Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Anti-Russian sentiment (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:27, 30 October 2007 editKuban kazak (talk | contribs)13,061 edits →Anti-Russian sentiment← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:46, 5 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(123 intermediate revisions by 45 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''k<span style="color:#07d;">e</span>ep'''. ]

===]=== ===]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|S}}


{{Not a ballot}}
:{{la|Anti-Russian sentiment}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>

The content on this page is not suitable for an encyclopedia. It has become a ] for unfounded accusations of anti-Russian sentiment leveled at particular countries. For example we have Britain listed as a country holding anti-Russian sentiment, yet the only evidence is some unfounded accusations by the Russian ambassador in the wake of the Litvinenko assasination. The article cites some survey regarding negative perceptions of Russia: 62% in Finland, 42% in the Czech Republic and Switzerland, 37% in Germany, 32% in Denmark and Poland, 23% in Estonia. Yet we don't see sections on Finland, the Czech Republic, Switzerland, Germany or Denmark in this article, but the Baltic states is listed, even though their level of negative perception is significantly lower than those other countries. The Baltic States section contains only more unfounded accusations from Russian authorities, but no real evidence of actual anti-Russian sentiment. Poland too is listed as is the USA. This article seems to only list those countries that the Russian Federation currently has difficult relations with. The page has become an inflammatory hate page directed at those particular countries, particularly with the juxtapostion of an image of a Nazi inscription "The Russian must die so that we may live" at the top of the article. This kind of thing has no place in Misplaced Pages ] 02:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
:{{la|Anti-Russian sentiment}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>
The rationale for deletion is that the content on this page is not suitable for an encyclopedia. The reason that the content is not suitable is that it is a ] hung on the ], a topic which this article fails to discuss in any great depth. For example, the Nazis showed the most extreme form of anti-Russian sentiment, but it is only given one single sentence and a quote in the whole article, while we have sections upon sections of accusations by Russian authorities leveled at other countries that they currently have poor relations with.

It is a classic ] of unfounded accusations of anti-Russian sentiment leveled at particular countries. For example we have Britain listed as a country holding anti-Russian sentiment, yet the only evidence is some unfounded accusations by the Russian ambassador in the wake of the Litvinenko assasination. The article cites some survey regarding negative perceptions of Russia: 62% in Finland, 42% in the Czech Republic and Switzerland, 37% in Germany, 32% in Denmark and Poland, 23% in Estonia. Yet we don't see sections on Finland, the Czech Republic, Switzerland, Germany or Denmark in this article, but the Baltic states is listed, even though their level of negative perception is significantly lower than those other countries. The Baltic States section contains only more unfounded accusations from Russian authorities, but no real evidence of actual anti-Russian sentiment. Poland too is listed as is the USA. This article seems to only list those countries that the Russian Federation currently has difficult relations with. The page has become an inflammatory attack page directed at those particular countries, particularly with the juxtapostion of an image of a Nazi inscription "The Russian must die so that we may live" at the top of the article. This kind of thing has no place in Misplaced Pages.

As it stands, this article does not reflect "anti-Russian sentiment" as defined in the scholarly sources, but had become a sort of rolling "complaints board" where the latest accusation or innuendo published in the Russian press is posted. For example, at the height of the difficulties with Georgia there was a section on Georgia, and a section on Austria after some hotel had an issue with drunk Russian tourists , but no mention of the UK or the USA, since Litvinenko or the missile shield issues hadn't happened yet. Unfortunately it is impossible to improve the article to something reasonable like ] since it is defended by a handful of editors who want to maintain it as a soapbox. The article is substantially the same and has not improved since the previous deletion debate was closed on July 19 , despite all the promises to rewrite and improve the article by those who voted to keep. Therefore deletion is warranted. ] 02:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


*'''Note''' This article has been nominated for deletion ]. ] ] 06:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC) *'''Note''' This article has been nominated for deletion ]. ] ] 06:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Speedy keep''' and reprimand for the nomination aimed at nothing but spilling more bad blood as if the Eastern Europe related topics have not yet seen enough. --] 02:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC) *'''Speedy keep''' Antisemitism,and reprimand for the nomination aimed at nothing but spilling more bad blood as if the Eastern Europe related topics have not yet seen enough. --] 02:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong delete''' as per nomination, and reprimand the previous editor for assuming bad faith. ] 02:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC) *'''Strong delete''' as per nomination, and reprimand the previous editor for assuming bad faith. ] 02:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
**Martin, please cut it. With editors one knows for a while, there is no need to assume anything. --] 03:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC) **Martin, please cut it. With editors one knows for a while, there is no need to assume anything. --] 03:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Line 13: Line 26:
*****The fact than it is impossible to shape this article into something reasonable like ] and remains to this day a ] of contemporary accusations defended by a handful of editors who want to maintain the status quo, is reason enough to delete it and start again. A first step to improving this article is to delete the section ]. ] 03:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC) *****The fact than it is impossible to shape this article into something reasonable like ] and remains to this day a ] of contemporary accusations defended by a handful of editors who want to maintain the status quo, is reason enough to delete it and start again. A first step to improving this article is to delete the section ]. ] 03:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong delete''' It could perhaps be part of a wider discussion elsewhere on the internet but this seems to be a coatstand on which to hang complaints about other people's attitudes to Russia. I should declare an interest here as my own articles have been cited. However I think it is important to distinguish between, and not to conflate, attitudes to Russia/Russians/Russianness and attitudes to the Kremlin. It is quite possible to be a russophile with regard to language, literature and the like, while being an ardent enemy of the current leadership. In the same way, dislike for the Bush administration is not the same as anti-Americanism. ] 03:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC) *'''Strong delete''' It could perhaps be part of a wider discussion elsewhere on the internet but this seems to be a coatstand on which to hang complaints about other people's attitudes to Russia. I should declare an interest here as my own articles have been cited. However I think it is important to distinguish between, and not to conflate, attitudes to Russia/Russians/Russianness and attitudes to the Kremlin. It is quite possible to be a russophile with regard to language, literature and the like, while being an ardent enemy of the current leadership. In the same way, dislike for the Bush administration is not the same as anti-Americanism. ] 03:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
*: Well, just remove all text about ''attitudes to the Kremlin''. Nothing to remove? ☺ ] 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
::*It was removed. And then instantly reinstated by those who want to have this coattrack. -- ] 09:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - the article is not in the best shape but the topic is notable and the article is usable. I have seen quite a few new editors who when arriving to Wiki first check if ] is present and only checking thet the topic is not omitted agree that the project is not a propaganda tool ] 03:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC) *'''Keep''' - the article is not in the best shape but the topic is notable and the article is usable. I have seen quite a few new editors who when arriving to Wiki first check if ] is present and only checking thet the topic is not omitted agree that the project is not a propaganda tool ] 03:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
**While the topic is notable, the article has remained a total mess and has not improved since the previous AfD ]. The only solution is to delete it and start from scratch with proper historical sources. ] 03:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC) **While the topic is notable, the article has remained a total mess and has not improved since the previous AfD ]. The only solution is to delete it and start from scratch with proper historical sources. ] 03:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
**Nor should this article be used as a propoganda tool to recruit new xenophobic minded editors who believe Britain, the Baltics, Poland and the USA are the main countries exhibiting "anti-Russian sentiment". ] 05:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC) **Nor should this article be used as a propoganda tool to recruit new xenophobic minded editors who believe Britain, the Baltics, Poland and the USA are the main countries exhibiting "anti-Russian sentiment". ] 05:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' The article inappropriately mixes actions/reactions regarding the Russian government, those who espouse its official positions, and those who are simply Russian; attempting to create evidence of Russophobia. There are a number of topics here worthy of discussion, individually, and if cited from reputable academic research--but that is not this article. ] 04:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC) * '''Delete''' The article inappropriately mixes actions/reactions regarding the Russian government, those who espouse its official positions, and those who are simply Russian; attempting to create evidence of Russophobia. There are a number of topics here worthy of discussion, individually, and if cited from reputable academic research--but that is not this article. ] 04:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
*: So, do you now what ''is'' Russophobia? ] 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' without prejudice, ie allow and recommend recreating the article. Article is a mess compared to ]; instead of describing Anti-Russian sediment, it describes actions and allegations of the Russian government. Biased ] to make a ]. -- ] 05:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC) * '''Delete''' without prejudice, ie allow and recommend recreating the article. Article is a mess compared to ]; instead of describing Anti-Russian sediment, it describes actions and allegations of the Russian government. Biased ] to make a ]. -- ] 05:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
*: In what aspect is the article biased? There '''is''' such thing as "anti-Russian sentiment", like anti-Polish or anti-German. Why the article has not to exist? ] 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
:*Perhaps you should read what has said, before starting to protest? Article is not about russofobia, article is about Russian politics (you know, the thing where government picks a new "enemy of Russia" every six months, calls that country russofobes and biggest enemy of Russia, until they find a new target). That is not russofobia, that is just shameful. -- ] 09:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' Subject is notable and cited, and nominator gives no rationale for deletion. Also, it should be noted that the nominator also argued "Strong delete;" that argument should be discounted. ] ] 06:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC) *'''Strong Keep''' Subject is notable and cited, and nominator gives no rationale for deletion. Also, it should be noted that the nominator also argued "Strong delete;" that argument should be discounted. ] ] 06:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
**While the subject is notable, the problem is the content. The rationale for deletion is that the content not suitable for an encyclopedia. The reason that the content is not suitable is that it is a ] of political opinions about current affairs and propaganda hung on the hook of a notable topic, a topic which this article fails to discuss in any great depth. ] 10:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC) **While the subject is notable, the problem is the content. The rationale for deletion is that the content not suitable for an encyclopedia. The reason that the content is not suitable is that it is a ] of political opinions about current affairs and propaganda hung on the hook of a notable topic, a topic which this article fails to discuss in any great depth. ] 10:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
***The problem here is that this is a controversial and fiercely debated topic. There will always be people who take offense at the article, regardless of how it's written (they may even be well-meaning, but simply too involved to think about the subject rationally). Deletion is not the path to pursue here. For example, ] will always have someone who disputes neutrality, and most likely has both people who say it is too pro-Bush and too anti-Bush; all that can be done is to work to improve the article. You've admitted yourself that the topic is notable, and it's obviously sourced. Perhaps it is poorly written (I haven't closely read the article), but that just means it needs work, not that it ought to be scrapped entirely. ] ] 00:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
****The topic itself, that is the topic as discussed in scholarly sources, is not controversial. But this article does not cover that topic in any great detail. The Nazis showed the most extreme form of anti-Russian sentiment, but it is only given ''one'' single sentence and a quote in the whole article, while we have sections upon sections of accusations by Russian authorities leveled at other countries that they currently have poor relations with. It's just a xenophobic soapbox in its present form. Unfortunately it is impossible to improve the article since it is defended by a handful of editors who want to maintain it as a soapbox. Therefore deletion is the only option, and if the recreated article is no better, then perhaps salting is required too. ] 01:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' ]. Deleting an article to start again is not an efficient or persuasive approach since there's nothing to stop the article's advocates from putting all the same material into the new version. ] 07:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC) *'''Keep''' ]. Deleting an article to start again is not an efficient or persuasive approach since there's nothing to stop the article's advocates from putting all the same material into the new version. ] 07:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
**If the article's advocates recreate the deleted article with the same content, then it can be speedy deleted. This topic needs a fresh start so that it can be developed into something reasonable like ]. The first step is deletion this non-encyclopedic content and its edit histories. ] 01:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep'''. The vitriol used by the nominator actually proves that the article su!bject is notable. As others have argued, the article is in a mess because it is being used as a battleground by Russophobes.--] 09:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC) *'''Strong Keep'''. The vitriol used by the nominator actually proves that the article su!bject is notable. As others have argued, the article is in a mess because it is being used as a battleground by Russophobes.--] 09:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep'''. Russia, its language, politics and culture are quite noteable and hence arose conflicting feelings or thoughts. The nominator gave prooves that the article can be made better and expanded with entries for other countries: the nominator also gave information that Russophobia is quite wide-spread. Russophopia is just an object to be described like other objects in an encyclopedia; like other phobias (], ] and so on) it can take different forms, from hate towards any political moves of Russian goverment to hatered towards Russian language and culture. --] 10:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC) *'''Strong Keep'''. Russia, its language, politics and culture are quite noteable and hence arose conflicting feelings or thoughts. The nominator gave prooves that the article can be made better and expanded with entries for other countries: the nominator also gave information that Russophobia is quite wide-spread. Russophopia is just an object to be described like other objects in an encyclopedia; like other phobias (], ] and so on) it can take different forms, from hate towards any political moves of Russian goverment to hatered towards Russian language and culture. --] 10:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
**This conflation of dislike for the policies of the current Russian government with a dislike of Russian language and culture and lumped together into one article is precisely the problem with this article. As it stands, this article does not reflect "anti-Russian sentiment" as defined in the scholarly sources, but is a soapbox to propagandise the view that opposition to the policies of current political elite in power in Russia is an expression of anti-Russian sentiment. ] 10:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC) **This conflation of dislike for the policies of the current Russian government with a dislike of Russian language and culture and lumped together into one article is precisely the problem with this article. As it stands, this article does not reflect "anti-Russian sentiment" as defined in the scholarly sources, but is a soapbox to propagandise the view that opposition to the policies of current political elite in power in Russia is an expression of anti-Russian sentiment. ] 10:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep'''. There is a strong Baltic Hate group, most likely funded by their governments if not the CIA, who want to polarise wikipedia, there were previous attempts to hijack the article (and delete it), this is disgraceful and does them no credit. The article depicts numerous aspects of current politics, and besides given that the editors themselves are openly opinionated and . Its not the article's fault, its the truth in it that hurts them. --] 10:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC) *'''Strong Keep'''. There is a strong Baltic <s>Hate</s> '''love''' group, most likely funded by their governments if not the CIA, who want to polarise wikipedia, there were previous attempts to hijack the article (and delete it), this is disgraceful and does them no credit. The article depicts numerous aspects of current politics, and besides given that the editors themselves are openly opinionated and . Its not the article's fault, its the truth in it that hurts them. --] 10:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
::Excellent joke, "funded by their governments if not the CIA"! Straight from the Cold War paranoia. -- ] 10:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Well not directly, but certainly brainwashed by them... :) --] 10:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
:::*], I draw your attention to ]. Do you wish to withdraw that remark about "Baltic Hate group" now, or shall I report it to ]? ] 10:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
::::Please don't ]en me, the whole AFD can be reported as such, or . Besides I did not participate in the arbitration, yet as you requested I changed the remark...;)--] 11:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::You are one humorous fellow. I'll be waiting for my paycheck form some obscure agency then, I could use an extra income.--] 14:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
::::::I'll take that as a compliment, your love for Russia has never been so...recognised.--] 16:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::Where did Martintg make a legal threat to you? Methinks you should read policies before linking to them, Kuban kazak. -- ] 16:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Speedy keep'''. Subject is certainly notable and well-referenced. If article needs to be cleaned up, it should be cleaned up, not deleted. -- ] ] 11:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
**The topic is notable and well-referenced, however the content does not describe the topic in any detail, it is just a collection of accusations against a list of countries. ] 19:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Rewrite but Keep''' The article is a mess and is bordering on biased in places. It is however a subject that is valid and seriously needs a rewrite.] 11:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
*: In what aspect is the article biased? ] 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - All concerns expressed in ] are valid for this article too. This article is a mixture of ] and ]. Lets look around. ] is stuck as a redirect with serious political implications and Estophobia, that was going to be moved to Anti-Estonian sentiment, deleted. Most nations are hated by someone. Why this selective treatment? One of the arguments for deleting Estophobia was that ] is no excuse. This is the other crap. Lets see some consistency. --] 14:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
**Estophobia was deleted because of its ], Russophobia . If a topic that has numerous studies done on it does not deserve an article, what's the point of having wikipedia articles such as Anti-Semitism, or ]. Are going to list those for deletion as well? --]
***Sure, there are plenty of books written about Russophobia, but this article does not cover that topic. The article is basically just a list of accusations by Russian officials against a list of countries. ] 19:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Per ]. ] clearly applies here. ] 15:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
**WP:NOR does not apply here, as the article has ''55 refrences''! Including those from opposing parties. If we delete this, make sure you put ] for AFD as well. --] 16:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
***It is still OR, because it syntheses those references into something that is not in the scholarly sources. ] 19:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
*** Synthesis is OR. Also, "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument. See ]. ] 20:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Per nomination. It has become a sort of complaint board, where everything that some Russians don't like is piled up without any regard for scholarly research whatsoever. For it to stay it needs to be rid of all the gossip and innuendos presented as facts of Russophobia. --] 16:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
**Just because the article could use a re-write does not meant delete it. In fact the whole point that means that deleting such an article to simply re-create it is pointless. A re-write yes, deletion no. --] 16:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
***I don't see any evidence of an attempt to rewrite this article while this debate is ongoing, so I doubt very much that any attempt to rewrite this article will be done in the future. ] 19:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
****Let me correct, this article will not be ALLOWED to be fixed, there are too many defenders round this soapbox. See how far ]s attempts to improve it by removing some of the "sourced content" got from the article history.--] 20:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Like ], this is a reflection of what is happening. Deleting it won't eliminate anti-Russian fervor, nor drive it underground. Rather it will only deny that it is happening. The cold war hasn't ended. And the anti-Russian vitriol will only get shriller in the lead up to the projected US attack on Iran. ] 19:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
**Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. See ]. ] 20:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Comparing this to Antisemitism is rather ridiculous... One is completely historic verifiable and throughly sourced topic, the other synthesized soapbox.--] 20:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
:::: Yes, these reasons for deletions are really a synthesized soapbox. ] 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
*'''weak keep''' and completely rewrite it. Make it like the ] article. ] 04:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
*: Comment: Polonophobia article has been fierce battlefield for years and there's little hope this won't happen in the future. ] 20:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
*:Can I ask the person to clarify his position, does he want to keep and re-write it or actually delete altogether, becuase you can't have both. --] 19:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
::Yes, I realize this topic is notable, and I think there should be an article. But in the state that its in now, it is not acceptable. I guess thats a "keep", but in my opinion its unencyclopedic and it needs to be re-written. ] 21:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
::: What thing in the article is not encyclopedic? ] 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. This is very real and very notable. ] 09:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
**Neither of these has been mentioned as a reason for deletion.--] 12:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. While anti-Russian sentiment does exist (actually, anti-''any nation'' phobia) Misplaced Pages has very poor track with this kind of articles. They invariable turn into haphazard collection of scares and horror stories today's media are so fond about, lacking cohesiveness and structure. This article is no exception.
: Until there's some way to keep such texts based on academic research they should be deleted or renamed according to ] pattern. ] 17:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
::Hehe, way off the target:-) Not so recent at all. Looks like you didn't read the article carefully. `'] 22:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
::: What I see" at least 50% of the text are anecdotal evidences from the 2000s. For example: 19th century British jingoism and Russian bear scare is covered in fewer sentences than recent twaddle of an ambassador in the UK. Sorry but this is not what I would expect from encyclopedia. ] 04:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

*'''Strong delete'''. Are we moving wars into WP? Can you define what an "anti-X-nation sentiment" is without relating it to a specific space and time? So move the relevant info to relevant articles and delete this abomination (BTW, I'm from the former Eastern Block and I know what an anti-Russian sentiment is, but I keep my mind clear). ] <b>|</b> 18:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
:* This 'anti-X-nation' series has the same weight as ''people against books printed with Times Roman 11pt''. While such anti-Ru sentiment occurred in specific regions at specific times, summing them up in an "overview" article smells like hate-driven. There aren't people against Times Roman 11pt ''generally''. There may be some in ''specific situations'' (peculiar alphabets, or specific materials like ad prints etc.). But would be insane to sum them in a category ''against Times Roman'', the same is insane to sum specific situations into a general anti-X-nation articles. This article (like all in this anti-X-nation series) does nothing but sums discontinuous (in space and time) events. More, the ''reasons'' don't have a denominator. What this kind of articles does is (1) mixes random (although accurate historically) situations who's only common term is the X-nation, and (2), subsequently, leads the reader into thinking the events have in common the "X-nation", so... (and speculations may begin). One could point that this is a valid gathering of facts based on one criteria, the "X-nation". This argument fails, because the next logical step would be drawing (partial) conclusions relative to X-nation as a whole. But the reasons for such anti-X-nation sentiments aren't primary against the X-nation, but against specific groups (e.g. political leaders, army commandants), specific actions, specific situations. The danger here is that, differently from "the properties of number N" which have no moral value, gathering such data about nations easily transforms itself into thinking "they, ''as a whole'', have this characteristic", or "they ''as a whole'' did that". In this case (Ru related) a proper article would be ''anti-Soviet sentiments'', or ''anti-Communism sentiments'', the "blamed" being not ''a nation'', but a system. ] <b>|</b> 04:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

*'''Keep'''. Notable and verifiable concept. The article is reasonably structured and has a referenced historical section. All of it is not an indiscriminate "coatrack": examples are given to illustrate some countries/ethnicities. At the same time the nominator presents a reasonable criticism of the article that should be addressed. `'] 22:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

* '''Strong delete''': Not that I have anything against coatracks, I have one at home, where I keep my hat. Or maybe it is a hatrack then? But coatracks don't belong into wikipedia, and this is clear example of that. The article is full of synthesis and false claims, I don't see any reason why we should waste time on correcting it and arguing with other editors who like the synthesis. ] <small>]</small> 15:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
*: False claims, you said? Just go and remove it! ] 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
* '''Strong delete''': There is little scholarship here at all. All it is is a sounding block for pro-Russian POV ] 19:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
*:Talk about some of the POV articles that you created, and revert-warred on, shall I list those for deletion as well? --] 20:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
::*And that is relevant exactly how? Also, remember when you asked not to be threatened, just a bit upwards? Please don't threaten others, too. -- ] 20:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' - The subject is notable and relevant. But amid all this "debate", will anyone actually take the criticisms voiced herein and raise the quality of the article? I agree with Mikka that ''the nominator presents a reasonable criticism of the article that should be addressed''. And why is it titled '''Anti-Russian Sentiment (ARS)''' rather than '''Russophobia''' if, as Kuban Kozak points, out Russophobia has a developed body of scholarly work on it. My last point, going through the article, there is no section where a reader can find the categories or conditions that qualify event A as ARS/Russophobia and event B as not ARS/Russophobia; there is no definition. Lack of such section gives the article a sense of arbitrariness and the perception that it may be afterall just a collection of news flashes salient at the moment. Too bad, because as I said above, the topic is of note.--]<sup>]</sup> 22:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
*:"raise the quality" - I think it will be done after the vote closure. With modern admins you never know what brick will hit you. `'] 02:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
::*You mean, like some editors started purposefully destroy ] during the AfD, as they wanted it to be deleted? Jolly good show. -- ] 06:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' — not the best article, but topic is important.] 04:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
*:'''Comment'''. Denial of ] existence and importance, which fuels attempts to delete this article by some editors, itself shows how strong and pervasive this Anti-Russian sentiment is.] 11:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
::* Pray, who denies "existence and importance"? The problem is that article is not about russofobia or anti-Russian sentiment. The article is about cases alleged by Russian government and media to be russofobic - or just cases involving Russians abroad - and overall is a biased coatrack attempting to make a ]. Not an encyclopedic article analyzing the origins and current situation in unbiased and NPOV way. That is the issue here, not "russophobia denial". -- ] 13:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
:::To make description unbiased and NPOV article should be improved, not deleted.] 05:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per ], ], and ]. This article is clearly biased. ] 07:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
*: In what aspect is the article biased? ] 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
* '''Keep'''. Important topic --] 09:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
::Comment: Russophobia is the subject of researches of scientifics, for example, ]--<s>] 12:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)</s>--] 12:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' — is important, interesting text.--] 09:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC) <small>— Vizu (]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>
* '''Keep''' this relict from Cold War times. Really exist, you see it in Holliwood production :-(
:And about "] - Propaganda, advocacy" - look it in gay-wiki-pages, but not there. ] 09:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' — it's a very important article. ] 10:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)<small>— ] (] • ]) has made ] outside this topic.</small>
*:I am an active user of ru-wiki - 20000 edits. ] 21:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
::* And you just happen to come to en.wikipedia whenever someone is rallying up people on ru.wikipedia? -- ] 21:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::I often use some materials from en-wiki and I saw this discussion. ] 01:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' while the topic itself might or might not be Misplaced Pages worthy the present article is almost completely useless, right now being simply a lumping together of various claims of ''russophobia'' made by Russian media. Let me stress however that the deletion of this article in its present form does not in any way prevent the creation of an encyclopedic article in the future that would disscuss the alleged dislike towards Russians as showing both the reality and how the issues are reported by Russian media in order to maintain a siege mentality and support forces that more or less directly wish to recreate the soviet empire. --] 10:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
*: Your dislike to recreate the Soviet (or German, or Martian, or something else) empire (or kingdom, or khalifate, or something else) has not to be a ground for article deletion. ] 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''' — it's a very important article.--] 17:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. There's a lot of articles on various anti-national sentiment. Anti-Russian is nothing different, and I see nothing in this article that make it more biased than ], for example. ] 17:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
*'''Speedy keep''' it is not better as ] oh Holokost--] 18:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment:''' Users: Jaro.p, JukoFF, Serebr, Alexandrov, Alexander Sokolov all have only contribution list of adding ru: interwiki links. This exactly matches the criteria of canvassing in ru.wiki -- Users who have account in en wiki for adding interwiki links have voted. ] <small>]</small> 00:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
** '''Comment:''' Related thread is ] <small>]</small> 00:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
** Ну какие ещё '''комменты''' может здесь дать эстонский гражданин, если его премьер-министр одевается в нацистскую форму и позирует? Что, всех проголосовавших за оставление туда записал, сам критерии определяешь?--] 11:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
***Proof?--] 15:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
**I have some edits in en-wiki and I am an active user of ru-wiki i.e. I am a real user, not "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet". ] 01:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
*'''Strong delete'''-serves as posting grudges against countries that were occupied by Soviet Russia and naturally don't remember the time in positive view.--] 16:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
*:Thus, you admit they have ''Anti-Russian sentiment'' there?] 17:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
*::Dislike for a state doesn't mean phobia for a people. Otherwise you would claim people fighting Nazi Germany and its legacy were germanophobes. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*:::If they extend their hate on modern germans, they are.] 21:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
*::::There is no evidence in reliable sources that hate has been extended anywhere, hence it's ] and ]. ] 23:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
* '''Keep'''. Arguments against the article are a bunch of ] possibly backed by political intrigues in some states. The article is not a coatrack. ] 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
* *'''Strong Keep'''. This topic is vary notable! If you wanna to delete subj, then it needs delete ] too. Rusophobe ¡NO PASARAN!--] 23:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
:*If this article confined itself to the topic "russophobia" as defined in the scholarly sources , I would have no objection. However this article does not cover this topic in any detail. All we have is sections upon sections of the latest synthesised accusations levelled against countries found in the media, in a kind of rolling attack board. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a ], and declarations of "Rusophobe ¡NO PASARAN!" is inappropriate nor justification to retain a deeply flawed article in an encyclopedia. ] 03:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
* '''Keep'''. For those not satisfied with the content: ]! Some comments of this debate illustrate why the article is needed. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp; &nbsp; 06:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
:*The article is substantially the same and has not improved since the previous deletion debate was closed on July 19 , despite all the promises to rewrite and improve the article by those who voted to keep. It is impossible to improve it since there is a group of editors who want to maintain it as a ]. Therefore deletion is warranted. ] 06:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
*'''FYI''': ] (I am not sure that this article should be deleted, though). ] 15:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
::'''Comment'''. Right. That is canvassing by ], which is hardly a reason to delete this article though. ] 16:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
::: Articles of this type IMO usually appear with minority groups where they document persecution, and acts of inequity. In the case of Russian - this is an imperialist group and will naturally cause dissent no matter what it does. I do not see similar articles for anti-American sentiment (which no doubt exists) anti-Arabic, Anti-French, anti-English. I don't know, but an imperial giant like Russia shouldn't cry if it hurts someones feelings. It is so trivial. If however the article documents or tries to document an organized campaign of changing public opinion then this should be documented and documented well. Currently it looks like a gripe box - "Mummy he hit me!" type comments just don't sound scholarly at all. ] 16:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
:: '''Comment:''' I notified the canvassing few comments back. I am also not sure if deletion is going to help anything. But at it's current state the article is not encyclopedic. It's mostly clear synthesis and otherwise many of the stuff can hardly be considered to be connected with anti russian sentiment. I think the article should definitely be rewritten. But I don't know anyone who could pull that off without getting into fight with numerous people. ] <small>]</small> 17:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 09:46, 5 February 2023

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. east.718 at 02:19, 11/5/2007

Anti-Russian sentiment

Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.
Anti-Russian sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The rationale for deletion is that the content on this page is not suitable for an encyclopedia. The reason that the content is not suitable is that it is a soapbox of political opinions about current affairs, propaganda and recruitment hung on the hook of a notable topic, a topic which this article fails to discuss in any great depth. For example, the Nazis showed the most extreme form of anti-Russian sentiment, but it is only given one single sentence and a quote in the whole article, while we have sections upon sections of accusations by Russian authorities leveled at other countries that they currently have poor relations with.

It is a classic coatrack of unfounded accusations of anti-Russian sentiment leveled at particular countries. For example we have Britain listed as a country holding anti-Russian sentiment, yet the only evidence is some unfounded accusations by the Russian ambassador in the wake of the Litvinenko assasination. The article cites some survey regarding negative perceptions of Russia: 62% in Finland, 42% in the Czech Republic and Switzerland, 37% in Germany, 32% in Denmark and Poland, 23% in Estonia. Yet we don't see sections on Finland, the Czech Republic, Switzerland, Germany or Denmark in this article, but the Baltic states is listed, even though their level of negative perception is significantly lower than those other countries. The Baltic States section contains only more unfounded accusations from Russian authorities, but no real evidence of actual anti-Russian sentiment. Poland too is listed as is the USA. This article seems to only list those countries that the Russian Federation currently has difficult relations with. The page has become an inflammatory attack page directed at those particular countries, particularly with the juxtapostion of an image of a Nazi inscription "The Russian must die so that we may live" at the top of the article. This kind of thing has no place in Misplaced Pages.

As it stands, this article does not reflect "anti-Russian sentiment" as defined in the scholarly sources, but had become a sort of rolling "complaints board" where the latest accusation or innuendo published in the Russian press is posted. For example, at the height of the difficulties with Georgia there was a section on Georgia, and a section on Austria after some hotel had an issue with drunk Russian tourists , but no mention of the UK or the USA, since Litvinenko or the missile shield issues hadn't happened yet. Unfortunately it is impossible to improve the article to something reasonable like anti-Polish sentiment since it is defended by a handful of editors who want to maintain it as a soapbox. The article is substantially the same and has not improved since the previous deletion debate was closed on July 19 , despite all the promises to rewrite and improve the article by those who voted to keep. Therefore deletion is warranted. Martintg 02:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Note This article has been nominated for deletion previously. faithless () 06:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Antisemitism,and reprimand for the nomination aimed at nothing but spilling more bad blood as if the Eastern Europe related topics have not yet seen enough. --Irpen 02:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as per nomination, and reprimand the previous editor for assuming bad faith. Martintg 02:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Martin, please cut it. With editors one knows for a while, there is no need to assume anything. --Irpen 03:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
      • This article is a mess. It is just a long list of current grievences against other countries, which is four times longer than the historical section. For a model "Anti-xxx sentiment" article see Anti-Polish sentiment as an example of a reasonable article which discusses the historical aspect only. Martintg 03:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
        • The article's being a mess alone is not a reason for deletion. The article should be deleted if either the topic is non-encyclopedic, which is not the case since Russophobia is a known scholarly term very well established, or, if topic is valid, if the article and its history in the current shape and form are totally useless for the coverage of the topic. Being a mess, largely because it was turned into a battleground by some here, the article contains valid and relevant facts as well as useful references. --Irpen 03:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete It could perhaps be part of a wider discussion elsewhere on the internet but this seems to be a coatstand on which to hang complaints about other people's attitudes to Russia. I should declare an interest here as my own articles have been cited. However I think it is important to distinguish between, and not to conflate, attitudes to Russia/Russians/Russianness and attitudes to the Kremlin. It is quite possible to be a russophile with regard to language, literature and the like, while being an ardent enemy of the current leadership. In the same way, dislike for the Bush administration is not the same as anti-Americanism. Edwardlucas 03:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    Well, just remove all text about attitudes to the Kremlin. Nothing to remove? ☺ Incnis Mrsi 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - the article is not in the best shape but the topic is notable and the article is usable. I have seen quite a few new editors who when arriving to Wiki first check if Rusophobia is present and only checking thet the topic is not omitted agree that the project is not a propaganda tool Alex Bakharev 03:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The article inappropriately mixes actions/reactions regarding the Russian government, those who espouse its official positions, and those who are simply Russian; attempting to create evidence of Russophobia. There are a number of topics here worthy of discussion, individually, and if cited from reputable academic research--but that is not this article. PētersV 04:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    So, do you now what is Russophobia? Incnis Mrsi 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice, ie allow and recommend recreating the article. Article is a mess compared to Anti-Polish sentiment; instead of describing Anti-Russian sediment, it describes actions and allegations of the Russian government. Biased WP:COATRACK to make a WP:POINT. -- Sander Säde 05:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    In what aspect is the article biased? There is such thing as "anti-Russian sentiment", like anti-Polish or anti-German. Why the article has not to exist? Incnis Mrsi 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you should read what has said, before starting to protest? Article is not about russofobia, article is about Russian politics (you know, the thing where government picks a new "enemy of Russia" every six months, calls that country russofobes and biggest enemy of Russia, until they find a new target). That is not russofobia, that is just shameful. -- Sander Säde 09:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Subject is notable and cited, and nominator gives no rationale for deletion. Also, it should be noted that the nominator also argued "Strong delete;" that argument should be discounted. faithless () 06:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    • While the subject is notable, the problem is the content. The rationale for deletion is that the content not suitable for an encyclopedia. The reason that the content is not suitable is that it is a soapbox of political opinions about current affairs and propaganda hung on the hook of a notable topic, a topic which this article fails to discuss in any great depth. Martintg 10:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
      • The problem here is that this is a controversial and fiercely debated topic. There will always be people who take offense at the article, regardless of how it's written (they may even be well-meaning, but simply too involved to think about the subject rationally). Deletion is not the path to pursue here. For example, George W. Bush will always have someone who disputes neutrality, and most likely has both people who say it is too pro-Bush and too anti-Bush; all that can be done is to work to improve the article. You've admitted yourself that the topic is notable, and it's obviously sourced. Perhaps it is poorly written (I haven't closely read the article), but that just means it needs work, not that it ought to be scrapped entirely. faithless () 00:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
        • The topic itself, that is the topic as discussed in scholarly sources, is not controversial. But this article does not cover that topic in any great detail. The Nazis showed the most extreme form of anti-Russian sentiment, but it is only given one single sentence and a quote in the whole article, while we have sections upon sections of accusations by Russian authorities leveled at other countries that they currently have poor relations with. It's just a xenophobic soapbox in its present form. Unfortunately it is impossible to improve the article since it is defended by a handful of editors who want to maintain it as a soapbox. Therefore deletion is the only option, and if the recreated article is no better, then perhaps salting is required too. Martintg 01:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep AFD is not cleanup. Deleting an article to start again is not an efficient or persuasive approach since there's nothing to stop the article's advocates from putting all the same material into the new version. Colonel Warden 07:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    • If the article's advocates recreate the deleted article with the same content, then it can be speedy deleted. This topic needs a fresh start so that it can be developed into something reasonable like anti-Polish sentiment. The first step is deletion this non-encyclopedic content and its edit histories. Martintg 01:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The vitriol used by the nominator actually proves that the article su!bject is notable. As others have argued, the article is in a mess because it is being used as a battleground by Russophobes.--Paul Pieniezny 09:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Russia, its language, politics and culture are quite noteable and hence arose conflicting feelings or thoughts. The nominator gave prooves that the article can be made better and expanded with entries for other countries: the nominator also gave information that Russophobia is quite wide-spread. Russophopia is just an object to be described like other objects in an encyclopedia; like other phobias (Antisemitism, anti-Polish sentiment and so on) it can take different forms, from hate towards any political moves of Russian goverment to hatered towards Russian language and culture. --Russianname 10:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    • This conflation of dislike for the policies of the current Russian government with a dislike of Russian language and culture and lumped together into one article is precisely the problem with this article. As it stands, this article does not reflect "anti-Russian sentiment" as defined in the scholarly sources, but is a soapbox to propagandise the view that opposition to the policies of current political elite in power in Russia is an expression of anti-Russian sentiment. Martintg 10:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. There is a strong Baltic Hate love group, most likely funded by their governments if not the CIA, who want to polarise wikipedia, there were previous attempts to hijack the article (and delete it), this is disgraceful and does them no credit. The article depicts numerous aspects of current politics, and besides given that the editors themselves are openly opinionated and delete complete refrenced sections with no consensus. Its not the article's fault, its the truth in it that hurts them. --Kuban Cossack 10:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Excellent joke, "funded by their governments if not the CIA"! Straight from the Cold War paranoia. -- Sander Säde 10:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Well not directly, but certainly brainwashed by them... :) --Kuban Cossack 10:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Please don't WP:THREATen me, the whole AFD can be reported as such, or this edit. Besides I did not participate in the arbitration, yet as you requested I changed the remark...;)--Kuban Cossack 11:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
You are one humorous fellow. I'll be waiting for my paycheck form some obscure agency then, I could use an extra income.--Alexia Death the Grey 14:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll take that as a compliment, your love for Russia has never been so...recognised.--Kuban Cossack 16:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Where did Martintg make a legal threat to you? Methinks you should read policies before linking to them, Kuban kazak. -- Sander Säde 16:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Comparing this to Antisemitism is rather ridiculous... One is completely historic verifiable and throughly sourced topic, the other synthesized soapbox.--Alexia Death the Grey 20:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, these reasons for deletions are really a synthesized soapbox. Incnis Mrsi 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I realize this topic is notable, and I think there should be an article. But in the state that its in now, it is not acceptable. I guess thats a "keep", but in my opinion its unencyclopedic and it needs to be re-written. Ostap 21:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
What thing in the article is not encyclopedic? Incnis Mrsi 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is very real and very notable. Everyking 09:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. While anti-Russian sentiment does exist (actually, anti-any nation phobia) Misplaced Pages has very poor track with this kind of articles. They invariable turn into haphazard collection of scares and horror stories today's media are so fond about, lacking cohesiveness and structure. This article is no exception.
Until there's some way to keep such texts based on academic research they should be deleted or renamed according to List of recent media views of XYZ pattern. Pavel Vozenilek 17:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, way off the target:-) Not so recent at all. Looks like you didn't read the article carefully. `'Míkka 22:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
What I see" at least 50% of the text are anecdotal evidences from the 2000s. For example: 19th century British jingoism and Russian bear scare is covered in fewer sentences than recent twaddle of an ambassador in the UK. Sorry but this is not what I would expect from encyclopedia. Pavel Vozenilek 04:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Are we moving wars into WP? Can you define what an "anti-X-nation sentiment" is without relating it to a specific space and time? So move the relevant info to relevant articles and delete this abomination (BTW, I'm from the former Eastern Block and I know what an anti-Russian sentiment is, but I keep my mind clear). adriatikus | 18:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This 'anti-X-nation' series has the same weight as people against books printed with Times Roman 11pt. While such anti-Ru sentiment occurred in specific regions at specific times, summing them up in an "overview" article smells like hate-driven. There aren't people against Times Roman 11pt generally. There may be some in specific situations (peculiar alphabets, or specific materials like ad prints etc.). But would be insane to sum them in a category against Times Roman, the same is insane to sum specific situations into a general anti-X-nation articles. This article (like all in this anti-X-nation series) does nothing but sums discontinuous (in space and time) events. More, the reasons don't have a denominator. What this kind of articles does is (1) mixes random (although accurate historically) situations who's only common term is the X-nation, and (2), subsequently, leads the reader into thinking the events have in common the "X-nation", so... (and speculations may begin). One could point that this is a valid gathering of facts based on one criteria, the "X-nation". This argument fails, because the next logical step would be drawing (partial) conclusions relative to X-nation as a whole. But the reasons for such anti-X-nation sentiments aren't primary against the X-nation, but against specific groups (e.g. political leaders, army commandants), specific actions, specific situations. The danger here is that, differently from "the properties of number N" which have no moral value, gathering such data about nations easily transforms itself into thinking "they, as a whole, have this characteristic", or "they as a whole did that". In this case (Ru related) a proper article would be anti-Soviet sentiments, or anti-Communism sentiments, the "blamed" being not a nation, but a system. adriatikus | 04:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable and verifiable concept. The article is reasonably structured and has a referenced historical section. All of it is not an indiscriminate "coatrack": examples are given to illustrate some countries/ethnicities. At the same time the nominator presents a reasonable criticism of the article that should be addressed. `'Míkka 22:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete: Not that I have anything against coatracks, I have one at home, where I keep my hat. Or maybe it is a hatrack then? But coatracks don't belong into wikipedia, and this is clear example of that. The article is full of synthesis and false claims, I don't see any reason why we should waste time on correcting it and arguing with other editors who like the synthesis. Suva Чего? 15:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    False claims, you said? Just go and remove it! Incnis Mrsi 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete: There is little scholarship here at all. All it is is a sounding block for pro-Russian POV Bandurist 19:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    Talk about some of the POV articles that you created, and revert-warred on, shall I list those for deletion as well? --Kuban Cossack 20:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - The subject is notable and relevant. But amid all this "debate", will anyone actually take the criticisms voiced herein and raise the quality of the article? I agree with Mikka that the nominator presents a reasonable criticism of the article that should be addressed. And why is it titled Anti-Russian Sentiment (ARS) rather than Russophobia if, as Kuban Kozak points, out Russophobia has a developed body of scholarly work on it. My last point, going through the article, there is no section where a reader can find the categories or conditions that qualify event A as ARS/Russophobia and event B as not ARS/Russophobia; there is no definition. Lack of such section gives the article a sense of arbitrariness and the perception that it may be afterall just a collection of news flashes salient at the moment. Too bad, because as I said above, the topic is of note.--Riurik 22:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    "raise the quality" - I think it will be done after the vote closure. With modern admins you never know what brick will hit you. `'Míkka 02:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Pray, who denies "existence and importance"? The problem is that article is not about russofobia or anti-Russian sentiment. The article is about cases alleged by Russian government and media to be russofobic - or just cases involving Russians abroad - and overall is a biased coatrack attempting to make a WP:POINT. Not an encyclopedic article analyzing the origins and current situation in unbiased and NPOV way. That is the issue here, not "russophobia denial". -- Sander Säde 13:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
To make description unbiased and NPOV article should be improved, not deleted.DonaldDuck 05:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Russophobia is the subject of researches of scientifics, for example, Igor Shafarevich--86.57.204.205 12:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)--Alexander Sokolov 12:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
And about "WP:SOAP - Propaganda, advocacy" - look it in gay-wiki-pages, but not there. Alexandrov 09:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I often use some materials from en-wiki and I saw this discussion. Serebr 01:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If this article confined itself to the topic "russophobia" as defined in the scholarly sources , I would have no objection. However this article does not cover this topic in any detail. All we have is sections upon sections of the latest synthesised accusations levelled against countries found in the media, in a kind of rolling attack board. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a battleground, and declarations of "Rusophobe ¡NO PASARAN!" is inappropriate nor justification to retain a deeply flawed article in an encyclopedia. Martintg 03:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The article is substantially the same and has not improved since the previous deletion debate was closed on July 19 , despite all the promises to rewrite and improve the article by those who voted to keep. It is impossible to improve it since there is a group of editors who want to maintain it as a WP:SOAPBOX. Therefore deletion is warranted. Martintg 06:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Right. That is canvassing by User:DonaldDuck, which is hardly a reason to delete this article though. Biophys 16:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Articles of this type IMO usually appear with minority groups where they document persecution, and acts of inequity. In the case of Russian - this is an imperialist group and will naturally cause dissent no matter what it does. I do not see similar articles for anti-American sentiment (which no doubt exists) anti-Arabic, Anti-French, anti-English. I don't know, but an imperial giant like Russia shouldn't cry if it hurts someones feelings. It is so trivial. If however the article documents or tries to document an organized campaign of changing public opinion then this should be documented and documented well. Currently it looks like a gripe box - "Mummy he hit me!" type comments just don't sound scholarly at all. Bandurist 16:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I notified the canvassing few comments back. I am also not sure if deletion is going to help anything. But at it's current state the article is not encyclopedic. It's mostly clear synthesis and otherwise many of the stuff can hardly be considered to be connected with anti russian sentiment. I think the article should definitely be rewritten. But I don't know anyone who could pull that off without getting into fight with numerous people. Suva Чего? 17:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.