot on for contemporary use in RU sources. --PaulT2022 (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine Crisis conflict

Should we add any cases of Russophobia during this time with Ukraine crisis since both Ukrainians civilians and the people under Putin who anti Putin aka the Russians citizens are being targeted by xenophobes and racists for conspiracist reasons Persesus (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

watch for new polls soon that show a huge upswing in antirussian sentiment worldwide Rjensen (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I got a couple polls and articles will these do ? Rjensen

https://www.wionews.com/world/russophobia-in-us-nears-cold-war-levels-80-see-russia-as-enemy-poll-456748 https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/tom-tugendhat-and-the-worrying-rise-of-russophobia https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/2/25/russians-are-also-victims-of-putin https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-must-not-become-engulfed-by-russophobia-s5fk6cs5whttps://inews.co.uk/news/world/russophobia-leads-us-to-assume-the-worst-of-russians-and-assuming-theyre-demonic-could-be-dangerous-1478850 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o 4I8Pr73zA --Persesus (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Good work--I recommend adding in the new poll data. It's the sort of well-understood data that makes for comparison across time and space. Rjensen (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I’m going to keep it posted along with any new delvopmentsRjensen and i found this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_4I8Pr73zA and this article

https://www.expats.cz/czech-news/article/amid-war-in-ukraine-czechia-sees-a-worrying-rise-in-russophobia

--Persesus (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Two comments.

1. The hostility towards Russia the country (it is composed of people from many different ethnic groups) is something very different from hostility towards Russians as an ethnic group (the subject of this page).
2. Speaking about polls, what percentage of Russians living abroad support this war? That seems to be a significant percentage, perhaps a majority? My very best wishes (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I dont think they do support the war My very best wishes example would be the youtube channel and russian native NFRKZ who is anti putin which in turn he us against the war. He has made multplie videos on how its effecting him and his people.--Persesus (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It would be great to have an RS saying that. There were polls inside Russia (and they are telling - vast majority supports Putin - see also here [21]), but I did not see anything outside Russia. My very best wishes (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Read the section on Ukraine in the page on Anti-Russian sentiment. Then try to edit it. Jhb 1965 (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no Ukrainian crisis, there is Russian invasion, war crimes, possible genocide. Perseus is suspended.Xx236 (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Discrimination?

What is the connection between Russian war crimes and the Discrimination? Ukrainian people are discriminated, but it is an another subject.Xx236 (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Russian propaganda

Russian government propaganda may create anti-Russian sentiment.

External propaganda

RT does not present Russia as a beautiful and happy country. It rather adresses uneducated minorities, eg. believers of conspiracy theories.Xx236 (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Internal propaganda

Hate propaganda is disgusting for the majority of Western people. Xx236 (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

View of Russia in Western media - periods

The curerent section misinforms. Is it its goal? We need division into periods. Accusations in 2007 were based on internal Chechen wars, later the agression developed rationalizing any accusation.

• Till 2008 International peace
• 2008 - 2014
• 2014-2022 Limited war in Donbas
• 2022 War, genocide Xx236 (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The same regarding the Lead and possible the whole article. A describtion of historical process ignoring timeline may be propagandist, but never encyclopedic.Xx236 (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

This section is indeed rather strange. I've removed a quantitative research based on inosmi.ru, as its a state-sponsored media that hand-picks articles for translation. Moved two examples with criticism of the US media coverage to United States / Media. Encyclopedic value of the remaining portion is questionable: sources are either mediocre or present opinions out of context, language is either unbalanced or vague. I don't see what value it adds to the article. PaulT2022 (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Russian-speaking immigrants

Hundreds of thousands (milions?) of Ukrainian refugees are Russian-speaking. They may be hated as Russian but it is an error, which should be explained here.Xx236 (talk) 06:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Xx236 correct, the sources describe people being harassed as the harassers saw them as ethic Russians (in their mind!) regardless of whether they're born in Ukraine, Armenia or elsewhere; same with boycotting Latvian vodka. They have nothing to do with Russia, but they're targeted because of anti-Russian sentiment. PaulT2022 (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Generalplan Ost in the lead

The lead should summarize the page. The text does not quote the 100 million, so either such information should be added or the number removed from the lead. The number is not obvious, I would prefer this discussion in Talk:Generalplan Ost. Xx236 (talk) 06:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the number to a generally accepted figure. This paragraph needs to be rewritten with details of 18th and 19th century Russophobia added and WW2 details reduced to a more concise form. PaulT2022 (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

"Western rhetoric in the media coverage, as well as Russian actions"

Words ('rhetorics') against guns ('actions'). The phrase is unacceptable since 2014.Xx236 (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

 Re-phrased worded per WP:NPOVN#Anti-Russian sentiment PaulT2022 (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Lead: 'differences between Russian people and Russia'

McFaul's opinion (2020) was an opinion, it was not encyclopedic. There are no RS supporting the thesis. Support for Putin is very high.Xx236 (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree, removed that statement.

As for including McFaul's opinion to lead in principle, there are a few other sources that talk about anti-Russian stereotypes in US media/political discourse around 2017-2020:

• https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2020/06/02/commentary/world-commentary/russian-derangement-syndrome/
• http://jordanrussiacenter.org/news/russia-always-equals-communism-even-when-that-equation-makes-no-sense-whatsoever/
• https://observer.com/2017/05/james-clapper-russia-xenophobia/
• https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/taibbi-russia-story-is-a-minefield-for-democrats-and-the-media-w471074
• https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/02/why-i-will-not-write-in-russian-as-long-as-putin-is-in-power etc

There's nothing obviously wrong with these sources and as long as this point of view is uncontroversial (in a sense that there aren't RSs that would argue otherwise) I think it should be mentioned in the lead. I picked McFaul speech because it seemed to succinctly summarise it, and he isn't one of the US academics who are known to be pro-Kremlin.

I think the fact that a number of academics and commentators spoke about Russophobia/anti-Russian xenophobia in the US in these years is encyclopedic, and I'm open to other options if we need to replace McFaul's opinion. PaulT2022 (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps something like In the US, academics and commentators criticized propagation of stereotypes about Russians, Russian culture and Russian national proclivities by US officials and journalists, sometimes referring to their rhetorical use as "Russophobia" and "hysteria" with multiple sources is more appropriate. PaulT2022 (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Please do not ignore the timing. The whole article needs clear division into parts. McFaul might have been acceptable in 2000, was biased in 2020 now is unacceptable. So any list without dates do3es not prove anything. Unfortunately Russian soldiers and civilians prove the worst steretypes are true.Xx236 (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Xx236 what wording do you propose? PaulT2022 (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I propose the diivision of paragraphs into several parts - peace, limited war, big war. The meaning of any phrase changes with the context. The son shines is true during the day only.Xx236 (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Xx236 I thought this portion of the lead is already structured like this? 2014 -> pre-2022 -> 2022. If its unclear, how do you suggest to improve it? PaulT2022 (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Russian people abroad

Resolved

 – Sourced facts were added. I believe there's no dispute about adding such occurrences to the article PaulT2022 (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Russian people using nationalistic symbols, eg. Z or Ribbon of Saint George make local people angry.

There are conflicts beteen Russian nationalists and Ukrainian refugees.Xx236 (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Xx236 this definitely needs to be added. Could you write a section or at least share some sources here?

The closest to what you describe I've seen is https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/organisers-of-the-russian-victory-day-parade-ban-pro-war-z-symbol-zlkrb779t, but it doesn't talk about the symbols actually being used or the sentiment that caused. PaulT2022 (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kremlin-is-behind-pro-russian-protests-in-europe-9gj27s8g5 Xx236 (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Assassinations of Russian emigrants make local people angry. Alexander Litvinenko Sergei Skripal Xx236 (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

There's actually a few more: List of Second Chechen War assassinations#Assassinations abroad, Zelimkhan Khangoshvili

@Xx236 do you have a source that links these assassinations to the sentiment? PaulT2022 (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I have quoted one source regarding Germany. Xx236 (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

added PaulT2022 (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

outrage in Germany Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The Russian imperial demonstrations I know took place in Germany. de:Pro-russische Proteste zur russischen Invasion in der Ukraine 2022 references 86 sources. Xx236 (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Is this page about sentiments or discrimination?Xx236 (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-accuses-uk-anti-russian-sentiment-third-man-charged-ex-spys-poisoning-1631275 Russia's Foreign Ministry accused Britain of using the case to "fuel anti-Russian sentiment

https://redfame.com/journal/index.php/smc/article/view/5426 Touching Distance: The underlying Russophilia in the Skripal Case Coverage in Greek Press

An academic analysis of UK media coverage would be fascinating, I hope I'll find it.Xx236 (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Xx236 thank you! I've added the Times link. The Greek Press analysis looks really interesting too.

As for the Newsweek one, I couldn't find where it talks about sentiment or something related to it, could you copy-paste a quote you had in mind? Another issue with it is its listed as "not generally reliable" in WP:NEWSWEEK. PaulT2022 (talk) 07:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Russia's Foreign Ministry accused Britain of using the case to "fuel anti-Russian sentiment in British society." As far as I remeber the statement has been quoted by several sources. It is a Russian opinion, so rather unimportant. UK people seem to be really impassive.Xx236 (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Further reading citation style

@Mikeblas, I've changed cite to vcite in the Further reading section (not references) as most of the further reading items listed without template use Vancouver style. I think using cite is better, but to have Further reading list looking consistently someone would have to change other 20-30 items that don't use template to the cite style; so changing items added with templates to vcite was quicker. Didn't realise it would break references - sorry! If you or someone else disagree - please feel free to revert/change as desired. PaulT2022 (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Sentiments against Russia is not equatable discrimation

This article is filled with sections and sources which conflate sentiments against Russia with hate against Russians. This is unsupported and WP:OR.

This discrepancy is rather obvious to all readers and does not sit well.

I propose the article is either:

• Dedicated to exactly one of sentiments against Russia or sentiments against people of Russian descent. All sections and sources for the alternative are either removed or moved.

• Or, the opening and all sections are clear about the distinction, specific in their claims, and rely on sources actually supporting those claims.

Regardless, all statements and references must be updated where these terms are conflated. Sources of sentiments against Russia are not sources of prejudice, fear or hatred of people of Russian origin.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by C. lorenz (talk • contribs) 22:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I support making the distinction between sentiment against Russia and Russians clear where there are sources that support this view. (Its not universal. For example, US polls usually demonstrate that the two are closely related, whereas in Ukraine they're drastically different.)

As for separating discrimination, the major problem with this approach is that, outside of dictionaries, prejudice, hatred and discrimination become interrelated. There is a practical problem of sources combining discrimination with sentiment (for example, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/04/20/national/yoshimasa-hayashi-russian-discrimination-concerns/) - which of the two articles they would need to be added to? What about Anti-Russian sentiment#World War II? Lastly, the editorial practice for other 'Anti-national sentiment' articles in WP is to combine sentiment and discrimination in the same article.

If there is strong feel that discrimination shouldn't be discussed in articles about sentiment, I would propose a formal RFC with a question whether discrimination should be included in the articles titled "Anti-<national/ethnic> sentiment". PaulT2022 (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

My concern is mostly with your first point. The second is fine.

I would add to that though that we should not inject an interpretation in a poll whether the two are likely correlated. It should be citable as is or together with a source showing them sufficiently equivalent.

I would also propose that the article in the lead and throughout makes this distinction clearer. This matters plenty to readers because understandably there can be rational (as well as irrational) reasons for negative sentiments against nations; while there are rarely rational reasons for discrimation against a person on basis of origin. There is an association, and that makes for an interesting section to add, but they are not the same and it is not supported to equate them.

The article's lead does not seem to make any recognition of this. It opens as though the focus of the article is discrimation against Russians, and then most sections are actually about cite sources of sentiments against Russia over time. The body or lead should be updated to resolve this inconsistency.

As a counterpoint, I don't think one should miss the importance of the association and effects between sentiments against a nation and those associated with the nation. I think that is however best covered by adding a section discussing this and not to equate the concepts.

I am not saying that one should be so precise in meaning as to distinguish discrimation from hatred from prejudice. The problem is when terms of similar meaning are exchanged without considering the context. Especially in multiple steps. E.g. a paragraph which opens by talking about discrimination against Russians should not have an exposition that culminates in citing a poll where people were asked about their sentiment of Russia's global impact. Most notable for this article, Russophobia is a term with multiple but distinct senses. It can mean negative sentiments against Russia or against Russians (among other as we debate). Even if it one word, one cannot freely switch senses when making a claim.

So my suggestion is to make the article lead and body clearly recognize the distinction between sentiments against a nation and sentiments against a people, be clear in its claims and sources, but not forego recognizing that there is also an association between the two. The article oddly does not do this today and I think that is does not sit well with most readers. C. lorenz (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

This matters plenty to readers because understandably there can be rational (as well as irrational) reasons for negative sentiments against nations; while there are rarely rational reasons for discrimation against a person on basis of origin. - the reason why it appears that the article is currently skewed away from this seemingly logical balance is that there are almost no sources that would support the point of view where negative sentiment against Russia and/or Russians is rational. Whereas the opposite point of view, that anti-Russian sentiment is irrational, as well as it conflates sentiment against country and its people, is prevalent, especially in academic sources on 19th century British Russophobia or modern US anti-Russian sentiment. See the introduction of the Bayulgen and Arbatli article for details, as well as US academics referenced in the United States section of the article.

So the lead barely talks about it because the sources that represent this POV (if they exist) weren't added to the article body. Shifting balance in the article towards what "sits well with most readers" without sources would be a WP:FALSEBALANCE. (I suspect that excessive amount of statistics and some conflations are partly explained by the fact that pollsters usually declare temporal correlation, which allows to make statements such as "anti-Russian sentiment worsened after Russia's 2014 actions", which some editors considered to be necessary to present sentiment against Russians in context.)

I agree about Russia's global impact and proposed to remove it in #Too much statistics previously; support the need to clarify differences between anti-Russian sentiment and sentiment against Russians where they've been conflated. PaulT2022 (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Trump-Russia collusion

This article isn't the place to rehash debates about the veracity of the Steele Dossier (or parts of it) or the allegations about collusion between Trump and Russia. Stuff like that is off-topic and putting it in here in any substantial and non-neutral way is a violation of WP:COATRACK. Volunteer Marek 01:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

This was a substantial source for growth of the anti-Russian sentiment in the US during investigation in 2017-2019 and should be included as essential context per WP:WINAC. I welcome input on what more "neutral" way would be, especially the sources that see it differently than was presented in the article. PaulT2022 (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

We should of course mention the role that the allegations of the collusion played in any changes in attitudes towards Russia, but using this article to start an argument or push a POV about whether these allegations were true or not or to what extent moves it into WP:COATRACK territory. Volunteer Marek 02:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek how would you suggest to phrase it neutrally?

The text you've removed twice doesn't discuss if the allegations were true: just that the source was unreliable and yet extensively covered by the media. PaulT2022 (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The text most certainly did discuss if the allegations were true. Volunteer Marek 04:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek where? "Commentators criticized media coverage of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections that continued for years and presented later discredited allegations of collusion between a Republican Donald Trump and Russia as credible." - it talks about extent of the media coverage of the allegations that were discredited. There's no statement as to whether they're true or not.

(If you're referring to another sentence about the Reuters poll that I've added to put "The sharper distaste among the Democrat population stands in contrast to the prior history of American public opinion on Russia, as Republicans were formerly more likely to view Russia as a greater threat" into context, I don't have a strong opinion whether it belongs and didn't attempt to restore it. That sentence didn't state whether they were true or not either by the way.)

Either way, the question stands: if "We should of course mention the role that the allegations of the collusion played in any changes in attitudes towards Russia", but the previous wording seemed to "push a POV", I'd like to understand how exactly you propose to phrase this in a neutral way while staying true to the sources. PaulT2022 (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Germany

"Russophobic incidents and harassments skyrocketed in 2022" - the statement ignores the context:

• pro-Putin corsos https://www.rbb24.de/politik/thema/Ukraine/beitraege/berlin-autokorso-russland-ukraine-krieg-z-symbol-ermittlung-demo.html https://www.wz.de/nrw/von-koeln-nach-bonn-pro-russischer-auto-korso-mit-hunderten-fahrzeugen-was-steckt-dahinter_aid-67536651
• May 9 conflict https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/news/9-mai-berlin-live-tag-des-sieges-polizei-mit-grossaufgebot-im-einsatz-li.226766 Xx236 (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Charactarized as radical nationalist?

Putin nor the russian goverment is not radically nationalist there is an argument to made for imperialism but not radical nationalism, as the nationalism of Vlademir Putin’s Russia is civic, multiracial and multicultural. Putin is a murderer Putin is an autocrat but he is not a xenophobe and trying to frame him as that is not helpful in discussing the issues facing russia. 86.114.193.101 (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Two sources use this characteristic; my understanding is that it refers to the official narrative sounding awfully lot like Alexander Prokhanov and the likes. I see how the term is imperfect because of the xenophobic/neo-fascist connotations, which aren't really meant by the sources as far as I can tell. If there is a more precise term for the pandering to nationalist-minded views, I'd prefer to use it instead of the vague "radical nationalism". PaulT2022 (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Aspects of Putin’s nationalism are also imperial, Great-Russian, anti-nationality, and fascist, according to respectable academics in history, international relations, &c. (Are you going to make me present sources?) No single compromise characterization will be perfect. —Michael Z. 14:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Estonia - cultural colonialism

The controversial German pro-Russian Gabriele Krone-Schmalz is the main source regarding Estonia. Her opinions about Germany are ignored. [User:Xx236|Xx236]] (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

"racially motivated hate crime" - where exactly does the old report say 'racially'? Here is an another report. https://humanrights.ee/en/2017/07/rassism-rassiline-diskrimineerimine-ja-migratsioon-eestis-2015-2016/ Xx236 (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Racially motivated hate crimes

To expand on the recent edit's comment by @AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, I remember reading discussion in the source noting that "less visible" nationalities generally experience much less racially motivated hate crimes (the source uses the term in a sense of ethnically motivated as far as I recall), so always been uncomfortable about such comparison with average being presented throughout the article as two numbers without context (Estonian section isn't the only one that uses it). PaulT2022 (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The long-read version of the source if anyone would be interested to add context to these comparisons: https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2012-eu-midis-dif6_0.pdf; also, https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2012_hate-crime.pdf PaulT2022 (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

This article definitely needs to be monitored for Russian victim propaganda of the type I deleted. Some sections really boggle my mind. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Too much statistics

I think there's too much statistics in the beginning of the article. Possible solution:

1. Move three paragraphs of text from Statistics section, as well as 2022 infographics, to appropriate sections under History
2. Remove the 2019–2020 YouGov Cambridge poll, as it shows views on influence rather than the sentiment
3. Either delete, or move to "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine", the Views of Russia data tables by Pew/DPI
4. Add links to statistical sources to the External Links section

--PaulT2022 (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

As a possible alternative to deletion, I propose that the statistical data tables are split into a separate page called Views of Russia opinion polling or similar.

Current presentation of these tables lacks context: positioning of 2019-2022 statistics next to the 18th-20th century is confusing to say the least. Relevant excerpts of the data from the polls are already mentioned in the article text and I don't see what these tables add to the article.

The current situation is untenable per WP:NOTSTATS and I'd like to solicit a wider input before doing any bold edits.

Pinging @Juihui: who added the tables. PaulT2022 (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I've removed tables from the article per WP:NOTSTATS; don't think they improve the article in the current form. PaulT2022 (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Removed statistical tables

Results of the Democracy Perception Index 2022. Perception of Russia by country Sorted by Pos-Neg Country polled Positive Negative Don't know Pos-Neg Poland 5% 87% 8% -83 Portugal 4% 83% 13% -79 Ukraine 6% 80% 14% -74 Denmark 6% 79% 14% -73 Ireland 7% 77% 16% -70 Sweden 9% 77% 15% -68 Spain 9% 75% 17% -66 Japan 7% 72% 21% -65 United Kingdom 9% 74% 17% -65 Canada 8% 71% 21% -63 Austria 9% 72% 19% -63 South Korea 10% 73% 18% -63 Germany 10% 71% 19% -62 United States 9% 70% 21% -62 Brazil 10% 71% 19% -61 Norway 11% 72% 17% -61 Netherlands 9% 69% 22% -60 Belgium 9% 68% 23% -59 Italy 10% 65% 26% -55 Australia 12% 67% 21% -55 Romania 10% 64% 27% -54 France 11% 65% 24% -54 Switzerland 13% 60% 28% -47 Chile 11% 58% 30% -47 Taiwan 12% 57% 32% -45 Argentina 15% 55% 30% -41 Colombia 16% 53% 31% -37 Venezuela 15% 51% 34% -36 Iran 15% 50% 35% -35 Israel 17% 52% 31% -34 Peru 19% 52% 29% -33 Kenya 22% 55% 23% -32 Hungary 16% 48% 36% -32 Singapore 16% 48% 36% -31 South Africa 19% 49% 32% -30 Turkey 21% 46% 33% -26 Greece 22% 45% 33% -23 Mexico 21% 43% 36% -22 Nigeria 30% 39% 31% -10 Hong Kong 28% 35% 36% -7 Thailand 26% 30% 45% -4 Philippines 29% 32% 39% -4 Morocco 30% 26% 44% +4 Egypt 36% 29% 35% +7 Malaysia 32% 23% 45% +9 Saudi Arabia 36% 24% 40% +11 Indonesia 28% 13% 59% +15 Algeria 43% 14% 43% +29 Pakistan 48% 17% 34% +31 Vietnam 46% 13% 41% +33 India 56% 20% 24% +36 China 59% 10% 30% +49 Russia 81% 5% 13% +76 Results of 2019–2020 YouGov Cambridge poll. Views of Russia's influence by country Sorted by Pos-Neg Country polled Positive Negative Don't know Pos-Neg Denmark 7% 70% 23% -63 United Kingdom 8% 68% 24% -60 Poland 13% 63% 24% -50 Sweden 15% 61% 25% -46 United States 16% 60% 24% -44 Japan 12% 54% 34% -42 Canada 19% 54% 27% -35 Germany 20% 54% 26% -34 Australia 24% 54% 22% -30 Spain 25% 49% 26% -24 Turkey 34% 48% 18% -14 France 28% 42% 30% -14 Italy 36% 34% 30% +2 Saudi Arabia 38% 29% 34% +9 South Africa 47% 36% 17% +11 Brazil 52% 31% 16% +21 Egypt 57% 19% 24% +38 Thailand 53% 14% 33% +39 Nigeria 64% 22% 14% +42 Mexico 61% 17% 22% +44 Indonesia 63% 12% 24% +51 China 71% 15% 13% +56 India 73% 12% 15% +61 Results of 2019 Pew Research Center poll. Views of Russia by country Sorted by Pos-Neg Country polled Positive Negative DK/no answer Pos-Neg Sweden 12% 83% 4% -71 Netherlands 23% 74% 3% -51 United States 18% 67% 14% -49 Japan 25% 69% 7% -44 United Kingdom 26% 68% 6% -42 Australia 26% 63% 11% -37 Lithuania 29% 64% 7% -35 Canada 30% 63% 12% -33 Spain 29% 62% 8% -33 France 33% 61% 6% -28 Poland 33% 59% 8% -26 Ukraine 32% 58% 11% -26 Czech Republic 34% 59% 7% -25 Germany 35% 57% 8% -22 Hungary 35% 47% 18% -12 Turkey 39% 47% 13% -8 South Africa 33% 40% 27% -7 South Korea 42% 47% 10% -5 Israel 45% 49% 6% -4 Italy 43% 47% 10% -4 Brazil 34% 35% 31% -1 Lebanon 43% 43% 14% 0 Kenya 38% 27% 35% +11 Argentina 36% 26% 38% +10 Nigeria 41% 31% 28% +10 Tunisia 42% 30% 28% +12 Mexico 39% 27% 35% +12 Indonesia 39% 27% 34% +12 Philippines 56% 33% 11% +23 Greece 58% 34% 9% +24 Slovakia 60% 33% 7% +27 India 49% 14% 37% +35 Bulgaria 73% 19% 9% +54 References

Removal

• [22]. Speaking on the first paragraph:

1. first ref is a primary source (interview) about Steele dossier, not about anti-Russian sentiment.
2. 2nd source is a YouTube record, a primary source to not be used here.
3. 3rd source - a highly questionable personal opinion of Pozner "that mainstream journalists in both the U.S. and Russia contributed to the formation of the negative opinions the citizens of both countries have of each other" and that "They’re not journalists”. His opinion is rebutted in the source: “[Pozner] created a false equivocation, and I do not think we should treat Russian media and U.S. media equally”. This is more about Pozner himself and mass media, not about the subject of this page.

I do not mind including the point that Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections was driving anti-Russian sentiment in the USA, as this paragraph implies, but this point must be supported by strong RS.

Speaking about 2nd para in the diff, I think it can be kept (OK!) except last phrase that is not about anti-Russian sentiment. My very best wishes (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes is there a policy-based argument for excluding Pozner's opinion? If it makes wrong impression contradicting other sources, they can be included instead of just removing an opinion. PaulT2022 (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you really believe that the opinion by Pozner "They’re not journalists” (about all "mainstream" USA and Russian journalists who cover another country; this is 2018) is a reasonable opinion to be included to the page? If anything, this is WP:FRINGE and definitely not true, even with regard to many Russian journalists who worked during this time (one of them has received a Nobel Prize). I do not know how well you are familiar with presentations and views by Vladimir Pozner Jr.. He appeared a lot on Channel One Russia during times of Putin, when all independent journalists have been already excluded from the official state TV. But I would not say "he is not a journalist". Of course he is; that was just a matter of his personal connections, compromises, and supporting certain political narratives. Which does not make him such a great source here. My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The fragment you've removed from the article didn't say "they're not journalists". (I think "they're not journalists" is misquoted or taken out of context. If I recall correctly, in the talk itself Pozner was criticising journalism rather than journalists, but he does repeat it several times in different variations so it's possible that he used both wordings.)

The removed text called the coverage of the allegations "not a journalism", referring to unusual extent and length of coverage for materials that weren't verified by journalists (or proven by an investigation, which was still ongoing) and said that the coverage of the elections interference caused growth of fear and dislike.

I agree that "not a journalism" quote may need to be replaced if it can be misunderstood the way you described (referring to the journalists rather than editorial decisions made by the media), and use of related sources to provide context is obviously a matter of editorial judgement.

However, I don't think that this Pozner's opinion is WP:FRINGE (the one about the coverage that was removed from the article - not the one you're arguing with in the comment above) unless mainstream sources that say that the media coverage of Russian interference in the US didn't cause growth of anti-Russian sentiment exist. Furthermore, the talk in question was published by the official YouTube channel of Yale University. I consider it to be an expert's opinion published by a reputable source. It should be attributed as the Pozner's personal POV, of course.

I've done a lot of reading on the subject and did clean up this article from the broad "Western media sees Russia unfairly" narrative, which was not supported by anything, but for the US specifically sources do tend to talk about media impact on sentiment and I struggled to find ones that would talk about the negative sentiment being caused by the actions themselves. If such sources exist, I'd support using them to improve the article. PaulT2022 (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, that source says: Pozner also claimed that mainstream journalists in both the U.S. and Russia contributed to the formation of the negative opinions the citizens of both countries have of each other... “They’re not journalists,” said Pozner. “Those people are playing a destructive role in creating the fear, the dislike, [and] the distrust that the people [in both countries have towards each other].”. That is in context and about "journalists", not journalism. Now, speaking about this and other similar WP pages, they should not be about just "negative opinions". There are two very different situations. One is a legitimate criticism of country X and its political system. Another is just a negative attitude towards all people who belong to ethnic group X or live in country X. Only the latter is the subject of this page. Speaking about mainstream journalists (Pozner is talking about) which would be counted as RS by WP standards, they do the former. Someone like Soloviev making outrageous propaganda claims is not a mainstream journalist. My very best wishes (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Pozner talks about journalism at the minute 44, which follows a discussion of the interference coverage. The discussion of journalists (and the definition of who Pozner considers mainstream and why) is at minute 34. There's also an extensive discussion about contribution of journalists in forming anti-Russian sentiment around 1 hour mark. The bulk of his talk is about impact of media on anti-Russian sentiment.

Please provide RSs that contradict the opinion that mainstream journalists in both the U.S. and Russia contributed to the formation of the negative opinions the citizens of both countries have of each other (which I understand you consider FRINGE) or restore it in the article, as it was removed without an apparent policy-based reason. PaulT2022 (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course all US journalists writing about Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections contributed to "formation of the negative opinion" about Russia. But are the mainstream US journalists to blame for creating the negative opinion? No, one should blame people who conducted the actual "interference". "Fringe" and incorrect were also his views that “they [all US and Russian journalists] are not journalists". Only propagandists like Vladimir Solovyov (TV presenter) were indeed people to blame for creating the "anti" sentiment. My very best wishes (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. YouTube and a college newspaper blog are not exceptional sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

MVBW, FormalDude, do you have any sources that describe anti-Russian sentiment in the US around 2016-2018 in a way that doesn't include media coverage of Russian interference as a significant factor?

I don't believe Pozner's views are WP:EXCEPTIONAL/WP:FRINGE. For example, Nina L. Khrushcheva makes a point similar to the removed one by Pozner in https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2020/06/02/commentary/world-commentary/russian-derangement-syndrome/ and https://www.cenzolovka.rs/english/khrushcheva-media-creates-a-perception-of-reality-and-people-live-in-it-rather-than-in-their-actual-factual-life/. If you need a secondary source, this opinion of Khruscheva is quoted in the section describing Mueller's report in J. L. Black's 2021 book Russia After 2020: Looking Ahead After Two Decades of Putin.

The allegation expressed by MVBW above that Pozner's work on Russian state TV is a "matter of his personal connections, compromises, and supporting certain political narratives" is unsourced and likely should be removed per WP:BLPTALK. His opinions are published in major newspapers (The Times, Financial Times) without describing him as propagandist in post-Soviet Russia. In particular, FT presents his view that US press emphasises advocacy over journalism without branding it fringe and incorrect. Vladimir Pozner Jr. article doesn't describe him as a modern-day propagandist, or his views as fringe either.

I intend to request a formal closure of this discussion as my understanding of the guidelines is that an opinion can be deemed fringe if it contradicts the mainstream views published in reliable sources. No contradicting sources were provided in the discussion and Pozner's opinion is consistent with at least one other expert opinion with secondary coverage in a Routledge-published book. PaulT2022 (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC); clarified per discussion below 05:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You say: His opinions are published in major newspapers (The Times, Financial Times) without describing him as propagandist. How come? Your 1st ref says [23] right in the 2nd phrase: Yet in all the time he spent working as one of the chief propagandists of the Soviet Union he never felt as anxious about the prospect of conflict as he does today.. As about the rest, I already responded just above ("Yes, of course all US journalists ..."). Speaking on the reasons why he was allowed to make these presentations on Russian TV, this is something he publicly debated himself. Personally, I liked presentations by Pozner and watched them with interest; he is a gifted journalist (and was a gifted propagandist too). My very best wishes (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I should've said "without describing him as propagandist during the post-Soviet period of his career", thank you for the correction. PaulT2022 (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

That's why I phrased his work on Russian TV under Putin differently, i.e. not as an outright propaganda, even when he was telling that all of them (including him?) are not journalists. My very best wishes (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes, do I understand correctly that your arguments against including Pozner's opinion on interference coverage and its impact on sentiment are that it's incorrect and WP:FRINGE? Is this based on the fact that he worked in propaganda in Soviet Union or you have any contradicting sources that describe post 2016 sentiment in the US? Does it also apply to similar opinion expressed by other sources I cited above?

You did mention in the first comment in this discussion that better RSs are needed and a primary source can't be used - could you elaborate on this as well? WP:RS/QUOTE prescribes to cite primary source for quotes whenever possible. PaulT2022 (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Does anti-war demonstration count as "anti-Russian sentiment"?

Is every demonstration against the invasion of Ukraine going to be included in this article as an example of "anti-Russian sentiment"? Specifically, do the three instances in the Canada section of painting buildings as protest against the Ukraine invasion count as valid content here? Because this seems to contradict the several paragraphs which clarify the topic area in the lede, which make it pretty plain that this article is going to concentrate on things such as "intense and often irrational hatred of Russia", "state-sponsored mistreatment and propaganda against Russians", and "prejudice or hatred against Russians". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you have to take a stance and fight for it as the primary editor of the article seemed to express previously in the talk page that negative sentiments are primarily due to propaganda and that there is no need to distinguish valid critique from irrational hate. I think the article has fundamental and serious issues with NPOV and OR but to address this, it may require significant rewrites with various editors on board. --C. lorenz (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, this article definitely requires an editors' brigade to man the front lines: it's a classic "we will have trouble with this forever" article. Frankly I'd say we should also escalate to admin, to set some site-wide rules about the allowable content of "anti-X sentiment" articles: e.g. any article about anti-X sentiment must have third party scholarly sources, not just a WP:SYNTH-violating list of news stories added to an article that some editor himself thinks embodies anti-X sentiment. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree on the suggestion to elevate this to ANI to discuss topic bans / editing restrictions.  // Timothy :: talk  15:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

This isn't an ANI. It's an RFC, to set a clear policy across a class of article. ANI is specifically for reporting user conduct problems. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware of ANI's purpose  // Timothy :: talk  16:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

PS I see that you already tried to initiate this exact same discussion in July 2022 (in archive 8 of the talk page). In fact the first topic in Archive 8 is a discussion of the same problem from 2018. No consensus is explicitly given in either. Maybe we simply need to invite back the other editors in these discussions (Kawnhr, Turaids, Calthinus and PaulT2022) to see if we actually can establish a "consensus" about what constitutes "anti-Russian sentiment". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

A clear distinction between anti-Russian sentiment and anti-Slavic sentiment, anti-Soviet sentiment, anti-Russophone sentiment, anti-Putin sentiment and anti-war sentiment is indeed long overdue for this article and the lack of it already becomes apparent in the second paragraph of the lead section. For one, the Nazi view on Slavs in general and mistreatment of Soviet POWs should go in the corresponding articles, unless third party scholarly sources explicitly propose that anti-Russian sentiment had a distinguishable role in those broader negative sentiments, in which case it should be worded as such. –Turaids (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Nazis expressed their views and plans for specifically Russians and the Russian state. Some of it is mentioned in the body. Certain Slavs were not deemed as "untermenschen" so this is not something that can classified as simply anti-Slavic sentiment and removed. Nazi attitudes to different ethnic groups was a case by case basis. Mellk (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, then it should be worded as such without making it sound like anti-Slavic and anti-Soviet sentiments by immediately bringing up "other Slavs" or "other ethnic groups that inhabited the Soviet Union". Not sure what you mean by "the Russian state" though, because at that time there was no "Russian state", only the Soviet Union. –Turaids (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Nazis intended for the destruction of Russia whether it was communist or not. It was not simply anti-Bolshevism: "the war is not being conducted against Bolshevism but against the Russian people", Vasily Biskupski concluded.[24] "The Russian must perish that we may live".[25] "The safety of Europe will not be assured until we have driven Asia back behind the Urals. No organized Russian State must be allowed to exist west of that line. They are brutes and neither Bolshevism nor Tsarism makes any difference" (Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944: Secret Conversations). Sure it can be reworded but additional information should also be included. Mellk (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

By oversimplifying the Soviet Union as "commmunist Russia" you're illustrating my point. If a disproportionate number of people of Russian ethnicity were among the Slavic civilians and POWs murdered by the Nazis then we should say that. If the Generalplan Ost targeted Russians disproportionally over other Slavic people and other ethnic groups of the Soviet Union then we should say that. –Turaids (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

If Nazis referred to it as Russia and Russians, and made clear their goal to destroy Russia in a political, cultural and ethnic sense, then it is accurate. Mellk (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The Nazis oversimplifying the Soviet Union as Russia doesn't objectively make it as such either, and none of the quotes pulled from the sources used to reference the second paragraph of the lead section mention Russia or Russians specifically. Don't you see the WP:SYNTH? There surely have to be better sources and more accurate wording than what we have now. –Turaids (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I also did not oversimplify the Soviet Union as "communist Russia". Mellk (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is being proposed? Also, there were many more editors involved in editing of the scope in the lead in the recent months.

If it's changing the scope to discuss only prejudiced sentiment and irrational hate, I think it'd be a mistake. I've seen attempts to redefine Russophobia as necessarily prejudiced mostly in Russian official statements. Most dictionary definitions of Russophobia define it as dislike; similarly, dictionary definitions of "sentiment" don't imply prejudice or rationality. I don't understand the argument for ignoring sources and basically going by the Kremlin's definition. PaulT2022 (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

1 - I'd suggest that all "anti-X sentiment" articles should have the same scope - and that's especially necessary here, where the present Russian state has woven this topic into their own victim mythology. 2 - If the scope is too broad, people will just add in every newspaper article where a Russian says someone made them feel sad as an example of "anti-Russian sentiment", and the article turns into a mess of WP:SYNTH. Someone of significance in the study of anti-X sentiment needs to call it that in a reliable (preferably scholarly) source, or else adding things willy-nilly is just original research. 3 - Let me crystallize this by referring back to my first post: is it "anti-Russian sentiment", in the character of (quotes from the lede) "intense and often irrational hatred of Russia", "state-sponsored mistreatment and propaganda against Russians", and "prejudice or hatred against Russians", for some people to pour paint on something as a demonstration against the Russian invasion of Ukraine? Because my trimming of those instances in the Canada section of this article got reverted due to "no consensus". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

A "demonstration against the Russian invasion" does not preclude it also being a hate crime inspired by anti-Russian sentiment. These churches were targeted because they are Russian cultural and community centers. There are plenty of sources stating these acts are hate crimes directed at the Russian community, what source do you have that they are just "demonstrations" (not crimes) against the war not directed specifically at Russians?  // Timothy :: talk  22:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The sources that you actually added for those three instances that I deleted don't even call these instances "hate crimes". One single source, in the Victoria case, merely said the police included a hate crime officer in the investigation to determine "whether" it could be classed as a hate crime. Meanwhile, all 3 instances occurred quickly after the Russian invasion of the Ukraine began: two involved red paint (used in demonstrations as an accusation of "blood on your hands"), while one used blue and yellow paint - the colours of the flag of Ukraine. Adding these is WP:SYNTH. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The sources make it very clear these are criminal acts against innocent people which are motivated by anti-Russian sentiment. The claim that they are demonstrations does not change this, they are not mutually exclusive.  // Timothy :: talk  01:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

1. This is a good point and I proposed to have a 'global' RfC on the scope of the 'anti-X sentiment' articles previously if there's a sense that they're too broad currently.

2. This is a self-contradictory argument. If scope is indeed the issue and material from sources within it is added, then having it in the same article isn't synth. If something in the article isn't reliably sourced, this can be handled without changing scope. If there's a concrete proposal on splitting reliably sourced material in the article, let's discuss it.

3. Sources seem to be saying that the vandalism in question is motivated by hatred/sentiment. PaulT2022 (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to hand the discussion over to you and the other editors I called in. I agree with your (1) and strongly encourage an RfC either on this article or all "anti-X sentiment" articles, and I am willing to let (2) be decided by the editors joining that RfC (who have invested more in this article than me). As for your (3), though.... I expect an "anti-X sentiment" article to be on anti-X sentiment, not a collection of news stories added of a thing happening where some journalist or interviewee opines (or the WP editor SYNTHs) that "this incident is motivated by anti-X sentiment". This article is not list of Anti-Russian incidents; broadening the scope to generalize the topic to that extent, if done in all articles, would mean that (for example) an article on "anti-Jewish sentiment" would end up including a news report of every single time someone at a pro-Palestine demonstration waves a Flag of Israel with a swastika on it. That would fail WP:DUE. Anyway, I think an RfC is a great idea and there are enough better editors than me here now that I'm sure you'll see it through. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

To your latter argument, this is exactly how articles on anti-Jewish sentiment are written: Antisemitism_in_Canada#1950–present. We have to be careful about weight, and I'd support replacing news sources with academic sources once they become available (my impression is it takes about five years after events on average), but a decision to define scope of anti-X sentiment articles to exclude news sources entirely needs a wider discussion. WT:DISCR or WP:NORN (if there's OR concern) may be the right place to start, followed by an RfC. PaulT2022 (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd personally say that that Anti-Semitism article in Canada section is terrible and needs to be fixed. It represents exactly what I'm railing against here: too many "I found a news article about an anti-Semitic incident!" additions, and not enough concentration on broad-scope discussion like the B'nai Brith reports that are also referenced there. It's too bad that WP:NOT is so damn long that few editors ever reads it, and that WP:TRIVIA is too specific a guideline to refer to here, but basically my entire argument here boils down to a spot right between those two: adding one-sentence references to news stories is what bad university students do to pad out an essay's references section for a TA who won't read it - it's not a positive contribution to a Wikipedia article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that a general RfC would be useful but even without that, I think this and many other articles are already presently against WP policy on the basis of NPOV (lacking balance) and OR (equating terms).

I think what editors may need to settle on that is at the core of the discrepancy is whether the term `anti-Russian sentiment` means the same as `Russophobia` or whether it refers to all negative sentiments, including ones with a valid basis. There is presently little precedent on this and dictionaries mostly just describe the latter.

As myself and many commentators have pointed out in this and other anti-X articles is that they do not recognize any valid critique or dislike. I think this is in large part due to what the editors think the articles should be about, and likely the equating of things like anti-Russian sentiment with Russophobia. I would argue that these are two related but distinct terms - the former includes valid critique while the latter largely does not. This may also make many statements unsupported as sources use different terms from the article, as well as the paragraphs of the articles making cases where conclusions do not follow when senses are considered.

The article lead also does not seem to recognize the broader topic and focuses on the development of irrational negative sentiments. I think the article does a good job presently at covering this but I think we all recognize that both kinds exist and it sounds like the article should have an coverage of both. The primary editor of this article stated previously that this is due to there not being good sources supporting the alternative and that we should avoid WP:FALSEBALANCE. This is fair but looking to the article statements, I find this explanation unlikely considering that there are also many simply historical descriptions. I think a likely explanation is that they are again making this statement regarding Russophobia rather than negative sentiments more generally. I also do not think it is accurate to redefine a term by "what is is commonly referred as".

I think one of the following should be made true:

* Option 1: Conclude that anti-Russian sentiment means the same as Russophobia and that no coverage of valid critique is necessary. Eg with solid academic sources backing up this conclusion.

* Option 2: Conclude that the article is balanced wrt sources and clarify the reasons behind this in the lead or a section, as it is a concern of many readers.

* Option 3: Rename this article to Russophobia only and create a new one for broader anti-Russian sentiments.

* Option 4: Make the lead clear about what it discusses or not, and acknowledge the gap. This may involve introducing other articles to cover the gaps, move content, and possibly renaming of this article.

* Option 5: Make the article discuss all forms of negative sentiment from an objective POV which may also involve a balanced coverage of perspectives. This may require not equating anti-Russian sentiment with Russophobia.

* Option 6: Update all paragraphs to accurately reflect the actual terms used in source material and cut argumentation mixing up terms. This may require heavy editing and removal of content where this is not presently the case.

* Option 7: Add a section to the article discussing the different terms with caveats for the rest of the article.

Personally I would mostly favor of a policy aiming for Option 5 plus 6 plus 7.

--C. lorenz (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you so much that I want to quit this discussion and just read you. I'd also say Putinist "Russophobia" should in theory get forked to its own article... though I'm sure that would just stir up the trolls. But also, just want to reiterate, this article is not list of anti-Russian incidents, and just adding incidents willy-nilly (without proper scholarly framing of the sociological phenomenon) also violates WP:DUE as well as begging WP:SYNTH. The article anti-Jewish sentiment is a good example of what this type of article should become if it seriously follows WP policy; even look at anti-Japanese sentiment. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. You might be right that examples of events with elements of Russian hate might not be sufficiently sourced to make it to the article and rather requires a source making that connection. I frankly don't know enough on where that line is drawn.

Why do you say though that anti-Jewish sentiment is a good example? It also does not cover any valid negative critique. I think it is probably the strongest example against my case since it seems more excusable (but IMO, not) to treat anti-Jewish sentiments as being identical to antisemitism, and the latter is not a topic of rational dislike.

I am not sure what you are saying regarding Putin's form of "Russophobia"? The lead does mention that there are also studies indicating the term is used for propaganda. The article should cover Russophobia where sourced regardless of whether Putin says something similar. C. lorenz (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

A good example because it presents a summary of third-party study on the topic instead of an arbitrarily-added list of events. (The anti-Japanese sentiment article is even better, just use that as an example.) A person who comes to an encyclopedia to learn about a topic should learn the how, who, when and why, and not run into sequences of disjointed sentences on individual events each sourced from an online newspaper article.

Wikipedia was supposed to have moved beyond that 10 years ago, the WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE debates have already been had. Here's an extreme example to make my point: I could easily tediously add 100 reliably-sourced incidents to the 1950s-to-present section of the Antisemitism in Canada article tonight, each in its own unrelated sentence and with nothing holding it together. But I don't because I'd be scared of getting banned for vandalism; in any case, it's obvious that in the extreme it's a bad idea. That stuff can go in an "arbitrary list of events" article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Wow, when I saw that I had an alert, I wasn't expecting it to be for an article I haven't edited in years (no passive-aggressiveness; just surprise). To be frank, though, the reason I stopped is because I realized that fixing the article was too big a job without "community support" so to speak (consensus) — not just in editing it and keeping it safe from trolls, but the constant back-and-forth that would come about from editors having differing views on what the scope is, or whether something counts, etc. Just wasn't something I had the energy or interest to litigate constantly. So I support holding an RfC on this and other "anti-X sentiment" articles, because I think getting a large consensus on the definition/scope of the article, and more eyes on the article, is the only way this article is going to get in better shape. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

If you've moved on from working on this article, then perhaps an RfC would draw in a few people like you who would be happy to take over. Please just take a few days to initiate the RfC (I have never initiated one before). AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I share Kawnhr's feelings. I think agreeing on an overarching policy would be needed as the potential changes are too many to debate line by line. C. lorenz (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Embarrassingly, despite my years of active editing I have next to no idea how the bureaucratic side of Wikipedia functions. I don't know where or how to initiate an RfC for this. — Kawnhr (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I started a general discussion at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Scope_of_the_"Anti-N_sentiment"_articles. PaulT2022 (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)