Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russophobia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Sr13 07:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russophobia

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. 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 by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Russophobia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Original essay, a collection of arbitrary facts from newspapers, internet sites and similar sources to prove the existence of a particular prejudice. We have already had Anti-Hellenism (deleted), Anti-Bosniak sentiment(deleted), recreated Bosniakophobia (and deleted again), Anti-Hungarian sentiment(deleted), etc. compiled in exact same way.--Mbuk 23:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep and clean up - per this search --Addhoc 23:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
There is also [1] and [2] search. Just as convincing. That is not an argument. --Hillock65 23:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't operate on a principle of precedent, so your searches aren't relevant. The link I've provided demonstrates that multiple authors have devoted chapters to this subject and therefore a reasonable article could be written. Addhoc 23:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per the same arguments stated at AfD for Estophobia. --Novelbank 00:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per AfD arguments for Estophobia et al. Bigdaddy1981 01:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Hesitant delete When being informed about this AfD, I noticed that we we have a lot of articles along the same lines; anglophobia, francophobia, lusophobia, serbophobia, etc. A lot of these are obviously nothing but neologisms or merely contrived terms for "hatred of" or, as many similar articles are named, "anti-XXX sentiment". Changing the article titles would actually give the articles more merit. However, it should be noted that there's a huge difference difference between, for example, racism against Chinese, which sports a long and rich tradition of Western chauvinist nastiness, and borderline cases, like lusophobia, which smacks of almost as much pouty nationalism as estophobia. Peter Isotalo 07:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This topic is not backed by verification in reliable sources, and most of its contents seem to be original research. And while this may be more a cleanup rather than a deletion issue, it also is extremely POV. VanTucky (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: That doesn't make sense. You admit that it's not even a deletion issue, yet you vote delete? -Violask81976 15:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. As pointed out by Novelbank and Bigdaddy1981, the same principles apply as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estophobia, which also should be kept. I would support renaming this article here to Anti-Russian sentiment. Digwuren 13:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I tried to make this move several times, but it was usally quickly reverted by lovers of stingy terminology. `'Míkka 17:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per VanTucky. Oysterguitarist 14:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rename as "anti-Russian sentiment" or something like that. Russophobia is too much of a neologism. The article is well cited and should be kepted. The nominator is misleading since he only mentioned a number of deleted articles of barely similar nature but not the many more similar articles that have been kept. Just look at the entries on Template:Discrimination2. --CGM1980 16:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete and merge w/ Russo-X articles. I can't accept voting "keep" an article which has around 20 {fact} tags. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Someone went nuts with the fact tag, but there are 40 references in the article. --CGM1980 19:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
True, but there are masses of unsourced claims and arguments in there also. Bigdaddy1981 23:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP - Though, I believe the article needs some serious improvement, and should possibly be renamed "anti-Russian sentiment", with a redirect from "Russophobia. Padishah5000 19:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge & Redirect - Perhaps the best idea would be to create a general list on the subject. List of Anti-national sentiments would be the name of the new article. It would have a section for each of the many different national sentiment articles that have been created. The more well known sentiments sections could have a link to there main article, and the lesss know sentiments just the section. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 21:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
That is a really good idea. The template solution, i.e. Template:Discrimination2, doesn't work very well. I personally hate that template as it contains everything and the kitchen sink. But pulling out an article List of anti-national sentiments would probably be a much better solution. There is a need to pull these topics together more than they are right now. --CGM1980 21:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Anything with those many prominent references is a strong keep.
-- Fuzheado | Talk 02:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to be very well written or notable. Article lacks scholarly opinions and violates WP:NEO. I don't even know if Russophobia is even the proper term for the idea.--SefringleTalk 05:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    If you don't trust the 1911 Britannica, I suggest you consult "The Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain" (Harvard University Press, 1950).[3] --Ghirla-трёп- 12:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletions. —SefringleTalk 05:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. -- SefringleTalk 05:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. AfD is not cleanup. Clearly a notable topic in its own right. —Xezbeth 09:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep unlike the WP:POINT-violating Estophobia, this article goes well beyond the 1990s and looks at hundreds of historical cases. Likewise Russophobia is actually a genuine modern issue [4]. --Kuban Cossack 11:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why don't you attempt to delete Anti-Polish sentiment to test the reaction? Russophobia is a valid, well-established concept with 663 Google Books hits and 60,000 Google hits, including encyclopaedias ("combat a wild outbreak of Russophobia" in the 1911 Britannica[5]), monographs ("The Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain", Harvard University Press, 1950), articles in major media outlets ("The West's New Russophobia Is Hypocritical" from The Guardian), and academic discussions (search for "Europe's periodic bouts of Russophobia" in The New York Times). --Ghirla-трёп- 12:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    Well, if the article would based on academic sources like Britannica, monographs or publication in peer-reviewed journals, I would never nominate it for delition. But it is now a collection of tendentiously interpreted fact, exactly like Estophobia article whose deletion you supported. Double standards?--Mbuk 19:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you're confusing two rather different things here: the notability of the subject itself and the current contents of the article. If what you're claiming is true, then the contents of the article needs to be reworked, perhaps reworked extensively, to remove the "tendentious interpretations" and keep it NPOV and verifiable. But the current contents of this article being improper (not that I'm making the claim either way) doesn't change the notability of the subject itself. In my view at least, the AfD debates should be decided on that latter concept, whereas the contents of the article should determine how it gets edited, not whether it gets deleted or kept. IgorSF 05:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It exists and is not a neologism.--Urthogie 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Topic is noteworthy, but the article should be rewritten from scratch. Most of the article is unsourced and seems to be opinions, not facts. All of it is badly fractured into pieces, structure should be re-thought as well. Maybe move it into userspace until the article is ready for mainspace? Sander Säde 14:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
    I wonder if you care to extend the same curtousy to Estophobia, and put that into namespace (and keep there for good if possible ;). Although I must say, some of stuff in that article that is used as genuine refrences, will only help to expand Russophobia to newer levels, like this nationalist garbage. Lovely text, Lukashenko is nothing but a Russian puppet, Communism was also a Russian plague (although neither Lenin, Trotsky, Marx or Stalin were technically Russian) for which we Belarusans (not Belarusians btw) suffered. Forgetting to mention that Belarus was a founding republic of the USSR, and the first congress of the RSDRP took place in Minsk... extravagant :D --Kuban Cossack 15:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I wonder why you don't read the AfD about Estophobia? I supported putting article into userspace for now there as well... Sander Säde 18:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Subject is valid. A clean up might be needed but one does not delete an article to clean it up... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep clearly notable topic with existent sources. Needs a rewrite not a delete.--Konstable 19:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, trimming off items that are unreferenced. Stifle (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anti-Russian sentiment is a very real political phenomenon, especially in the ex-Communist bloc. The political discourse of many countries (Poland nowadays, China under Mao) revolves around the issue of hatred/mistrust toward Russia. I vote for Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor's proposal to create a list on the subject. --Targeman 00:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The word exists and is not a neologism, as per a Google search, for instance. Any unreferenced material should be deleted, and any POV content NPOV'ed, but the subject itself (as well as this particular word) exists. For those wishing to compare to the Estophobia AfD debate, I applied essentially the same criteria in both cases, and the results are different. IgorSF 00:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per Addhoc and the mass canvassing by the nominator. I still believe it should be renamed to Anti-Russian sentiment, however. --Pan Gerwazy 01:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, the topic is valid even if the article is less that it should be (and also more than it should be; trim, trim, trim). Carlossuarez46 01:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I remember a serious scientific discussion in Finland some years ago on whether Ryssäviha (hatred of Russians) existed in Finland in the 19th century and earlier, or whether it only emerged after the Finnish Civil War. (In fact, the Finnish article discusses this at length.) -- Petri Krohn 03:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - of course. At to everyone making a connection between this article and Estophobia, I suggest a careful re-read of WP:Point. Balcer 05:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep should be kept, just like we ought to have the article Anti-Estonian sentiment. These phenomena are existent. E.J. 08:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. All these Anti-national sentiment articles should be somehow dealt with, probably tightly watched over, particularly for the adherence of their content to their scope. Currently many of these articles provide arena for the nationalists of all sorts for their POV-pushing campaigns. Russophobia is not an exception here, as it currently discusses not only its topic but also all the grievances of individual editors, including past military conflicts, modern international politics and many others. --Lysytalk 10:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Russophobia is a very popular phenomen in Germany and other european country(GB, Finland) in wikipedia is two german Anti-German sentiment and Organised persecution of ethnic Germans--Jaro.p 10:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, and also second Lysy's comment.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  11:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Russophobia is probably second only to Antisemitism (and I'd even say those fobias are struggling for supremacy with swings of political currents) in the list of Western fobias. Article is bad though, should be worked on. RJ CG 14:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly notable but needs cleanup Taprobanus 14:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just needs cleanup. To admit that this article is merely POV and need souces the not to delete is idiotic in my books. -Violask81976 15:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. AFDs on discrimination topics need keen attention and a higher bar than just mobs of people with poor arguments for their vote (which *FD are not supposedly based merely upon). Clearly anti-Russian sentiment does and has existed, and the article presents evidence of it. I find it very troubling that some of the people that voted to delete Estophobia are voting to keep Russophobia or likewise among other ethnic discrimination articles. BTW, bad title e.g. "it's a neologism, nuke!" is not an argument for deletion, but for the simple act of renaming. And PS: Does anyone ever actually check to see if accusations of WP:SYNTH or WP:POINT are real, or just made as the result of POV? Pointing out acts of discrimination or prejudice are just that. And prejudice -- much prejudice -- really does exist in the world, believe it or not, and as such has encyclopedic merit. - Keith D. Tyler 16:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I am surprized that an experienced editor does not see the difference between encyclopedic and nonencyclopedic topic. Yes discrimination exists, but I seriously doubt that anyone will write Madagascarophobia in the near future. Anti-Estonian sentiment is a current political development spurred by not very smart actions of Estonian government, i.e., the political (over)reaction to political developments, rather than blind prejudice. The authors failed to find any more older examples despite their panic efforts to dig some more anti-Estonian dirt. In the Soviet times, Estonians, along with the other two Baltic states were very respected in Soviet Union for their laborousness, higher general culture, and higher living standard. Of course, like everywhere, there were bigots, there were political repressions, but there was never "Estophobia" (nor lithuanophobia or smth), and this attempt to present the current political mishap as an ethnic hatred is sickening. `'Míkka 21:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • You obviously never visited Soviet Union, when they were part of it. You would know more. While they were respected for laborousness, higher general culture, and higher living standard, there had always been a suspicion of them being "foreigners" and not truly Soviet. It went to commical - I remember when Latvian actors were complaining that the only roles they were most often asked to play was Nazis in the WWII movies. There has always been a lot of prejudice and the frequent use of racial slurs in reference to Balts is one more proof of it. Even though Estophobia was deleted, I believe, latent hatred and intolerance towards all three Baltic people is a noteworthy subject. It hasn't gone anywhere. --Hillock65 22:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Neither have you. If you are going to shoot a film about the Zulu Uprising in the United States who are you going to ask to play the Zulus? Any generic black person or specific Zulu-looking black people? And from a POV of black person, I get payed to dress up and run on set for three days, what have I got to loose? Same thing with any Latvian in 1970s offered to make a bit of cash for a few days work in German uniform. That is Latviaphobia??? You make me laugh. --Kuban Cossack 22:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Oh yeah, a Russian in German uniform will never look authentic, only Latvian will. Your racist theories finally persuaded me, I give up. --Hillock65 22:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
            • ??? So you are saying that the unrefrenced OR statement that no Russians ever played Germans in Soviet time films is based on looks alone is an example of Latviaphobia towards Latvians because a Latvian may have been chosen to act as a stuntmen. What are you on about ??? --Kuban Cossack 23:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
              • You are obviously struggling with English, I didn't write that. Read the above section again carefully. I don't have anything new to add. --Hillock65 23:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't necessarily believe that any anti-X topic is encyclopedic, but I do believe that if it can be cataloged and identified, then it probably is, as long as the X of the topic is itself encyclopedic, and the instances of anti-X were notable enough to have press or academic attention. If there is, in fact, a trend or pattern of prejudice against Madagascarians, which has multiple and distinct covered incidents etc., then Anti-Madagascarian sentiment is IMO valid -- as valid as, say, Westboro Baptist Church. In Estophobia's case, there certainly seems to be anti-Estonian sentiment; not knowing anything about it personally, a cursory search turns up [6] [7] [8]. So it arguably exists. What I find upsetting is the increasing number of people who stamp any anti-X topic AFD with "All Anti-X topics should go". So despite whether a form of prejudice exists, it may not be covered, because coverage of ethnic prejudice topics is apparently inherently unencyclopedic. I don't agree. My main argument is that a real firm bar needs to be used in AFDs on ethnic discrimination topics, particularly recent forms, because of the potential for denial and bias. - Keith D. Tyler 23:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up Wow if this much energy was put into improving the article it would jump-class. Benjiboi 19:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Demonstrates notability and is pretty well cited. Can certainly use some tightening, though. Kukini hablame aqui 20:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep although rename is in order as mentioned before. Also, the article requires large cleanup. Suva 14:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Yet another "anti-X" or "X-phobia" article that posits an original narrative. Wikipedians should not be the ones dictating what comprises the phenomenon of "Russophobia" but unfortunately that is the case here. I'm not convinced that there exists a substantial amount of RS discussing this as a phenomenon such that we can narrate this phenomenon without original synthesis. The Behnam 16:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • RS? Any history textbook on Central Europe. I agree the article sucks at times (the religious argument seems especially dubious) but I've lived in Central/Eastern Europe and believe me, many, many people there hate Russia's guts with a passion. And the hatred is much older than the latest 40-year military occupation. Anti-Russian sentiment in Poland, for instance, plays the same role that security paranoia plays in US elections. If you have any Russian connection or sympathies, you don't get elected. Sad but true. --Targeman 18:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Doesn't take a lot of looking: [9]. - Keith D. Tyler 21:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It isn't that I contest the existence of people who dislike Russians, but I don't see the grounds for Wikipedia narrating a phenomenon "Russophobia" as we do by tying together what could be disparate cases of 'anti-Russian sentiment' and presenting them as unified (part of the same story about "Russophobia"). Generally the narration of a phenomenon such as this should be done by non-fringe academics (as is the case for antisemitism) who decide what events comprise the phenomenon of Russophobia. Also this kind of academic coverage would have to be fairly mainstream or else we will have big case of placing undue weight on fringe views. Right now I'm simply not seeing any narration here that isn't original research and I'm not convinced that substantial RS scholarly narrations exist to work from. If you think that you can address this matter, please do and I will consider changing my position in this debate. The Behnam 20:28, 18 July 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.