Talk:Anti-Ukrainian sentiment

POV

Of all the sources out there, anti-Ukrainian sentiment is not so much linked to Russia, but rather Poland...yet this is completely missing in the article. "Anti-Ukrainian sentiment in contemporary Russia" is based almost entirely upon WP:SELFPUB sources, and I have re-written that section yet again in order to weasel out the use of weasel words. "Some Ukrainians" is a single cultural centre in Ufa, and "several organisations" are the same organisations in Ufa. The presence of the Orthodox churches in this article is a case of WP:SYN, because we all know that this is not an "Anti-Ukrainian" sentiment, but anti-anti-Moscow Patriarch sentiment; it's presence in this article is WP:SYN pure and simple. As it stands now, this is just a mish-mash of SYN. Also, the lead states that Anti-Ukrainian sentiment is widely present in Ukraine and Russia; yet this source is from 1994; hardly as of late is it? VCIOM has done opinion polls in the past on these allegations of anti-Ukrainian sentiment in Russia, and this type of information should be present, rather than just the viewpoints of a minor Ukrainian organisation in the Urals, which is why I have placed POV and OR templates on the article, and they need to be rectified so that all major viewpoints as reported in WP:RS are present in the article, rather than just accusations by some group. --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The reasons for NPOV tag seem valid enough. The article is very raw and needs major work. But I am puzzled as to OR tag. What exactly is original research? Which particular statements violate that policy? --Hillock65 (talk) 03:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Russavia, why not add stuff on Poland yourself? Martintg (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Because when I am not a rabid Polonophobe and have no interest in creating original research in order to link things. You have now removed my placement of the {{or}} template on the article, but as yet, there has is no eivdence in the article to demonstrate that the religious issues are linked to Anti-Ukrainian sentiment. The onus is on you do so, or it should be removed as WP:SYN. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The linked references in the religion paragraph clearly state "Particular discrimination is leveled against Ukrainian Orthodoxy", so I don't see how you think this is synthesis. Martintg (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Zhirinovsky, etc

Additionally, Zhirinovsky is the leader of the LDPR. In the article it is stated that he is the Deputy Speaker of the State Duma. I have changed this to the leader of the LDPR, because his views are attributed to him being the leader of the LDPR, not speaking officially on behalf of the Duma, which implies that his views are officially sanctioned by the Duma, and by the Russian government. Just like on the Putin article, where Anne Applebaum isn't listed as an adjunct fellow of a neocon think tank, she is portrayed as a "journalist and author", because this is what she is most well known as, according to Martintg. Yet here, it is the exact reverse. Zhirinovsky is more known for his LDPR leadership, not as the Deputy Speaker of the Duma, hence, it should be changed back. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The positions of Russian officials mentioned in the article are important. For example when making their Anti-Ukrainian statements they occupied important positions within the Russian government: the mayor of nation's capital, deputy speaker of the parliament, member of parliament. I don't see the reason why this information should be excluded. These are not rank-and-file people, but prominent personalities in the Russian society and government. --Hillock65 (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

And why exactly is it more important for "Deputy Speaker of the State Duma" to be present, rather than "Leader of the Democratic Liberal Party of Russia"? Also, please note that a similar argument is present on Vladimir Putin, whereby Anne Applebaum is merely being listed as "journalist and author" without her marriage to Polish MFA and adjunct fellow at a neocon think tank being presented. And Martintg is the same person involved. And this is my belief, he wants to portray Zhirinovsky as speaking on behalf of the Duma (which he is not, as he is only a Deputy Speaker), rather than for himself or as leader of the LDPR, and on the Putin article, he doesn't want the fact that Applebaum is a member of a neocon think tank and married to a Polish MFA to perhaps explain her views; surely her membership of an neocon think tank is also important information which will explain her neocon views? I have suggested on both articles to remove qualifiers before people's names; particularly when there are multiple qualifiers than can apply...and I have suggested this in the interests of NPOV, but have so far hit a brick wall. Why is that? --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why are you bringing up other articles. I don't edit there and I am concerned about the content here, not elsewhere and am not familiar with those names you are mentioning. An attempt to extend dispute in other articles to this one is the clear case of WP:POINT. The fact that you may have disagreements in other articles, doesn't mean the same practice has to be repeated here. It is important to mention that while making those statements Zhirinovsky did represent the Russian parliament, albeit indirectly. And so did Yuri Luzhkov representing the government of Moscow. No one is stating that that was the position of the Russian government, but it was the position of the high-ranking Russian parliamentarian, Deputy speaker and the mayor of the nation's capital. This is important. If we were speaking about Tymoshenko, would we only mention that she is the leader of Batkivshchyna party or that she is the prime-minister of Ukraine? It is self evident. --Hillock65 (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a categorical difference between political position and marriage. Political position gives a person a specific sociopolitical rôle -- one that merits mentioning when briefly introducing the person in a social or political setting. Marriage is usually only relevant for close friends (and in case of celebrities, close friend wannabes), and doesn't then merit mentioning in such an introduction. Outside special cases such as Joe Wilson's wife, the place for public marriage details in any encyclopædia is limited to the biographical articles. 62.65.238.142 (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Caricature Khohly

The main object of that caricature is to show the use of ethnic slurs. This is way more important than mocking of ethnic cuisine. Moreover, this is discussed in the article and nothing is mentioned about cuisine. The picture is there to illustrate the text of the article not someone's POV, please do not remove. --Hillock65 (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The caricature is based on percieved wide use of pork fat in Ukrainian cuisine, that should be explained.DonaldDuck (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You are substituting a serious issue of the use of ethnic slurs in the media for a silly one, like cuisine, which is not discussed in the article. The use of ethnic slurs is discussed and is referenced. --Hillock65 (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Description of the image must explain what is pictured exactly, and should not be substituted by some broader issues.DonaldDuck (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It does explain what is pictured. It pictures the use of ethnic slurs on the poster and in the title of the cartoon. You are substituting an important issue of the use of ethnic slurs for a silly explanation about cuisine. Moreover, this is not discussed in the article. The use of ethnic slurs is. --Hillock65 (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The caricature itself is silly. If the topic of the cartoon is not discussed in the article, then the picture should be removed from the article.DonaldDuck (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The phenomenon - the use of ethnic slurs is discussed in the article. Ukrainian cusine has nothing to do with the subject matter. You are substituting a serious issue of ethnic slurs with silly reference to Ukrainian cuisine. The issue of ethnic slurs is discussed in the text. --Hillock65 (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The caricature is centered on Ukrainian cuisine. If it not discussed in the text, then caricature should be removed from the article, as it has no connection to it.DonaldDuck (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is not about Ukrainian cuisine, nor it is discussed in the article at all. This image is to illustrate what is discussed in the article - the use of ethnic slurs in Russian media. This caricature illustrates just that. --Hillock65 (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you list, what Russian media organisations published this image, or it is just taken from a random website?DonaldDuck (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It is unnecessary. The mere fact that it exists and that ethnic slurs are worded out on it is sufficient enough. --Hillock65 (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it appears the image was not published by any Russian media organisation.DonaldDuck (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

And so? Internet is media too. It clearly illustrates the use of ethnic slurs. --Hillock65 (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB.DonaldDuck (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. I am not referring to that site. I am referring to the picture. It can be published anywhere.--Hillock65 (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It can not be published anywhere. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources.DonaldDuck (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not used as a source but as an illustration. Maybe you can see the difference between the two? --Hillock65 (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Could we please move this to the page on the lamest edit wars! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Far from it. This is a serious issue when someone is trying to remove the illustration of the use of ethnic slurs in Russian media. --Hillock65 (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Internet can not be defined as Russian media, so using this picture in such context is simply stupid —Preceding unsigned comment added by VVPushkin (talk • contribs) 09:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This cartoon can not be an example of a negative attitude to the Ukrainians in the Russian media. Rather, its presence here is a measure of the negative attitude of Ukrainians to Russia's media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VVPushkin (talk • contribs) 13:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The cartoon is a selfpublished online junk by a "web artist" would it be better to find something published by a real media: newspapares, information by official parties, etc. BTW I have not found any reference to this cartoon in the Bashkorstan letter it is referenced with Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW the author of the cartoon is from Kharkiv [1] Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And what? What relation it has to the Russian media? —Preceding unsigned comment added by VVPushkin (talk • contribs) 09:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it better to start looking for a better example of Anti-Ukrainian sentiment. Maybe the cover of one of these books? Found them at a blog, so have to do some research if they really exist and if they are sold in and how "Anti-Ukrainian" they are. Some help finding that out from Russian editors would be appreciated (I don't speak Russian...) — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 18:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Or how about this book? It looks "Anti-Ukrainian" to me. It's plot-line:

2010. Provoked riots, "orange" Nazis unleash a civil war in Ukraine. With the help of "peacekeeping contingent, NATO, under the guise of American aircraft and armored invaders from Western with a trident on shoulder straps begin to destroy the Russian-speaking population, wiping out whole cities. Perishing in the flames of Poltava, Dnepropetrovsk razed to the ground. All the Left Bank, the Crimea and the New Russia rise against the occupiers. Russia is helping the soldiers ...

The book on-line store where you can by this book doesn't look Russian nationalistic but mainstream, it also sells Harry Potter for example. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 19:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least it somehow notable (although it seems to be mostly anti-Orange rather than anti-Ukrainian) that is political rather than nationalistic). There are zillions of dystopian books showing evil nationalistic dictators ruling Russia. Is Kys by Tatyana Tolstaya or Zhidy Goroda Pitera by Strugatsky brothers anti-Russian. They are probably sold in Ukraine. Is it a proof of Anti-Russian politics there? Still it is miles better than a self-published drawing by nobody with no mentioning the press anywhere Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[[:File:Ukrainians Caricature.jpg|thumb|right|220px|Caricature "Khokhly" by Igor Serdyukov. The use of ethnic slurs and stereotypes in relation to Ukrainians in Russian media is one of Ukrainian community's concerns in Russia.]] Replaced cartoon with real act of anti-Ukrainianism, placed cartoon here for others to see what was replaced. Well how much that book is anti-Ukrainian is impossible to tell without reading it... If all ethnic Ukrainians are "Orange" and all the "Orange in the book are portrayed as Nazi's " in the book it probably is anti-Ukrainian... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 19:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

References

Video reference

A video criticising a US senator has nothing to do with anti-Ukrainian sentiment. There is not a schred of evidence that it is directed against Ukrainians. I don't see why it is included here. --Hillock65 (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The video is both anti-senator and anti-Ukrainian.DonaldDuck (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate how is it anti-Ukrainian? It must be a case of WP:SYN since I cannot find anything anti-Ukrainian and nobody mentions anything anti-Ukrainian. --Hillock65 (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

At least, this video is more relevant than caricature.DonaldDuck (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this an admission that video is irrelevant or that you are violating the WP:POINT rule? --Hillock65 (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The video is relevant, as it is anti-Ukrainian.DonaldDuck (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked you above to explain its relevance. What exactly there is anti-Ukrainian? You keep dancing around without answering a direct question. --Hillock65 (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The video is criticising U.S. politician for helping Ukraine. This is anti-Ukrainian.DonaldDuck (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I got that. It is about the U.S. senator. For the third time: What EXACTLY is there against Ukrainians? You don't read very well? --Hillock65 (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This politician is helping Ukraine. This is mocked in the video.DonaldDuck (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This video is directed againts politician, not against Ukraine. I found nothing demeaning or prejudicial. Maybe you can point out how mocking a politician for helping Ukraine, Israel, Russia can be considered anti-Ukrainian, antisemitic or anti-Russian? This is WP:SYN at best, I believe it is plainly irrelevant. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The US section

The US section is heavily relying on http://exlibris.org.ua/. Is that a legitimate source? Looks more like a blog, as far as I know blogs arn't allowed as a source per WP:SPS. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a blog. It is more like an electronic library. They publish books there. The problem with that section in the article though, is that it presents the synthesis rather then the source itself. --Hillock65 (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Confusing?

It would seem that both some Russian conservatives (even hardline reactionaries like the Black Hundreds) and commies are intellectually linked to anti-Ukrainianism? This seems odd and rather random to outsiders, in a similar sense to the relationship between Germany and Poland seeming so. Could somebody explain and put in the article a basic concept of what extreme conservatives and commies would both have in common at core to make them hold anti-Ukrainian views? I don't understand it; both are caucasian, Orthodox Christian, Slavs? - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a bit like being Irish in UK....Galassi (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2009(UTC)

I don't know anything about this specific case, but it's not uncommon for the extreme right and the extreme left to hate or scapegoat that same things, just for (somewhat) different reasons, typical targets being liberals, multinational corporations, the mainstream media, the decedant middle class/bourgoise, working-class people who don't se anything wrong with the current society, etc, and (mainly for the extreme right) any ethnic group that is or can be associated with any of these Wardog (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Commies and conservatives of Russia has more common in common. But there is contoversy of Ukrainian state, not of Ukrainian people. They do not distinct Russians and Ukrainians as ethnic groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.139.218 (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean they see them as 2 different etnic groups? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 15:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Levada and KMIS polls

The rendering of Levada and KMIS polls about Russians-Ukrainians attitude is incorrect. The result "75% of Russians respect Ukrainians" is suppresed while result "55% of Russians disrespect Ukrainian state" is exhibited. The latter is compared to "96% of Ukrainians respect Russians, 93% of Ukraininas respect Russian Federation". The article is about negative attitude to Ukrainins, not to Ukrainian state. So, you should compare 75% of Russians and 96% of Ukrainians.

The reference to the Levada Center site is deleted while invalid URL of the Ukraininan newspaper is pasted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.221.119.11 (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Monument of Catherine II

Galassi!

Catherine II was the founder of the city of Odessa. You may deprise this person, but you must explain global readers why does Odessa city council want to raise the monument? "They are bad guys" would not be a good explanation. 95.221.119.11 (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed sentence

I have removed the sentence:

The publisher was recently banned from the Frankfurt Book Fair in 2000, for selling anti-German, anti-Ukrainian and antisemitic books.

because the source says about removing (not banning) of several books of one publisher, due to its anti-German and antisemitic content, but it does not say anything about anit-ukrainan reasons.

All this article is really strange - based on sources like tabloids, personal websites and blogs mainly...

Polimerek (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

References

Polish authors

There is a long unreferenced list of supposedly Ukraino-phobic Polish authors. Many of them are probably covered by WP:BLP. Please provide references ASAP for each of them or remove the list.

Also regarding Nortom both this and its own article claim that the publishing house was removed from a book fair for Anti-Ukrainian publications but neither of the sources talk about Anti-Ukrainians publications only about Anti-Semitic, Anti-German and "Fascist" (what ever it means). Can somebody with better Polish than mine find a source of Nortom Ukrainophobia Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the following paragraph:

Ukraino-phobic authors published include: [[Roman Dmowski]]{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}}, [[Janusz Dobrosz]]{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}}, [[Jędrzej Giertych]]{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}}, [[Jan Ludwik Popławski]]{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}}, Zbigniew Żmigrodzki{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}}, [[Adam Doboszyński]]{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}}, [[Czesław Czaplicki]]{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}}, Andrzej Sołdrowski{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}}, Lubomir Czupkiewicz{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}}, Piotr Kosobudzki{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}}, [[Maciej Giertych]]{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}}, [[Stanisław Jastrzębski]]{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}}, [[Edward Prus]]{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}}, Stanisław Żurek{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}}, [[Norbert Tomczyk]]{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}}, Stanisław Sosenkiewicz{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}}, Witalij Masłowśkyj{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}}, [[Aleksander Korman]]{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}}, Mieczysław Dobrzański{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}}, [[Feliks Koneczny]]{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}}, [[Michał Poradowski]]{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}}, [[Stanisław Bełza]]{{Citation needed|date=February 2011}}, [[Tadeusz Isakowicz-Zaleski]]{{Citation needed|date=August 2011}}.

It is absolutely unreferenced and it is accused living Polish authors in Ukraino-phobia how it is not a violation of WP:BLP? At any rate it is a violation of WP:V. I have kept Nortom paragraph as it is referenced Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Not WP:V, but a bit ORish. The authors are mostly dead, so BLP does not apply. Most of them are documentably antisemitic. It is not easy to document their sentiments toward Ukrainians, because there is practically nothing in English.--Galassi (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for referencing the controversial info Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Bulletin of far-right nationalist political party in Ukraine as a source

Svoboda, is a far-right nationalist political party in Ukraine according to our own article. The bulletin published on the internet by Svoboda cannot be considered a reliable source of info on Anti-Ukrainian sentiment for easily understandable reasons. Please consider replacing it with something else if you want to be taken serious: http://www.lviv.vosvoboda.info/dokument000025.html -- Qarabaş (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.medvedev-da.ru/forum.php?PAGE_NAME=profile_view&UID=9724

  Triggered by \bda\.ru\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Fringe theory

The paragraph was removed two weeks ago with the motivation that these views are only shared by crackpots. This might be true (and it is unfortunate that Ukrainian politics is dominated by crackpots), but at least this requires some discussion and referencing, and also most of the rest of the article refers to the views of crackpots 9e.g. Shevchenkophobia) which are not even referenced. I believe this needs to be discussed rather than blanket removed.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It does not matter who shares the views. What important that his section says nothing about ukrainophobia. Please explain how the text of this section is related to anti-U sentiment. (I do have an idea, but I don't want to read your mind.) ... ... (OK, here is my theory (true or not): (1) UA professors & politicians rely on kooky theories; (2) RU media derides them for this; (c) UA accuses RU of UAphobia; (d) Someone points out to 'c'. If this scenario is the actually reported in sources, then this would be a valid entry (in the context of the abuse of the concept). So far the section contains only step 'a' of the flow.) Staszek Lem (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I modify my objections. I was not reading carefully, because I was reading in the diff, and some important text was tangled among footnotes. So the text actually satisfies my logic a bit more. However it misses step 'd'. Without it the paragraph is essentially WP:SYNTH in the phrase "It is not uncommon in Ukraine": is is supported only with a ref to a primary source, and why would a word of one kook to be elevated up to "not uncommon"? And why his word have any weight at all in wikipedia? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

When I am back on a normal computer on Tuesday, I will try to see whether there are any good sources justifying (d). Just to note, however, the the point (d) is essentially missing in many of the examples of this article, which currently looks like a coat rack. Thanks for cleaning it up.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

That para insinuates that Ukr.academics are all fringe loons. I should be removed, IMO.--Galassi (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

... which emphasises that it's being used as a COATRACK from either POV. Either RS are found for positions or unsourced entries need to be removed, full stop. At the moment, it's being used for OR and SYNTH using BIASED sources. Okay, biased sources can be used, but not without WP:INTEXT attribution. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Section "Dobosh Affair or Arrested Kolyada"

This section should be turned into a separate article. This is a single event and its detail should not occupy so much space in this article. Clearly there has been lots of persecution of Ukrainian culture in the Soviet Union, but this must be covered as a general discussion, not as painstaking detail of separate events.

By the way this episode is completely unreferenced. I have no doubt it happened, but we do need references. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Its title sounds like a newspaper title, so I would suggest to check whether this section is a cut-and-paste copyvio. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I've run a check for copyvio, but it hasn't yielded anything. Judging by the grammatically awkward language and use of lower-case lettering, it looks like a tweaked Google translate job. Identifying the source (and whether it's a translated copyvio) is going to be more difficult. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Fringe theories

Removed text:

History-related fringe theories are widely popular among Ukrainian establishment. For example, the Book of Veles, a hoax, became very popular among politicians who consider it genuine and believe it describes real historical facts relevant for establishing Ukrainian ethnicity. In 1999, the book was included in the high school program in Ukraine as a genuine literary and historical piece. Whereas the inclusion was considered controversial in academic circles, the book remained on the program as of 2008. It is not uncommon in Ukraine to refer to scholars who agree the book is a forgery as Ukrainophobes.

There are multiple problems with this para. 1. UALOGOS citation is dead. 2. THe other citations make no mention of ANTIUKR.SENTIMENT. It is at best a COATRACK.--Lute88 (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

re : (1) Respectfully, please learn how to "revive" dead links. Here you go: Зауваги до нової програми 12-річної школи. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

re: (2) cite from the "undead" link: "Невже так налякали авторів програми й укладачів хрестоматії для 5 – 6 класів ті українофоби, котрі чинять люті нападки на „Велесову книгу”, бо вона розкриває велику духовність, високий цивілізаційний рівень та героїчну історію давніх українців від VII ст. до н.е. до Х ст. н.д" Staszek Lem (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Still, I agree with the deletion of the above text as WP:SYNTH OR, despite its reasonable conclusion. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me comment on the coatrack. The whole article is coatrack. As I mentioned earlier, for example, the Shevchenkophobia subsection has very little relation to the article main theme. I would certainly not object (and would welcome) restructuring of the article, cleaning it up of the unrelated material (I guess we would then learn that Ukrainophobia was just invented by sick politicians and not really notable, but I am perfectly open to this point). However, I do strongly object by random removals of paragraphs critical to the current Ukrainian establishment and apparent tolerance to other pieces which are sourced even worse but are politically correct.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the whole article is a problem, but I disagree on TShevchenkophobia, as it is a large element in the subject, especially as voiced by the late Buzina. Regarding Plachynda, there is no indication he is a part of any kind establishment, as AFAIK he is laughing stock in Ukraine. ANd the offending para really says that Ukes are given to fringe theories, but absolutely nothing about AntiUkeSentiment.--Lute88 (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, Buzina was also a laughing stock and much hated in Ukraine, AFAIK.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Buzina was never laughing stock. Just hated, deservedly IM irrelevant O. He was basically rabid, if you ever read his writings (I did). He was arguably the godfather of AUSentiment.--Lute88 (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Still, I do not get it why Buzina should be in the article and Plachynda should not. I would not object rewriting of the article in such a way that Buzina is the founder of AU sentiment and then giving some of his views (assuming this is in the sources). This is not what the article currently says.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: "I do strongly object by random removals " - please let us know which exactly text cited from reliable secondary sources was deleted from the article, and I will readily support the restoring of it.Staszek Lem (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean the paragraph from which this topic starts. It is based on reliable secondary sources, and in my understanding, we are discussing how the opinion of the person who contributed to these sources is fringe or mainstream.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that it should be restored. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Charges of Ukrainophobia against academics regardless of the merits has nothing to do with the subject of this article. Lute88 (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the article, being a coatrack, has no subject. I am not sure why you want to remove the only paragraph critical to the Ukrainian establishment, but it certainly does not move the article any closer to neutrality.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

<sigh> OK. Let's start from the very beginning and analyze the paragraph step by step.

• First part:"Ignorant uk:edu bosses let Book of Veles pseudosci slip into kid's textbooks". - Nobody argues with that.
• Second part: "Those who object "Veles 'Я Kidz" are called ua-phobes" - Sourced to a single utterance of an idiot.
• Conclusion: In my wikibook it is called "WP:SYNTH based on interpretation of primary sources".
• Advice: Please find an admissible reference to the second part, and we are good, i.e., it would be a valid and notable example of the abuse of the term.
• Alternative: The second part may be rephrased as follows. "<this moron> called those who object "Veles 'Я Kidz" ua-phobes."
  • An issue with this alternative is WP:UNDUE: is <this moron> notable enough to be quoted in wikipedia?
  • Possible loophole: a reliable secondary source cited <this moron> as an example of the abuse of the term ua-phobia.

Now, what's unclear? Staszek Lem (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.Lute88 (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Great, thank you. I hope while I am busy looking for sources, you will be able to perform a similarly brilliant analysis of the rest of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

References

'Vurdalak Taras Shevchenko' of Buzina

I've just finished reading it and completely subscribe that it is shevchenophobia. While the author is nitpicking that shevchenko was heavily drinking, or merrily spent his punishment of forced conscription into soldiers drinking with his guardians, or taking turns of praising and bashing Russian tsarism, I could have logically argued that Pushkin was no better, despite Buzina's venom (may be attributed to journalist's polemism). But when the book ends with several very stupid, tasteless, unfunny jokes about Shevchenko, then Shevchenkophobia it is. And I see no wonder Buzina is prominently hated by 'Ukrops'. And yes it is a notable sugject, but it looks like ukrainian en:wikipedians don't give a damn. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I guess everyone agrees (and there are multiple sources to prove this) that Buzina was a freak.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: It isn't a matter of not giving a damn, it's that those of us who have a Ukrainian ethnic background, but brought up overseas, simply aren't in a position to know. I can neither back up nor exclude Shevchenkophobia unless I'm provided with RS that verify that such a phenomenon/phobia exists. Yes, I've certainly encountered literature, forums, etc. demonstrating an extremist POV regarding Shevchenko, but I can't attest to how prominent it is. The fact that Buzina alone had (and still would have) a lot of followers certainly suggests that it's not an isolated instance, but how widespread it is is impossible for me to gauge. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Anti-Ukrainian sentiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928061430/http://www.homin.ca/news_view.php?category=news&news=1189&lang=ua to http://www.homin.ca/news_view.php?category=news&news=1189&lang=ua
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.zn.ua/1000/13275/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The Poland section is unprecise

The main problem in Poland is the Ukrainian POV regarding the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. Thousands of survivors weren't allowed to speak about their tragedy till 1989, so the hatred cumulated. I understand that Ukraine has bigger problems now, but the first 20 years of independent Ukraine were lost.

Many Poles were expelled from Ukraine and Ukrainians from Poland, so the Vistula was a detail. Xx236 (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Xx236: Yes, agreed. As has been discussed on the talk pages on many of these articles surrounding the subject matter, oversimplifying tensions and pressures doesn't do justice to the complexity of how relations had even reached such a level. Just reiterating various events without any attempt to edify the reader of the context makes it look like pure cruelty, stupidity, and bloodlust on behalf of ethnic groups (which is something that has been promoted for too long). There needs to be a serious attempt at clarifying circumstances for Anglophone/Western reader who simply haven't been had any realistic form of education into these parts of Europe. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Operation "Wisła" was an ethnic cleansing and crime under both Polish and international law. Kremówczak (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-Ukrainian sentiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140726220607/http://www.ucipr.kiev.ua/publications/the-strange-case-of-foreign-pro-russian-radical-leftists/lang/en to http://www.ucipr.kiev.ua/publications/the-strange-case-of-foreign-pro-russian-radical-leftists/lang/en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

There are a lot of other Stereotypes about Ukrainians

The most popular Stereotype in my country Germany about Ukrainians is the Thesis that they are chronic Alcoholics.--95.114.125.165 (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

This would need reliable sources to back up the contention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Novermber 2022 edits

I removed the below passage in this diff with the rationale of "inappropriate synthesis and / or not supported by sources":

Polish anti-Ukrainian sentiment dates back to the aftermath of the Second World War, during which some Ukrainian Catholics of Eastern Rites and Protestantised former Eastern Orthodox Christian Ukrainians enthusiastically collaborated with the Nazis. Some, including John Demjanjuk, worked as Nazi concentration camp guards or Trawniki men Hilfswilliger, others committed atrocities against civilians as members of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, and many more spontaneously massacred their Jewish and Polish neighbours when the Germans invaded.

"Polish anti-Ukrainian sentiment dates back to the aftermath of the Second World War..." is not supported by either of the first two sources because they do not mention anti-Ukrainian sentiment, nor that it has arisen as the result of Ukrainian collaboration with Nazi Germany. The Yad Vashem link is dead, but here's a working one: https://www.yadvashem.org/holocaust/resource-center/timeline/1940-1945.html and it does not discuss the anti-Ukrainian sentiment either.

References

K.e.coffman (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Portugal section

I have made an edit since I observed several issues in the section on Portugal.

First, the following sentences:

Anti-Ukrainian sentiment in Portugal has grown since the arrival of Ukrainian immigrants to Portuguese territory in the 1990s. Most Ukrainians in Portugal work in low-skill and low wages jobs, particularly on cleaning services, construction, manufacturing industries, transport services, hotels and restaurants, due to this, many Ukrainian citizens are constantly victims of aporophobia.

The only part of these two sentences that are possibly corroborated by the source is the following: "Most Ukrainians in Portugal work in low-skill and low wages jobs, particularly on cleaning services, construction, manufacturing industries, transport services, hotels and restaurants […]" (I write "possibly", because the cited page also states the following: "[…] although the majority work in low-skilled and low-wage professions […] it has been observed that some workers have been able to obtain jobs that are more compatible with their educational and professional qualifications." The cited page is from 2014, so this trend could of course have become stronger since then.)

As for the statements that "Anti-Ukrainian sentiment in Portugal has grown since the arrival of Ukrainian immigrants to Portuguese territory in the 1990s" and "[…] due to this, many Ukrainian citizens are constantly victims of aporophobia", they are not at all corroborated by the cited work. I have therefore added "citation needed" tags there.

Second, the following part:

Various members of Portuguese politics have continually called Ukrainians "Nazis" and have gone so far as to say that Lisbon "was infected with Nazis", due to the high presence of Ukrainians in the capital.

The page sourced is a fact-checking website showing how a quote from a Portuguese politician and activist, advising people to be careful for skinheads in Lisbon during a football match between Portugal and Ukraine, was twisted and taken out of context when it resurfaced on a right-wing Facebook page. So, despite dealing with one Portuguese politician (not "various members of Portuguese politics", as is stated here), the statement in the text (that the politician in question said "… that Lisbon "was infected with Nazis", due to the high presence of Ukrainians in the capital") is indeed the same statement that is shown not to be accurate in the cited article.

As this appears to be a case of someone with limited knowledge of Portuguese misunderstanding what is said in the source, I have removed the sentence in its entirety.

And third, the following sentence:

Generally in Portugal, citizens of Eastern European countries, no matter what country they are from, are called "Ukrainians" with a hint of contempt for that country, especially when they are poor people.

This statement is not sourced at all, and I have added a "citation needed" tag there as well. Fogelstrom (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

References