→Latvian section: comments |
→Latvian section: comment |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 271: | Line 271: | ||
:[http://english.pravda.ru/world/ussr/09-11-2010/115704-latvian_nazism-0/ pravda] could be used here as well to add Mayo's reaction to the affair. And the fact that he survived the vote of no confidence. [http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/27318/] |
:[http://english.pravda.ru/world/ussr/09-11-2010/115704-latvian_nazism-0/ pravda] could be used here as well to add Mayo's reaction to the affair. And the fact that he survived the vote of no confidence. [http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/27318/] |
||
::The fact the FM survived no-confidence motion will be included. So will the fact that he didn't accompany Zalters to the first state visit by a Latvian leader to Russia in December 2010 -- before the visit Latvian media suggested that his going to Moscow would be a major setback; the FM seems to claim after the visit that the Kremlin didn't want him to be part of the delegation---of course that is pure hogwash as it would go against protocol, and for the Kremlin to demand his non-attendance would be a setback to desire to improve relations--the decision really seemed to have been a Latvian one. Also to be included will be the PS expelling Slucis from the party and apparently had his donations returned to him. the Mayo reaction is somewhat arbitrary to the article though I believe. Thoughts? --[[User:Russavia|Russavia]] <sup>[[User talk:Russavia|Let's dialogue]]</sup> 10:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
::The fact the FM survived no-confidence motion will be included. So will the fact that he didn't accompany Zalters to the first state visit by a Latvian leader to Russia in December 2010 -- before the visit Latvian media suggested that his going to Moscow would be a major setback; the FM seems to claim after the visit that the Kremlin didn't want him to be part of the delegation---of course that is pure hogwash as it would go against protocol, and for the Kremlin to demand his non-attendance would be a setback to desire to improve relations--the decision really seemed to have been a Latvian one. Also to be included will be the PS expelling Slucis from the party and apparently had his donations returned to him. the Mayo reaction is somewhat arbitrary to the article though I believe. Thoughts? --[[User:Russavia|Russavia]] <sup>[[User talk:Russavia|Let's dialogue]]</sup> 10:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::My thoughts are that some of the above is OR and speculation. I hope none of this will be in the article. But above all, this is not an article about Latvia-Russia relations, but about Russophobia. Thus diplomatic incidents and other inter-government issues are irrelevant. - [[User:BorisG|BorisG]] ([[User talk:BorisG|talk]]) 11:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::You wrote that According to Tsygankov, Russians in Lativa are subjected to ''racial' discrimination. This is a weird terminology, given that Russians and Latvians are of the same race. Are you sure Tsygankov uses the word ''racial''? [[User:BorisG|BorisG]] ([[User talk:BorisG|talk]]) 11:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Boris, if you are familiar with my editing history, I will often interject personal opinion on talk pages, but whenever I place anything in an article, it is meticulously sourced, and will be presented in an NPOV way, and will survive the most stringent verification, with the odd error here or there. Of course, some of the above is my own opinion, it is obvious what parts they are. As to relations, perhaps you might like to take a look at [[Talk:Estonia–Russia_relations#Merge_discussion]] and perhaps that discussion could be restarted as well. As to Tsygankov, he states: |
|||
{{quote|In addition, supporters of Eastern European nationalism drew the attention of the public and policy circles to Russia’s problems with ethnic nationalism. Accusing Putin of sponsoring and exploiting ethnic phobias, 52 they ignored the complex roots of ethnic violence and identity formation |
|||
in Russia. Some of these roots are similar to those of Western European countries, having to do with mass immigration from Muslim republics, while others result from poverty and the ideological vacuum left by the end of communism. The Russia critics also failed to analyze issues of ethnic discrimination against Russians in Eastern European states, such as Latvia and Estonia.}} --[[User:Russavia|Russavia]] <sup>[[User talk:Russavia|Let's dialogue]]</sup> 12:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:03, 17 June 2011
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Massive removal of sourced text and sources
This massive removal of sourced text and sourced is not acceptable. The article contains discussion of the discrimination of Russian-speakers, thus the material is relevant.
For example, the article contains this:
- Such claims have become more frequent during times of political disagreements between Russia and these countries and waned when the disagreements have been resolved
- Many of these individuals never chose any citizenship, leading to the development of significant numbers of people without citizenship. However, because they possess permanent residence permits, consular privileges, and other additional rights akin to citizenship, they are not stateless. While most of such people are Russophones, a significant portion—primarily Belarusians and Ukrainians—are not ethnic Russian. Despite this fact, the Russian Federation makes regular assertions claiming the presence of non-citizens in Estonia and Latvia constitutes evidence of anti-Russian ethnic-based citizenship discrimination.
Why is Martintg not removing all this with the same argumentation? At the same time, Martintg is unilaterally removing all opinions of international human rights organizations (reliable, third-party sources.) This is tendentious editing, pure and simple. Offliner (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Allegations of discrimination = existence of/proof of "anti-Russian" sentiment (aka Russophobia) is a synthesis. If you wish to demonstrate the existence of Russophobia, you would need, for example, a reputable and statistically valid survey of the non-Russian population expressing their loathing of ethnic Russians. Not allegations of discrimination. Hope this helps. Please don't state the connection is self-evident or obvious or there by definition, it's not. PetersV TALK 03:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please consider my proposal above for splitting the article into Russophobia and Allegations of anti-Russian prejudice and discrimination. That (the latter article) would allow you to present your sources without creating the synthesis. No one is tendentiously attempting to suppress information. I hope this helps. PetersV TALK 03:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not claiming that Allegations of discrimination = existence of/proof of "anti-Russian" sentiment. The article demonstrates a connection between discrimination and anti-Russian sentiment:
- Most claims of anti-Russian sentiment in Estonia and Latvia are made by Russian authorities, media and activists regarding political or economic discrimination against the large Russian minorities in these countries.
- Thus, it is not synthesis to include a discussion of the discrimination in this article. Note that the current version (favoured by Martintg) already contains such discussion:
- Such claims have become more frequent during times of political disagreements between Russia and these countries and waned when the disagreements have been resolved
- The nations of Estonia and Latvia, which had large populations of Soviet-era immigrants, restored their pre-occupation citizenship laws and criteria with some updates. For example, Latvia introduced the option of naturalisation and granting of citizenship to all persons born as residents of Latvia after restoration of independence in 1991. Application of the pre-occupation criteria led to recognition of citizenship to people who had been citizens at the time of the first Soviet occupation and their descendants. Large numbers of Soviet-era immigrants residing in both countries were granted permanent residence and expected to choose which post-USSR country's citizenship to acquire. The primary options included naturalisation in the host country or requesting continuance citizenship from the Russian Federation; Russia issued continuance citizenships upon request to any former USSR citizen until the end of 2000. A number of people also migrated to other countries and naturalised there.
- Many of these individuals never chose any citizenship, leading to the development of significant numbers of people without citizenship. However, because they possess permanent residence permits, consular privileges, and other additional rights akin to citizenship, they are not stateless. While most of such people are Russophones, a significant portion—primarily Belarusians and Ukrainians—are not ethnic Russian. Despite this fact, the Russian Federation makes regular assertions claiming the presence of non-citizens in Estonia and Latvia constitutes evidence of anti-Russian ethnic-based citizenship discrimination.
- This is not synthesis, it is context. But Martintg is removing none of this. Instead, he is mass-removing the opinions of international human rights organizations, which serve the exact same purpose in this article as the above text (providing context.) This is tendentious editing.
- My suggestion is this: either
- remove all text which is based on sources that do not specifically talk about "anti-Russian sentiment," but only talk about "ethnicity based discrimination" or such, or
- provide a decent discussion of discrimination (of which the opinions of human rights organizations are an essential part.)
- Like I have pointed out, Martintg's version contains a lot of such text and sources which do not discuss "anti-Russian sentiment," but only discrimination, citizenship laws or Estonia-Russia relations. Yet he is not removing this as "synthesis." He is only removing the opinions of human rights organizations on the same issue. Offliner (talk) 04:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Offliner that everything that is not directly related to "anti-Russian sentiment" should be removed. To equate discrimination with anti-Russian sentiment is synthesis. You have to provide a secondary source that discussed this connection in detail, otherwise it stays out. All countries discriminate on the basis of language, just because I can't get a job in the Russian public service because I do not speak Russian is not evidence of anti-Australian sentiment. --Martintg (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Also, could you point out where exactly do the sources for the first paragraph:
- Most claims of anti-Russian sentiment in Estonia and Latvia are made by Russian authorities, media and activists regarding political or economic discrimination against the large Russian minorities in these countries. Such claims have become more frequent during times of political disagreements between Russia and these countries and waned when the disagreements have been resolved
- Proof positive that—at least for now, it won't be long before we all twiddle at it—less is more. This has been a reasonably constructive exchange here. BTW, I would consider it progress to concentrate more on content and less on who thinks who should be perma-banned when my request there was that visitors to the conversation read a source and comment on their understanding of it. There was no need for your jab there subsequent to your edit here. PetersV TALK 13:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Baltic states
In regard to this court case brought against American attorney general by this Estonian-Russian family, after reading the cited source, being a court record, it is clear that there is an allegation by the plaintiff of "anti-Russian sentiment", but the court does not rule on the veracity of this allegation. So inclusion here is synthesis. --Martintg (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- What I put in doesn't say claim that the court ruled on the veracity of this allegation, so please explain again where the synthesis comes from. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- As the court did not rule, there is no confirmation of veracity of the charges which were the basis for requesting asylum, they could have been making it up to stay in the U.S., hence including as an example of anti-Russian sentiment is wholly inappropriate. VЄСRUМВА ♪ 03:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- How is this claim different from any other? Incidentally, having reread the source better, I found something I'd failed to recall. The IJ (judge) did rule on the veracity of the case, finding the testimony of the family to be true:
On September 18, 2000, the IJ denied Petitioners' applications for asylum and withholding of removal, but granted voluntary departure for each of the petitioners except Serdjuk, who had been present in the United States for less than a year before the commencement of removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b). The IJ found that Orehhova, her husband, and her son had "testified truthfully," and that all three had "suffered forms of harassment, discrimination, [and] recrimination on account of their ethnicity." However, the IJ concluded that "the degree of harm to which they were exposed prior to their [most recent] trip to the United States and that which they have established will be threatened if they return at this time does not []rise to the level required for [a] finding of persecution."2 Petitioners appealed the IJ's decision to the BIA, which summarily affirmed the decision on February 13, 2003. The BIA permitted Petitioners, including Serdjuk, an additional 30-day period within which to undertake voluntary departure.
- PasswordUsername (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- How is this claim different from any other? Incidentally, having reread the source better, I found something I'd failed to recall. The IJ (judge) did rule on the veracity of the case, finding the testimony of the family to be true:
- As the court did not rule, there is no confirmation of veracity of the charges which were the basis for requesting asylum, they could have been making it up to stay in the U.S., hence including as an example of anti-Russian sentiment is wholly inappropriate. VЄСRUМВА ♪ 03:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a good example that speaks for itself. After all, the couple chose to go all the way across the ocean traveling about 4000 miles to claim about "anti-Russian sentiment" in order to get into the US instead of going just coupler of miles across the border to Russia where they could have escaped the alleged "anti-Russian sentiment" much more easily. It's just a question if such attempts to get into the US should belong to an encyclopedia, and into an article about "anti-Russian sentiment"?--Termer (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Anti-Russia sentiment vs. Anti-Russian Sentiment
Hatred or fear of the country vs. fear of the ethnic group. They are actually very different, and definitely not necessarily overlapping. One should make that difference very clear. --Yalens (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
North Caucasus
Well, there has been discussion about this section before, now we seem to have it again. Russavia wants it deleted; Sander Sade reverted Rus. the first time; I have now restored it again.
I have seen two main reasons that people state for wanting to delete it: one that the North Caucasus is part of Russia, and the second that it is allegedly a WP:COATRACK. The first can be dismissed as it is not a reason for exclusion.
As for being a COATRACK, in order to be a COATRACK, it must be off-topic with regards to the title. Actually, it is not. It discusses the causes and manifestations of Anti-Russian sentiment in the Caucasus. Russian users may perceive it as biased, yes, because the North Caucasus is part of Russia (so I assume they don't like to be reminded that many of the residents of this region wish it wasn't); and because it recounts many of the causes of Russophobia in the Caucasus- i.e. the fear of Russia. However, people do not have a gene to fear a country.
In Anti-Americanism, there is plenty of discussion of what causes it- the view that the US is, quite bluntly, imperialist. I do not know the talk page of that page well, but it is on the page, and it has stayed. And this is English wikipedia. I fail to see why Russia's page on the negative views of itself should be any different. Indeed, there are cases where I wonder if this page is biased in the other direction- like claiming that Estonia's anti-Russian sentiment is rooted in Nazi propaganda (as opposed to being existent before but eclipsed).
Although in general, the (country)-(phobia) pages are generally lacking in quality. But, to the point, it is on topic; it is not nearly as biased as some people may claim (in my opinion, as what it reports is more or less the case); and it is well-sourced (4 sources per 3 paragraph section without much depth).
Though, there is a case to make that these pages on Anti-(insert country) sentiment are generally bad articles, as they give very limited info based on polls with little depth, explanation, etc... --Yalens (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'll put it in this perspective: were I to write an article about anti-Chechen sentiment, I would probably have to note that the massive amplification of anti-Chechen sentiment has to do with the view that Chechens are gangsters paired with the recent Russo-Chechen wars and the terrorist attacks (all of these amplify the original view by some Russians that Chechens are half-civilized mountain "bandits"). The terrorist attacks in particular are deeply embarrassing for many Chechens. But you'd still have to note it, and it should not be considered COATRACK to discuss it.--Yalens (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with anti-Chechen sentiment, but Russophobia. The reasons for it being a coatrack are simple. Although the Caucasus has never been the subject of any formal studies or polls, it is widely thought[by whom?] that the Caucasus may be highly Russophobic. That this statement is unsourced and uses weasal words indicates that what is going to follow is a coatrack, and it is right. This is due to the legacy of the Tsarist Empire and the Soviet Union which saw numerous conflicts between Moscow and the Caucasian peoples (or between the Russian settlers and the natives); inequity between natives and more recent arrivals (inogorodtsy); and most of all a handful of massive deportations (both during the Tsarist Empire and the Soviet Union, one of which, the so called Muhajir totaling over a million.[17] Firstly, the reference used is a press release, which is to be avoided in an encyclopaedic setting, and secondly, the link only gives some credence to the number of people deported. It doesn't cover Russophobia at all. In the case of deportations under the Soviet Union, when the deportees returned, tensions mounted between them and recent settlers on their old lands (as was especially the case with the deportation of the Chechens in 1944, returning in 1957). Now, in the modern day, Russia has fought two wars against Chechens, where many other Caucasian peoples have come to the aid of the Chechens unofficially. This is totally unreferenced, and again it has nothing at all to do with Russophobia. There have often been reports of anti-Russian activity even in Republics far removed from the Chechen Wars. For example, journalist Fatima Tlisova released an article in 2009 discussing the frequent occurrences of crosses being sawed off buildings and thrown off mountains in Circassia, due to the cross being associated with the people who initiated the mass expulsions of Circassians.[18] The reference used here is more to do with anti-Christian sentiment in the Caucasus than any Russophobia, and even then it is on pretty thin ice to use it to back up the section itself. In a report by the Jamestown Federation, dealing with the topic of the (extremely positive) reception of John McCain's statements about Russia's "double standards in the Caucasus" (referring to how Russia recognized South Ossetia but would not let Chechnya go), one Chechen was quoted to have gone so far as to tell the website that Chechnya "cannot exist within the borders of Russia because every 50 years... Russia kills us Chechens".[19] Again, this has nothing to do with Russophobia, it is simply a rack that is being used to hang a coat on to help portray the synthesis of the original statement. It has nothing to do with wanting to whitewash any information, so please, cut that rubbish out right there. If there is indeed Russophobia in the Caucasus then it will be possible to find sources which explicitly state this, and also delve into the issue in greater detail, rather than using original research, and then hanging a few coats to back up that OR. This is not how an encyclopaedia operates. That is why I have removed the section from the article. Also, the WP:BURDEN is on any editor restoring information to ensure that everything is sourced. This has not be done either. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 21:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, first of all, the definition of Russophobia is rather vague. But if we take it by its roots Russo+phobia (fear of Russia), I am pretty sure that the assertion that Russia "kills Chechens every 50 years" is definitely a manifestation of "fear of Russia".
- And as for our "anti-Christian sentiment", that is an incorrect statement, if you read the article. They are specifically Russian Orthodox crosses that are being thrown off mountains (not Armenian Apostolic, which is also present in the region). Anti-Russian Orthodox in the Caucasus is pretty much synonymous with anti-Russia. The only other decently sized people that are Russian Orthodox in the region are the Ossetes, but there aren't really very many Ossetes in Circassia (and in addition, the main charge against the Ossetes is that they are viewed as servants of Moscow and "traitors"; unless you're Ingush in which case anti-Ossete feelings have a different dimension...but we are talking about Circassians here).
- And, I may remind you... almost every anti-(something) page is not good. This page is certainly no exception. Each of the sections on this page are deeply flawed, shallow, and the subject matter is vaguely defined, not to mention mainly a matter of (often fluid) opinions. I would say adding some depth would be good. --Yalens (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- As for much greater detail, we could easily have that as I can go into a description of the various reasons why people aren't particularly fond of Russia in the Caucasus... the wars, as Israilov put it "the plundering", the deportations, etc... and yet, according to you this is off-topic. When it is not when we are talking about Japan, about America, about Germany, etc, somehow. The fact is that, it is not off-topic (it is not on the page right now though). --Yalens (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Vecrumba's POV edit
Re [1], please read Wikipedia:No Ethnic Epithets. It seems that Vecrumba's edit is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT - he doesn't agree with the reliable source, therefore he adds ethnic epithets. Nanobear (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- What epithets? The content stated that the individual advocates for deporting people. That's nowhere in the party platform. The sources state he glorifies Nazism et al. Sorry, haven't found any such publications, only allegations in biased sources, and so had to remove the most inflammatory content as a potential WP:BLP violation. Unfortunately, political socialist advocacy sites and partisan Russian news sources are not "reliable" when it comes to objective portrayal of veterans of the Latvia Legion (Waffen SS) which was conscripted and fought against Soviet re-invasion, they just scream NAZI! That would be the epithet here. Please feel free to restore the inflammatory and libelous content if you find corroboration in a non-partisan reputable English language source. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 23:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- P.S. WP:IDONTLIKEIT would be deleting it. I merely represented the sources and what they state. You apparently equate any source contending "Latvians are Nazis!" with "reliable." PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 23:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The sources calling Mr. Visvaldis Lacis a neo-fasist both seem very pro-Russian.. They remind me of the boy who cried wolf. The British The Times does not seem to see this man as a neo-fasist. I shall check what RIA Novosti thinks about this man, I trust them. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- RIA Novosti simply calls him a notably nationalist. This seems to proof my suggestion that the sources calling him a neo-fasist are questionable sources and facts from questionable sources should be removed. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- @Yulia Romero: RIA Novosti is the press organ of the Russian government and is therefore no more reliable than a politician expressing their personal view. You will note the official Russian position is that the Latvian Legion were (Waffen) SS Nazis convicted at Nuremberg. (The facts are that the Latvian Legion were stationed as Allied guards at Nuremberg.) PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 01:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- @Yulia Romero: RIA Novosti is the press organ of the Russian government and is therefore no more reliable than a politician expressing their personal view. You will note the official Russian position is that the Latvian Legion were (Waffen) SS Nazis convicted at Nuremberg. (The facts are that the Latvian Legion were stationed as Allied guards at Nuremberg.) PЄTЄRS
I said I trusted RIA Novosti nothing else ; I only used English RIA articles as a source for articles about Ukrainian politics and when reporting about Ukraine in English RIA always looked just as neutral as BBC News to me. Since I am not much interested in other Eastern European countries I have no idea of the quality of RIA on other subjects. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- No offense taken. Where WWII, post-WWII and anything anti-Soviet is concerned, especially having to do with those nationalities that were the most active in opposing the USSR, my experience is that Novosti's contentions are better taken as opinion. I myself watch Russia Today periodically to get news otherwise not readily available, that said, my "filter" is always on to separate fact from portrayal. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 20:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)- @Nanobear: It's news to me that any Baltic sources contending something about the Soviet Union or Russia aren't immediately denounced on WP as biased and must be attributed as nationalist. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK - P.S. You're not advocating that known biased sources should not be described as such when they are denouncing living persons in print? PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 02:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)- The RIA Novosti article mentions nothing about russophobia in connection with Visvaldis Lacis, so how is this relevant to this article? Nor do I understand how being elected head of the Citizenship Committee in Latvia’s Parliament is an act of "russophobia". Seems like WP:SYNTH. --Martin (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- @Nanobear: It's news to me that any Baltic sources contending something about the Soviet Union or Russia aren't immediately denounced on WP as biased and must be attributed as nationalist. PЄTЄRS
I will remind you all to stick to what reliable sources say. We don't need any POV/OR editorialising in articles (such as "Russian and sympathetic sources"). If any editor wishes to dispute that RIA Novosti is a reliable source, then take it to WP:RSN because it meets the criteria of being a RS, and it will continue to be used on WP as such. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 10:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think we all agree that an article from the website of the Trotskyte International Committee of the Fourth International is not a reliable source in that case. RIA Novosti is also not an impartial source here; so if we include it, it would seem logical to include some Latvian source on that matter, too. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I see no rationale for maintaining that the Russian position (which we already know incorrectly labels the Latvian Legion as convicted SS war criminal Nazis) as expressed through its Novosti media outlet is reliable on this topic; certainly any such position cannot be put into an encyclopedia without full attribution. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 16:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I see no rationale for maintaining that the Russian position (which we already know incorrectly labels the Latvian Legion as convicted SS war criminal Nazis) as expressed through its Novosti media outlet is reliable on this topic; certainly any such position cannot be put into an encyclopedia without full attribution. PЄTЄRS
We can continue the conversation on RIA Novosti here, as suggested. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've noted RIA Novosti as Russian state media. As their news report does not actually indicate what is considered to be "radical", I've simply noted their contention as is. However, since that isn't very informative, I've added pertinent background on the party of which Lācis is a member from their party platform. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 18:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)- I'm still trying to understand how this is all relevant to the topic of "russopobia", since the RIA Novosti article mentions nothing about russophobia in connection with Visvaldis Lacis, nor do I understand how being elected head of the Citizenship Committee in Latvia’s Parliament is an act of "russophobia" either. Since when is advocating "phasing in Latvian language only core state-funded schooling while minorities would receive instruction in their people's history, traditions, and culture in their own respective languages; for elimination of discrimination in employment against those who are not literate in Russian and, more generally, opposing creation of a bilingual society; and for providing ongoing counseling and financial support to repatriate Russified and ethnic Russian minorities who do not wish to integrate into Latvian society" a form of "russophobia"? This whole section should be deleted as totally irrelevant. --Martin (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would agree it's a synthesis that either Lācis (nothing specific mentioned) or the unified party position (my summarizing points which I know have been misrepresented in the past in the Russian press, e.g., advocating for "deportation of ethnic Russians") are Russophobic. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 22:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would agree it's a synthesis that either Lācis (nothing specific mentioned) or the unified party position (my summarizing points which I know have been misrepresented in the past in the Russian press, e.g., advocating for "deportation of ethnic Russians") are Russophobic. PЄTЄRS
- I'm still trying to understand how this is all relevant to the topic of "russopobia", since the RIA Novosti article mentions nothing about russophobia in connection with Visvaldis Lacis, nor do I understand how being elected head of the Citizenship Committee in Latvia’s Parliament is an act of "russophobia" either. Since when is advocating "phasing in Latvian language only core state-funded schooling while minorities would receive instruction in their people's history, traditions, and culture in their own respective languages; for elimination of discrimination in employment against those who are not literate in Russian and, more generally, opposing creation of a bilingual society; and for providing ongoing counseling and financial support to repatriate Russified and ethnic Russian minorities who do not wish to integrate into Latvian society" a form of "russophobia"? This whole section should be deleted as totally irrelevant. --Martin (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- There are other sources. For example, Visvaldis Lācis is mentioned in Understanding ethnic violence, where he is quoted calling Russians in Latvia "nobodies" (p. 146),[2] and is mentioned in The Independent newspaper article "Thousands pay tribute to Latvia's fallen Nazi troops".[3] Lācis defends the Lativin SS in an article published on the white supremicist website Stormfront.[4] TFD (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to add the first source you cite. Given the penchant in the British press to pillory conservatives as allied with Latvian "Nazis" and the characterization of veterans' songs as "ominous," that's not objective reporting, and as for Stormfront, Lācis isn't responsible for what of his people publish where and the contents are not material to the article here regardless. 1 out of 3, at least.
- P.S. Although it's too bad there isn't actually any ethnic violence in Latvia, ethnic violence being the topic of the book.
- P.P.S. Actually on your first source, the quote from "Soviet Youth" (not a neutral source) is "You are not second-class citizens, you are nobody" allowing for some vagaries in transliteration back to the Russian. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 23:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- We must assume that The Independent is neutral in its coverage, unless similar rs describe the same events differently. Once we accept that then writing articles can proceed without endless discussion. PPS - when comments are repeated in rs, it does not matter whether the original source is rs. The rs writer can be relied upon to determine whether the original source is accurate in that specific circumstance, something we ourselves cannot do. TFD (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I am merely commenting on the quality and nuances of sources. Faith in sources need not be blind. The more there is the possibility of politicizing a situation to one's advantage (or opponent's detriment), the more likely it is to occur. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 00:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)- Even with the additional sources presented by TFD, I still don't see any dicussion of this person as "russophobic". For example the book Understanding ethnic violence, while it quotes Visvaldis Lācis as calling Russians in Latvia "political nobodies" while stating they should be accorded full social right, the book doesn't mention that this quote is a manifestation of "russophobia". The Independent article also makes no mention of "russophobia" in regard to Lācis. I think there is an issue of BLP here, so I have removed the text. --Martin (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- You might gain more respect for your arguments if they remained consistent. In Mass killings under Communist regimes and Communist terrorism for example almost all the content makes no reference to those terms, yet you continue to support their inclusion. TFD (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- @Martin: I do believe that there is often an intentional conflation of anti-Soviet meaning anti-Russian. Lācis'—and conservative parties' general issue—is the massive influx of peoples from the Soviet Union after WWII. Anyone arriving during that time is often viewed as not "automatically" deserving anything. (That said, I should mention that even so, anyone who came by their residence "legally" under the USSR was able to claim it; the rightful owners would be compensated otherwise but not get their family dwelling back.)
- @TFD: You have a truly remarkable capacity to not stay on topic. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 13:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)- It would be helpful if all editors maintained consistent standards. I do not agree that the discussion of standards is off topic. TFD (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- It would be more useful to stay on topic, this is not a forum to discuss people's editorial practices. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 14:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC) - And I'll violate my advice by observing that only on WP "Communist terrorism" needs to be referred to by that exact phrase, not in a simple discussion of terrorist acts by Communists because, inter alia, "Communist" could be an adjective referring to a method used by Communists in committing terrorism and not at all to an adherent of Communism or someone using Communism as justification committing terrorism. If we don't know which is referred to, then we can't include that source in an article. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 19:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)- @TFD, when we discuss living people, a higher standard of sourcing is required per WP:BLP. --Martin (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Peters. I did not call CT a method and would be appreciative if you did not misrepresent what I said. Martin, the BLP issue is being discussed but does that mean you will abandon your objections if it is sourced to Western media? TFD (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I was commenting on the nature of the general timbre of discussion at the article. As for sourcing, if the Duluth Times syndicates Russian state media as a straight feed, that does not qualify as Western media carrying a story or sourcing to Western media. And biased Western sources would need to be attributed per policy regarding opinions. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 14:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I was commenting on the nature of the general timbre of discussion at the article. As for sourcing, if the Duluth Times syndicates Russian state media as a straight feed, that does not qualify as Western media carrying a story or sourcing to Western media. And biased Western sources would need to be attributed per policy regarding opinions. PЄTЄRS
- Peters. I did not call CT a method and would be appreciative if you did not misrepresent what I said. Martin, the BLP issue is being discussed but does that mean you will abandon your objections if it is sourced to Western media? TFD (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- @TFD, when we discuss living people, a higher standard of sourcing is required per WP:BLP. --Martin (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- It would be more useful to stay on topic, this is not a forum to discuss people's editorial practices. PЄTЄRS
- It would be helpful if all editors maintained consistent standards. I do not agree that the discussion of standards is off topic. TFD (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- You might gain more respect for your arguments if they remained consistent. In Mass killings under Communist regimes and Communist terrorism for example almost all the content makes no reference to those terms, yet you continue to support their inclusion. TFD (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Even with the additional sources presented by TFD, I still don't see any dicussion of this person as "russophobic". For example the book Understanding ethnic violence, while it quotes Visvaldis Lācis as calling Russians in Latvia "political nobodies" while stating they should be accorded full social right, the book doesn't mention that this quote is a manifestation of "russophobia". The Independent article also makes no mention of "russophobia" in regard to Lācis. I think there is an issue of BLP here, so I have removed the text. --Martin (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- I am merely commenting on the quality and nuances of sources. Faith in sources need not be blind. The more there is the possibility of politicizing a situation to one's advantage (or opponent's detriment), the more likely it is to occur. PЄTЄRS
- We must assume that The Independent is neutral in its coverage, unless similar rs describe the same events differently. Once we accept that then writing articles can proceed without endless discussion. PPS - when comments are repeated in rs, it does not matter whether the original source is rs. The rs writer can be relied upon to determine whether the original source is accurate in that specific circumstance, something we ourselves cannot do. TFD (talk) 23:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Frankly speaking, I am not interested in contributing into this article, because, in my opinion, it is a collection of totally unrelated facts combined together to create an impression that the hate of Russians is something general, whereas in actuality the Russians, as well as every big nation, are doomed to incite strong emotions, from hate to admiration. In connection to that I recall the story of my Russian friend who had a dispute with his Sweden colleague, and his opponent claimed: "I hate Russia and the Russians". My friend's responce was brilliant: "And I mix up Sweden with Switzerland". "XXXphobia" is not possible only towards those nations, who live "sanza ’nfamia e sanza lodo", and, unfortunately, "lodo" is unseparable from "'nfamia".
In my opinion, the very concept of this article is deeply flawed: it is a collection of all manifestations of hate towards Russia, without any attempt to describe the reasons of these manifestations (which frequently were quite concrete in each case, quite different, and sometimes totally unrelated to each other), and without attempts to presents opposite examples, which are also quite abundant.
In summary, the article, along with MCuCR, CT, "Christian terrorism" and some others, belongs to a notorious series "All bad things about ...", which is in a profound contradiction with the WP policy.
@ Peters. If I understand this your phrase "And I'll violate my advice by observing that only on WP "Communist terrorism" needs to be referred to by that exact phrase, not in a simple discussion of terrorist acts by Communists" correctly, it seems to contain some reasonable ideas. Could you please explain what you mean in more details (on the more relevant talk page)? This my request is an actual reason of this my post.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- To the first, there are two things which are conflated here:
- Russophobia proper, the fear of Russia, called such as early as 1800 emanating from Britain and British India
- allegations of Russophobia on the basis of the Soviet legacy and its aftermath, which conflate resentment of an invading power and people seen as representing it (Russophones as opposed necessarily to ethnic Russians), and which also inappropriately equate anti-Soviet with anti-Russian (as exemplified by Medvedev's historical truth commission)
- syntheses of Russophobia via a laundry list of slights, epithets, etc. that have little to do with ethnic Russians or Russia proper
- This all basically ignores and does a grave injustice to an interesting and important subject. All it is now is a laundry list of countries which don't particularly care for their suffering under the Soviet boot. The article is junk.
- Going a bit off topic but while I'm here...
- On Christian terrorism et al., I think editors need to back off a bit and consider what is important about a topic. Terrorism is often justified as being for a just cause (eradicate colonial power, eradicate ethnic oppression, et al.). Those aspects should be discussed in the details on any particular terrorist individuals, cells, movements, regimes, events, movements. IMHO what is important, that is, what is it that informs our prejudices and gives rise to tensions and misunderstandings amongst us, is the underlying motivation, the underlying ideology which is used (or which promotes) terrorism as a means to an end. Any end which is noble cannot be attained by ignoble means. And so, if a Christian terrorist organization is killing in the name of their Lord to achieve independence of X and establish a moral Christian society, they are not freedom fighters, they are merely terrorists invoking Christianity to justify their actions. "X" terrorism isn't about demonizing "X", it is about understanding and describing how "X" becomes, how it is/was an ideology which (in the eyes of those so motivated) gives rise to terrorism. It doesn't matter if "X" is a religious ideology or social ideology or ethnic/racial, et al. ideology.
- Perhaps that also sufficiently addresses the last point, which is that the focus regarding terrorists is not the nature of their goal—there is nothing that terrorism has ever achieved that cannot be achieved by less destructive means. The focus is understanding how any ideology informs an agenda which includes the conduct of terrorism, what those acts are, and what their effect (and the mere threat of them) is on individuals and society. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 03:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)- Generally agreed, although "how it is/was an ideology which (in the eyes of those so motivated) gives rise to terrorism" needs in some comments. This statement in actuality is demonizing of the ideology, although in actuality the roots of the decision to resort to terrorism as the tactics may be different. For instance, the roots of the so called Communist terrorism in Malaya were not in the Communist ideology but in national liberation ideas. The same is true for Vietnam.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's not demonizing at all because, as I stated, it is "in the eyes of those so motivated", that is, those professing to be adherents, that is the key. No instance of "X" terrorism can be discussed or defined in the abstract absent of the individuals involved. It is only contentions as generalities, i.e., "'X adherents' are terrorists," that demonize "X." At that point we are all obliged to turn the magnifying glass away from "X" and on the individual making those contentions. So, taking another of this contentious areas, "Islamic terrorism," is terrorism by those quoting or claiming motivation by the Islamic faith. It is not searching Islam in the abstract for where it advocates for the slaughter of innocents. Certainly I've known enough adherents to that faith, including converts attracted to that faith, to know the difference. As we work on these articles we need to take care to know and communicate the difference—and to be conscious of where we are working against phobias of the different and unknown. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 14:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)- And on national liberation and Vietnam, for example, once an ideology is invoked, you can't go back and simply focus on the "purpose." That is an inappropriate bifurcation of ideology from action. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 14:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- And on national liberation and Vietnam, for example, once an ideology is invoked, you can't go back and simply focus on the "purpose." That is an inappropriate bifurcation of ideology from action. PЄTЄRS
- It's not demonizing at all because, as I stated, it is "in the eyes of those so motivated", that is, those professing to be adherents, that is the key. No instance of "X" terrorism can be discussed or defined in the abstract absent of the individuals involved. It is only contentions as generalities, i.e., "'X adherents' are terrorists," that demonize "X." At that point we are all obliged to turn the magnifying glass away from "X" and on the individual making those contentions. So, taking another of this contentious areas, "Islamic terrorism," is terrorism by those quoting or claiming motivation by the Islamic faith. It is not searching Islam in the abstract for where it advocates for the slaughter of innocents. Certainly I've known enough adherents to that faith, including converts attracted to that faith, to know the difference. As we work on these articles we need to take care to know and communicate the difference—and to be conscious of where we are working against phobias of the different and unknown. PЄTЄRS
- Generally agreed, although "how it is/was an ideology which (in the eyes of those so motivated) gives rise to terrorism" needs in some comments. This statement in actuality is demonizing of the ideology, although in actuality the roots of the decision to resort to terrorism as the tactics may be different. For instance, the roots of the so called Communist terrorism in Malaya were not in the Communist ideology but in national liberation ideas. The same is true for Vietnam.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Now that I've had more time to think about this, I think we should keep this material out of the article. Nanobear (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
What a collection of Russian whining!
"Poor Russia, why is everyone always picking on us?"
Talk about non-NPOV---this whole article is a collection of whining, with hardly a mention for the multitude of quite rational reasons almost all of Russia's neighbors fear and dislike Russia.
Instead of mentioning repeated Russian aggression against its neighbors---something seen just recently in Georgia and Chechnya before that---we get horseshit about "Nazi propaganda" and whining about the evil Estonians being mean to Russians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.184.204 (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. It seems like the bully is crying. Maybe it would be worthwhile putting up an article dedicated to instances of Russian aggression. Bandurist (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- As "Russophobia in the Baltics" has been suggested elsewhere on this talk page, I might take that as an invitation to create "Anti-Baltic sentiment in Russia". Limiting to Russia would not be to make a point but to spare having to mention Gough Whitlam using the "F" word in referring to Baltic immigrants to Australia as undesirable boat people. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 18:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Aivars Slutsis Slūcis
Aivars Slutsis is a doctor from US ([5], [6]), not Latvia. Repeated searches fail to find his article in New York Times ([7], [8]).
So either Andrei Tsygankov is wrong or Nanobear misinterpreted the source. Perhaps Nanobear could provide a full citation, to clear things up? And please, please let's use common sense here, not just blindly revert-warring.
Also, Nanobear, could you please use proper Cite template, with full ISBN, name of the author, book, publisher and so forth? This would make it so much easier to track references.
--Sander Säde 14:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- So, could we get a link to the Slutsis' NYT article already? As Russavia edit wars to keep Slutsis in the article, he must be able to see that article, or his behavior would be rather... shall we say, extremely unbecoming for a Wikipedian. --Sander Säde 14:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- P.S. At least now you admit that Slutsis is an American. So we can move him to USA section, I presume? --Sander Säde 14:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Slutsis may be a Latvian American doctor, but he was also a member of the nationalist Civic Union -- a Latvian political party (and member of the Latvian ruling coalition). After the scandal he was expelled, but the FM survived a call for him to leave his post. This is clearly related to Russophobia in Latvia, and hence should be kept in the article under Latvia, with that section (as well as Estonia) being prime for expansion in the future; there is so much material out there that Russophobia in the Baltics could conceivably be created. As to Tsygankov, I will await Nanobear providing the citation, but as it stands at the moment, we assume good faith. --What's the difference between a straight and bisexual man? Two pints of lager 15:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- It does not matter who is mistaken (AGF) here: Tsygankov or Nanobear. If the NYT article does not exist, then it is a BLP issue, and should be reverted. - BorisG (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- And we also have to be careful in crossing BLP thresholds on scholars such as Tsygankov. If the citation does indeed check out, then it stays in the article. A Wikipedian's search of the NYT website does not trump the words of a respected scholar. --What's the difference between a straight and bisexual man? Two pints of lager 18:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- It does not matter who is mistaken (AGF) here: Tsygankov or Nanobear. If the NYT article does not exist, then it is a BLP issue, and should be reverted. - BorisG (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Slutsis may be a Latvian American doctor, but he was also a member of the nationalist Civic Union -- a Latvian political party (and member of the Latvian ruling coalition). After the scandal he was expelled, but the FM survived a call for him to leave his post. This is clearly related to Russophobia in Latvia, and hence should be kept in the article under Latvia, with that section (as well as Estonia) being prime for expansion in the future; there is so much material out there that Russophobia in the Baltics could conceivably be created. As to Tsygankov, I will await Nanobear providing the citation, but as it stands at the moment, we assume good faith. --What's the difference between a straight and bisexual man? Two pints of lager 15:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for not being specific enough with the cite at first. The information can be found on p.58 of Tsygankov's book (isbn 9780230614185): "Latvian immigrant doctor Aivars Slutsis ... spent his time explaining to Americans on pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post why Russians have invading other nations in their genes, why they can only understand the language of force, and why he personally wouldn't treat any Russian patient if he or she were to drop by his office." Nanobear (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. Is anyone able to find a reference/article to either WP or NYT by Slutsis, so we could use the actual articles as a source for his words? All NYT, WP and various Google searches are coming up totally blank - which is very surprising considering how controversial the articles must be. Or perhaps there is a footnote in Tsygankov's book? --Sander Säde 20:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Can't give a cite right now, but from what I recall reading about this incident some time back, Slutsis did not write an article for the NYT, but published a blatant Russophobic ad that he personally paid for with his own money, which the newspapers actually published. I hope this helps clarify the situation. (The Slutsis thing is a rather obscure piece of recent history, but it can be Googled, or Google-booked, or whatever.) 24.146.224.106 (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Can you please give us these searches? This book search and various Google searches are drawing complete blanks. It is as if nothing associates Slutsis with either NYT or WP on the web. --Sander Säde 05:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Full quote
Here is the full quote from pp44:
Finally, Russophobia would have not been so successful if it were not for the weakness of the Russian lobby in American politics. Other ethnic lobbies—Jews, Chinese, Latinos, Eastern Europeans, and Arabs—are influential or at least notable, but Russians are conspicuously absent from American politics. This makes Russia extremely vulnerable to criticisms from those who are eager to reconstruct and exploit an enemy image. In attempting to satisfy their interests (gaining public support, consolidating corporate vision, demonstrating qualities of a tough leader, etc.), such politicians can say about Russia practically anything they wish without fear of being confronted in a serious rebuttal. The matter goes deeper, as even outside the political establishment, Russophobia often meets no resistance. It is possible, for example, to buy a space in a national newspaper and express offensive remarks about Russians. As reported by the Congress of Russian Americans (CRA)—the only organization representing Russians in the United States—several years ago a Latvian immigrant doctor Aivars Slutsis did just this. He spent his time explaining to Americans on pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post why Russians have invading other nations in their genes, why they can only understand the language of force, and why he personally wouldn’t treat any Russian patient if he or she were to drop by his office. This was going on for quite some time until the CRA members began lobbying these newspapers and, in a rare case of success, persuaded the editors to remove the ethnic slur.86 It is equally possible, and with a more powerful effect, to make movies about the murder of former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko in which the blame will be laid on the Kremlin, even if the investigation is not completed and facts about the Kremlin’s involvement are practically nonexistent.87
I don't believe one would need to provide anything more than this. There is no doubt that Slutsis did what Tsygankov has written; otherwise a scholar of Tsygankov's standing would not put it in print. --What's the difference between a straight and bisexual man? Two pints of lager 11:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you! This quote is very helpful. It is now crystal clear that Tsygankov is talking about the US context, not Latvia. I can appreciate that it is related to Latvia, but this does not belong in Latvia section. What do people think? - BorisG (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Also, Tsygankov mentions ads, not op-ed, and does not give a date, does he? - BorisG (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Per the below, I've corrected some content, we can decide if it belongs separately. Re: NYT, if the troops of your occupier were still on the soil of your homeland you'd be pissed too. Just saying.
- Making the article into a laundry list of polemics rather does a great disservice to any serious content; Russophobia is not just some sort of post-Cold War visceral fear of Russian imperialist ambitions. It's actually quite an interesting topic; sadly, this this article is not it, nor do I ever expect it to be. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 15:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC) - P.S. I can't find any mention of "Slūcis" or "Slutsis" on either the NYT or Washington Post sites. Of course there's all sorts of wailing and gnashing of teeth readily found otherwise given it's such good fodder for polemics on both sides. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 15:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)- I think American spelling is Slucis. It may be letters like this one: http://vip.latnet.lv/LPRA/holocaus.htm. Letters may not come up in searches. But you can see direct quotes from these ads in the book [9] "The ads are in The Washington Post, Ост. 22, 1996). Similar ads appeared in September 10, 1995 and May, 19, 1996 of the New York Times." More broadly, I suggest that this Slucis case is extreme and not at all representative (or not shown to be representative) of the attitudes in Latvia. Slucis hasn't lived in Latvia since WWII, and nothing he says tells us anything about political, cultural or social attitudes or policies in Latvia. This may be mentioned as an extremely pathological case in the context of a much broader review, but if this is all we have, then the case about Russophobia in Latvia is not very strong. - BorisG (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- And therein lies the problem, the projection of polemics as representative of any general populace and then used as justification for the denunciation of entire peoples (as here, "Latvia" being Russophobic). Latvians don't paint Russians as being Zhirinovsky clones, sad that the favor isn't returned. Were Slūcis to actually visit Latvia, I rather think that he would find, as I have, that when it comes to being citizens of Latvia, there are Russians who are excellent civic minded citizens and Latvians who are a waste of oxygen. Neither the Latvian nor Russian communities in Latvia are as monolithic as the polemicists on either side would make them out to be. The worst offenders are those how pretend their role is to protect those who can't protect themselves, whose power, in fact, comes from keeping their own constituency powerless.PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 19:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)- To be fair, I think neither the article nor WP users have suggested that Russophobia is a typical attitude in Latvia (let alone the extreme type represented by Slucis). However there are definitely such attitudes among the population (for obvious historical reasons), and they can be documented. And more importantly, it is perhaps useful to analyse the approaches to this issue taken by the government, civil society and political groups. For instance, racial violence and racist propaganda is a serious problem in Russia, and there is a perception that the government is not doing much about it. Wikipedia should reflect this. - BorisG (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Boris, Tsygankov is discussing anti-Russian sentiment in the USA and he is saying that due to lack of an ethnic Russian lobby in the USA, American politicians and others can exploit negative sentiment in the US media without serious rebuttal, citing the case of Latvian-American Slucis as an example. This has little to do with Latvia, Tsygankov is not discussing Latvia he is discussing the USA. What I find problematic is rather than create a section on the USA, some editors focus on the ethnicity of Slucis and then give undue weight to the views of this extremist and attribute it to Latvia. Collecting viewpoints of individuals as evidence of anti-Russian sentiment and assembly into an article on "Russophobia" is original research. --Martin (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- To be fair, I think neither the article nor WP users have suggested that Russophobia is a typical attitude in Latvia (let alone the extreme type represented by Slucis). However there are definitely such attitudes among the population (for obvious historical reasons), and they can be documented. And more importantly, it is perhaps useful to analyse the approaches to this issue taken by the government, civil society and political groups. For instance, racial violence and racist propaganda is a serious problem in Russia, and there is a perception that the government is not doing much about it. Wikipedia should reflect this. - BorisG (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- And therein lies the problem, the projection of polemics as representative of any general populace and then used as justification for the denunciation of entire peoples (as here, "Latvia" being Russophobic). Latvians don't paint Russians as being Zhirinovsky clones, sad that the favor isn't returned. Were Slūcis to actually visit Latvia, I rather think that he would find, as I have, that when it comes to being citizens of Latvia, there are Russians who are excellent civic minded citizens and Latvians who are a waste of oxygen. Neither the Latvian nor Russian communities in Latvia are as monolithic as the polemicists on either side would make them out to be. The worst offenders are those how pretend their role is to protect those who can't protect themselves, whose power, in fact, comes from keeping their own constituency powerless.PЄTЄRS
- I think American spelling is Slucis. It may be letters like this one: http://vip.latnet.lv/LPRA/holocaus.htm. Letters may not come up in searches. But you can see direct quotes from these ads in the book [9] "The ads are in The Washington Post, Ост. 22, 1996). Similar ads appeared in September 10, 1995 and May, 19, 1996 of the New York Times." More broadly, I suggest that this Slucis case is extreme and not at all representative (or not shown to be representative) of the attitudes in Latvia. Slucis hasn't lived in Latvia since WWII, and nothing he says tells us anything about political, cultural or social attitudes or policies in Latvia. This may be mentioned as an extremely pathological case in the context of a much broader review, but if this is all we have, then the case about Russophobia in Latvia is not very strong. - BorisG (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Tsygankov
A bit unrelated, hence starting a new section. There is a potential issue with Tsygankov, as while he asserts anti-Russian discrimination specifically in Estonia and Latvia, I have yet to locate in Russophobia where he discusses specifics. I was looking through all occurrences of "Latvia" in the source. Pointers welcome. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- We can argue over whether the Latvia section is WP:OR or not with regard to Russophobia or merely allegations thereof. In the meantime I've cleaned it up, including what Kristovskis actually "agreed" with per the journalist releasing the Email in question. Quite frankly, I'm somewhat disturbed that Tsygankov uses "Slutsis" for "Slūcis", as that indicates his scholarship is based purely on Russian sources, Slūcis -> Слуцис -> Slutis being the chain of transliteration. Helps to find information in sources if you're not looking for the wrong spelling. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 14:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not impressed, per his "Russia's Foreign Policy", page 157:
- A Contested Victory Celebration and Relations with the New Europe
- Finally, Russia's strategy of developing relations with Western nations while preserving its own vision of national interests was challenged by some of the former Eastern European nations. When the Kremlin invited more than fifty foreign leaders to come to Moscow on May 9, 2005, to celebrate the victory over fascism, several nations refused. Among them were two Baltic states, Lithuania and Estonia, which saw the end of World War II as the beginning of their occupation by the Soviets. Separating the victory over fascism and the occupation by the Soviets, for which many in Russia called, did not turn out to he possible for the small East European nations.
- Russia's officials and political elites, as well as many common people, viewed the perception by new European nations as an insult and an attempt to undermine Soviet Russia's paramount role in destroying Hitler's regime. For instance, the nationalist Duma faction Rodina decided to boycott the official ceremonies in Moscow, protesting statements about the end of the war made by Latvia's president Vaira Vike-Freiberga and officials of other Baltic states. The insistence by new European leaders on their version of history presented Russia as unable to relinquish its "imperial ambitions" and called into question Russia's policies of improving relationships with the European Union. The United States exerted additional pressures on Russia by supporting these claims. For instance, the American president, while traveling to the region and visiting Latvia, strongly condemned the Soviet annexation and occupation of the Baltic republics as a result of World War II.
- The Kremlin stood firm and did not yield to pressures to frame the issue in terns of responsibility for Stalin's occupation of the Baltic states. Overall, despite the clashing interpretations of the end of World War II, Russia readied its two most important objectives. It reconfirmed its role in liberating the world from fascism, and it did so in the presence of fifty foreign leaders, including U.S. President George W. Bush, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, and Israeli President Moshe Katsav. Symbolically, the event assisted Russia in legitimizing its status as a Westernizing great power.
- IMHO, this is rather a Baltic victim-blaming scenario:
- No one in official Russia has called for the Baltics "separating the victory over fascism and the occupation by the Soviets" as that requires Russia acknowledging the Soviet occupation as (a) the first foreign aggression wrought upon the Baltics and (b) as being an "occupation" (using that word) for the duration of the Soviet presence in the Baltics; were Russia to acknowledge Soviet responsibility for Soviet actions, there would be no issue of "not separating"
- Derisive tone taken regarding "insistence" on a non-official-Russian "version" of history, referring to the Baltics as making "claims"
- Russo-chauvinistic "standing firm" in the face of being called to acknowledge Soviet occupation as occupation ("standing firm" is a typical Russian pronouncement when countering so-called falsification of history)
- Aligning the U.S. President with the maligned Baltic states
- Self-congratulatory self-assigned self-glorified self-legitimization on the world stage
- I'm not particularly impressed. This is more a pro-Russia political manifesto-ish advocacy than unbiased geopolitical scholarship. Others' readings may result in different analyses, of course. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 17:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)- Yes Tsygankov is unapologetically pro-Russian, but to my reading, this is an almost neutral description. Stay firm is not positive or negative. Anyway, Tsygankov is not writing for Wikipedia and is not bound by NPOV :). He is just another source. - BorisG (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's unfortunate as some of his commentary, for example, on the popular perception of Stalin and what it signifies underneath, is (IMHO, of course) quite good, although I think he underestimates the conflation of authoritarianism with certitude and strength. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 18:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)- The book is a reliable source, whatever the opinions of the writer. TFD (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- That does not mean we don't discuss sources or their points of view. I can probably give you thousands of diffs where reliable sources are dismissed out of hand because they don't fit someone's personal POV. Unfortunately, serious discussion of sources is pretty much absent from any area of contention. On WP there are no nuances, any expressions of same are exploited as signs of weakness in one's editorial flank. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 04:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- That does not mean we don't discuss sources or their points of view. I can probably give you thousands of diffs where reliable sources are dismissed out of hand because they don't fit someone's personal POV. Unfortunately, serious discussion of sources is pretty much absent from any area of contention. On WP there are no nuances, any expressions of same are exploited as signs of weakness in one's editorial flank. PЄTЄRS
- The book is a reliable source, whatever the opinions of the writer. TFD (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's unfortunate as some of his commentary, for example, on the popular perception of Stalin and what it signifies underneath, is (IMHO, of course) quite good, although I think he underestimates the conflation of authoritarianism with certitude and strength. PЄTЄRS
- Yes Tsygankov is unapologetically pro-Russian, but to my reading, this is an almost neutral description. Stay firm is not positive or negative. Anyway, Tsygankov is not writing for Wikipedia and is not bound by NPOV :). He is just another source. - BorisG (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
"Whitewashing"
Igny, I replaced problematic text with a better source going back to the journalist releasing the Kristovskis correspondence indicating specifically what was being agreed with. The Russian news story labeling Kristovskis a Russophobe looked to be dredging up earlier Slucis' contentions; or certainly not Slucis' contentions which Kristovskis says he agreed with. Either way, the text you want cannot go back as it is not substantiated by the releasing journalist and therefore is a BLP violation. Don't accuse me of "whitewashing" again. I removed the rest of the Slūcis content I corrected earlier as it has nothing to do with someone who is in Latvia or formally representing Latvia. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I care less about the guy to edit war over him, but you may stop pretending that you are not doing what you are doing here. (Igny (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC))
- At issue here is whether or not this episode concerning Kristovskis is seen as an instance of "russophobia" in a reliable source. In the absence of any source that explicitly claims this is "russophobia", this would constitute WP:SYNTH. --Martin (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Certainly Russian media labeled Kristovskis a "Russophobe"; however, what that news report states Kristovkis "agrees" with is not what the journalist releasing the correspondence indicates Kristovkis agrees with. Slūcis has been writing editorials for years warning about not trusting Russia, warning of Russian ambitions, seeing Russo-Soviet colonists as not being positive contributors to Latvia—and with whom Latvia is better off without, and so on. That Kristovskis said he agrees with something Slūcis wrote (and Lapsa is specific on what that was in the news report) does not mean (Igny's uncivil and now repeated accusation of "whitewashing") he agrees with everything Slūcis wrote. Had Lapsa indicated the same as the Russian news story with reference to the "agreeing", I would have left that instead. It's not my problem that the Russian news story and its claims don't match statements by the journalist who actually released the correspondence in question.
- The real issue is that "Attitudes and claims of attitudes towards Russia and Russians by country" as a section title means you can itemize just about anything as "Russophobia." A negative attitude toward the Russian administration, for example, is not "Russophobia." The whole section should be deleted and the topic treated as a serious subject. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 14:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)- I agree that the section should be removed. --Martin (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree with this nice little poll you are running here after having successfully ejected your main opponent from editing this article. (Igny (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC))
- The sooner we properly consider the historical subject of Russophobia and deal with secondary sources and not screaming partisan news headlines, the sooner we'll have a worthy article. Rather than bicker over a laundry list we should work together with proper sources to make this a GA or even FA article. Certainly the historical topic merits it and the possibility is there. What's been cobbled together here to date is, frankly, a gross insult to the subject matter.PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 00:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- The sooner we properly consider the historical subject of Russophobia and deal with secondary sources and not screaming partisan news headlines, the sooner we'll have a worthy article. Rather than bicker over a laundry list we should work together with proper sources to make this a GA or even FA article. Certainly the historical topic merits it and the possibility is there. What's been cobbled together here to date is, frankly, a gross insult to the subject matter.PЄTЄRS
- I disagree with this nice little poll you are running here after having successfully ejected your main opponent from editing this article. (Igny (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC))
- I agree that the section should be removed. --Martin (talk) 21:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- At issue here is whether or not this episode concerning Kristovskis is seen as an instance of "russophobia" in a reliable source. In the absence of any source that explicitly claims this is "russophobia", this would constitute WP:SYNTH. --Martin (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Scholarship or laundry list?
You would think there is material enough in serious scholarship on the history of Russophobia—for example, English school reader tales of a Russian family traveling by sleigh in winter being assaulted by a pack of wolves, where the parents toss their children off the sleigh one by one to satisfy the ravenous wolves to save themselves—that a serious and informative article could be written. That is not the article as it now stands. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- We require the highest standards in reliable sources for articles like Mass killings under Communist regimes, it should be no different for this article. Perhaps if we set the bar higher for sourcing, such as only relying upon what is published in books rather than in the media, perhaps that may be the solution for this article. --Martin (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes it kind of makes sense. Of course, Tsygankov is a book. Even a scholarly book. Scholarly books can also be biased, partisan etc. Currently, this article is a joke. It does not even consider the origin of the word (which was first used by Tutchev in a culture dispute within Russia). - BorisG (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- At least Tsygankov represents someone along a spectrum of scholarship, not sensationalist journalism. There's a clear distinction between Russophobia proper as opposed to "Russophobia" = "not caring for post-Soviet Russian government and state authorities." Where scholars contend that cynicism, skepticism, suspicion, and low expectations regarding the current Russian state constitute "Russophobia," e.g., Tsygankov, that should be treated in its own "post-Soviet era" section so as to not muddle the two. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 14:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)- I would say, as I proposed earlier, that aversion to the Russian Federation and aversion to ethnic Russians (specifically for the ethnicity, rather than for perceived loyalty to the Russian Federation) should be clearly separated.--Yalens (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. We should also remember that historical Russophobia also includes a certain fear of empire, certainly as advocated by Tyutchev and Dostoyevski—although prior to today's era of globalization, I think there was a closer popular interchangeability of the Empire and the Russian, their being far away, mysterious, misunderstood, etc. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 17:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. We should also remember that historical Russophobia also includes a certain fear of empire, certainly as advocated by Tyutchev and Dostoyevski—although prior to today's era of globalization, I think there was a closer popular interchangeability of the Empire and the Russian, their being far away, mysterious, misunderstood, etc. PЄTЄRS
- I would say, as I proposed earlier, that aversion to the Russian Federation and aversion to ethnic Russians (specifically for the ethnicity, rather than for perceived loyalty to the Russian Federation) should be clearly separated.--Yalens (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- At least Tsygankov represents someone along a spectrum of scholarship, not sensationalist journalism. There's a clear distinction between Russophobia proper as opposed to "Russophobia" = "not caring for post-Soviet Russian government and state authorities." Where scholars contend that cynicism, skepticism, suspicion, and low expectations regarding the current Russian state constitute "Russophobia," e.g., Tsygankov, that should be treated in its own "post-Soviet era" section so as to not muddle the two. PЄTЄRS
- Yes it kind of makes sense. Of course, Tsygankov is a book. Even a scholarly book. Scholarly books can also be biased, partisan etc. Currently, this article is a joke. It does not even consider the origin of the word (which was first used by Tutchev in a culture dispute within Russia). - BorisG (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- When there is consensus that a concept is neutral, then we can provide a "laundry list". Therefore the article Anti-Americanism is neutral, while United States and state terrorism is not. TFD (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- The laundry list in the former suffers from many of the same issues as the laundry list here. It's also a poor comparison that is state-oriented, as there is no such being as an "ethnic American" who, for example, feeds their children to wolves to effect their own escape. A laundry list of "who denounces whom" is what it is, the topic is merely a nuance. There is nothing that makes that sort of list inherently neutral.
- If you fervently believe such a list is essential in the case of this article, then I suggest we split this article with the laundry list becoming Incidents of alleged anti-Russian sentiment so as to not confuse that list with Russophobia. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 18:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)- Perhaps what TFD says is true-however, their certainly is no consensus that this page is "neutral", as evidenced by the neutrality tag at the top. And I don't really think eliminating the "laundry list" element would solve the problem either though. For me, its not so much "laundry list" as it is the POV aspect of the pages. The problem with these sorts of articles is that when they talk about negative feelings aimed at national groups, they fail to mention the origin of these sentiments, or paint them as irrational hatred that fell from the sky (or from Nazi propaganda in this case). Hatred of Romani may be racial, but hatred of Americans or Russians is instead political. The result is a set of hopelessly POV pages that paint an image of the tragic, unique victimhood of the nation being addressed. In this case, we also have a whole section of the page devoted to mourning the fact that Western media has a different POV (implicitly "wrong") from the (implicitly "right") POV that Russian media has (which of course just underlines the POV of the section). For the sake of not generalizing, there are actually a handful of exclusions among the Anti-x-ism/x-phobia pages , but many of them (including this one) follow this general rule of being POV pages mourning the victimhood of said nation. Sorry for the long post.--Yalens (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think you're a bit off on Estonians swallowing propaganda. They despised the Soviet Union after it invaded, quickly hated the Nazis (seen as liberators a week after the Soviet mass deportations), then fought the Nazis and the Red Army on two fronts simultaneously attempting to rid themselves of both. As long as the Russian Federation insists it liberated Estonia (ignoring that the USSR invaded Estonia first), I expect those feelings will continue to be visited upon the officials of the Russian Federation. Twenty years after the fall of the USSR there's no excuse to not be up to date on history. It's a myth that Nazi propaganda had any effect, that the Waffen SS supported Nazism or Hitler or Germany, etc. Feel free to visit my talk page for an off-article-talk chat.
- On the other, definitely, ignoring sources of something provides no context or basis for understanding a phenomenon. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 19:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps what TFD says is true-however, their certainly is no consensus that this page is "neutral", as evidenced by the neutrality tag at the top. And I don't really think eliminating the "laundry list" element would solve the problem either though. For me, its not so much "laundry list" as it is the POV aspect of the pages. The problem with these sorts of articles is that when they talk about negative feelings aimed at national groups, they fail to mention the origin of these sentiments, or paint them as irrational hatred that fell from the sky (or from Nazi propaganda in this case). Hatred of Romani may be racial, but hatred of Americans or Russians is instead political. The result is a set of hopelessly POV pages that paint an image of the tragic, unique victimhood of the nation being addressed. In this case, we also have a whole section of the page devoted to mourning the fact that Western media has a different POV (implicitly "wrong") from the (implicitly "right") POV that Russian media has (which of course just underlines the POV of the section). For the sake of not generalizing, there are actually a handful of exclusions among the Anti-x-ism/x-phobia pages , but many of them (including this one) follow this general rule of being POV pages mourning the victimhood of said nation. Sorry for the long post.--Yalens (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm open to suggestions on how to handle the media wars other than splitting off the laundry list if we can reformulate into something more informative. Unfortunately, if, say, the "Latvia" section starts with "Latvians mistrust Russia because it has yet to acknowledge Soviet occupation", that's why XYZ Latvian advocates to rescind citizenships, that will quickly be tagged as WP:SYNTH and WP:OR as that "why" was most likely not drawn by the source, e.g., a Russian news story isn't going to scream RUSSOPHOBE in its headline and then write, well, yes, we (as Soviets) did invade them, occupy them, deport them, and murder them. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 19:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)- "Russophobia", is defined as an irrational fear of Russian people and culture, but as pointed out here in this critique of Tsygankov's writings, there is a tendency to level the charge of "russophobia" at critics of the present political course in Russia, even as Umland states, "much of the more competent criticism of current Russia comes from people who not only know and study, but actually like or even love the Russian people, culture and customs - not to mention the various Russians and half-Russians among the critics" --Martin (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm open to suggestions on how to handle the media wars other than splitting off the laundry list if we can reformulate into something more informative. Unfortunately, if, say, the "Latvia" section starts with "Latvians mistrust Russia because it has yet to acknowledge Soviet occupation", that's why XYZ Latvian advocates to rescind citizenships, that will quickly be tagged as WP:SYNTH and WP:OR as that "why" was most likely not drawn by the source, e.g., a Russian news story isn't going to scream RUSSOPHOBE in its headline and then write, well, yes, we (as Soviets) did invade them, occupy them, deport them, and murder them. PЄTЄRS
Latvian section
I have edited the section at Russophobia#Latvia to re-include some information which had been removed, but have also ensured that other information was also included. In adding information to this section, I have two sources which I will likely have access to on Saturday, with information being added to those sources. I am not asserting any ownership of this article, but I would ask that any drastic changes (i.e. removal of information) be made to this section just yet, whilst I formulate the addition of further information to the section in the next 24 hours. I will remove the inuse template for the time being as well. Thanks, --Russavia Let's dialogue 09:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- pravda could be used here as well to add Mayo's reaction to the affair. And the fact that he survived the vote of no confidence. [10]
- The fact the FM survived no-confidence motion will be included. So will the fact that he didn't accompany Zalters to the first state visit by a Latvian leader to Russia in December 2010 -- before the visit Latvian media suggested that his going to Moscow would be a major setback; the FM seems to claim after the visit that the Kremlin didn't want him to be part of the delegation---of course that is pure hogwash as it would go against protocol, and for the Kremlin to demand his non-attendance would be a setback to desire to improve relations--the decision really seemed to have been a Latvian one. Also to be included will be the PS expelling Slucis from the party and apparently had his donations returned to him. the Mayo reaction is somewhat arbitrary to the article though I believe. Thoughts? --Russavia Let's dialogue 10:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- My thoughts are that some of the above is OR and speculation. I hope none of this will be in the article. But above all, this is not an article about Latvia-Russia relations, but about Russophobia. Thus diplomatic incidents and other inter-government issues are irrelevant. - BorisG (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- You wrote that According to Tsygankov, Russians in Lativa are subjected to racial' discrimination. This is a weird terminology, given that Russians and Latvians are of the same race. Are you sure Tsygankov uses the word racial? BorisG (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Boris, if you are familiar with my editing history, I will often interject personal opinion on talk pages, but whenever I place anything in an article, it is meticulously sourced, and will be presented in an NPOV way, and will survive the most stringent verification, with the odd error here or there. Of course, some of the above is my own opinion, it is obvious what parts they are. As to relations, perhaps you might like to take a look at Talk:Estonia–Russia_relations#Merge_discussion and perhaps that discussion could be restarted as well. As to Tsygankov, he states:
- You wrote that According to Tsygankov, Russians in Lativa are subjected to racial' discrimination. This is a weird terminology, given that Russians and Latvians are of the same race. Are you sure Tsygankov uses the word racial? BorisG (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- My thoughts are that some of the above is OR and speculation. I hope none of this will be in the article. But above all, this is not an article about Latvia-Russia relations, but about Russophobia. Thus diplomatic incidents and other inter-government issues are irrelevant. - BorisG (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- The fact the FM survived no-confidence motion will be included. So will the fact that he didn't accompany Zalters to the first state visit by a Latvian leader to Russia in December 2010 -- before the visit Latvian media suggested that his going to Moscow would be a major setback; the FM seems to claim after the visit that the Kremlin didn't want him to be part of the delegation---of course that is pure hogwash as it would go against protocol, and for the Kremlin to demand his non-attendance would be a setback to desire to improve relations--the decision really seemed to have been a Latvian one. Also to be included will be the PS expelling Slucis from the party and apparently had his donations returned to him. the Mayo reaction is somewhat arbitrary to the article though I believe. Thoughts? --Russavia Let's dialogue 10:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
In addition, supporters of Eastern European nationalism drew the attention of the public and policy circles to Russia’s problems with ethnic nationalism. Accusing Putin of sponsoring and exploiting ethnic phobias, 52 they ignored the complex roots of ethnic violence and identity formation in Russia. Some of these roots are similar to those of Western European countries, having to do with mass immigration from Muslim republics, while others result from poverty and the ideological vacuum left by the end of communism. The Russia critics also failed to analyze issues of ethnic discrimination against Russians in Eastern European states, such as Latvia and Estonia.
--Russavia Let's dialogue 12:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)