Talk:Russia/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

State the link, what is it?....

You will notice that the link for State is pointed at Sovereign State, rather than State. Is there a reason for this?

BoredextraWorkvidid (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The page State is a disambiguation page, as "State" has lots of different meanings. Here, state refers to Sovereign State - the article needs to have a unique name, even if ordinarily a political scientist would not always qualify the word state. It often happens that an article subject may go by two or three different names in common usage, and the link will have a different name to the article - for example, Election of President Barack Obama.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

And this is not confusing in the slightest, right?.... I am aware that the term State has multiple varieties, but surely just link the link to sovereign state or am I misunderstanding how an encyclopaedia/wikipedia works? Because just taken into a broader use, such apparent mis-linking merely looks lazy, and I am all about clarity and making this a better site. I appreciate your offering of the Barack example, but without even looking at it, my mentality is not going to change in regards to 'Just because its like this here, its ok here' Also, 'the article needs to have a unique name, even if ordinarily a political scientist would not always qualify the word state.' What are you conceding here exactly? Really appreciate your feedback! BoredextraWorkvidid (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to be honest this resulting discussion seems to have gone wildly OTT ha. Perhaps think about this quote from Vsevolod 'However, academics will use them with much more precision than the press or the "average" person, and with clearer reasons.' EXACTLY before working out whether it is or is not, in your Opinion a super power, I believe that Wikipedia, has to as mentioned above by one of you remain level with its coverage, so what would be so bad as to write, "Russia by many is thought of as one of the worlds few super powers, but this mindset is not shared by all, due to the multiple ways of judging what constitutes a super power.' Obvious maybe, but again is Wikipedia some internet nerd / internet intellectuals haven or is it truly trying to inform for the good of the whole? I dunno, again maybe Im crazy, as to even suppose we can predict and label such a complicated mindset regarding its status, so in turn don't include it, I would say, would then be the only option for now, until the situation becomes 'cleaner'? BoredextraWorkvidid (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC).

In reply to your first comment, Boredextra, every article has to have a unique name in the same way every computer file in the same folder needs to have a unique name. I see you've edited Product (mathematics). In a conversation about maths, the meaning of product is clearly what wikipedia calls "Product (mathematics)". But to avoid cluttering the page with unnecessary qualifications, the link can be made to appear just as Product. This is not laziness, but style. The page genuinely called just "Product", which is a disambiguation page, shows how many different pages could be simply called "product". Likewise, ordinarily we don't bother to explain, in a conversation about countries, that "state" refers to sovereign state not a subdivision of the US or something in thermodynamics. I personally like this style, because it shows me what people mean when they mention a multi-meaning word in a particularly context if I don't know, but doesn't clutter the page if I do.

As for your suggestion of wording, it's basically the same as that which everyone else wants, with the exception of one user who doesn't understand it's not our job to take sides in a genuine, substantive real-world dispute between authorities. However, "some people say" is not good style on wikipedia. It can be a kind of weasel wording. Because we are not an authority (we're all anonymous volunteers), we have to be clear on who says it, and give a source, so that the reader can decide for themselves. And we have to have standards for which sources we can use. After all, some people say that Tony Blair is a seven-foot lizard. Some people say the holocaust was a fiction. The issue on this page is that it is obvious that amongst reliable sources there is no clear agreement on the use of a specific term (not only disagreement on meaning, but also on Russia's situation), so we report the disagreement. It's clear policy.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Vsevolod is correct. We avoid constructions such as "some people" as matter of course. Fell Gleaming^talk 10:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by this conclusion FellGleaming? (I thought this was a fitting disclaimer for the situation you appear to be referring to "I dunno, again maybe Im crazy, as to even suppose we can predict and label such a complicated mindset regarding its status, so in turn don't include it, I would say, would then be the only option for now, until the situation becomes 'cleaner'?" and its in the text you are relating to..... 'Vsevolod is correct. We avoid constructions such as "some people" as matter of course' and followed by saying we should relay this debate regarding the ambiguity of Russia's super power status...

Now if this is directed at another user and I have misconstrued your direction of this line then no problemo. But if otherwise I would have hoped you can realise from what I typed that I am not supporting any particular train of thought regarding the use of the word state, I am trying to avoid confusion and bad practices on Wikipedia, through editing. Which in turn displays itself to me as simply EITHER IT IS or it is not. If the nature of an Encyclopaedia is to record news and current debate then by all means follow my example and type something along the lines of what I said for the covering its debated status as a superpower. If not don't include it, if its only a US term, call the US a superpower and then reference that they invented the term. There are so many other methods that appear to be more reasonable, and I was really not even considering the idea for the strange linking being (are you suggesting this?) something I.T, computery programmey required? Because that is another poor justification for the situation, I feel. On a side note, what is Wikipedia intending to be in a nutshell? Maybe a 1-3 sentence reply from anyone, because I feel most of these discussions are due to lack of such a focus by some users and really I cannot believe the thinking behind this site is so obtuse to the average person or complicated that such a summary would be impossible.! BoredextraWorkvidid (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

dubious energy superpower term

This term is boosterism, like most of the introduction is filled nationalistic pathos. Russia is (maybe) an exporter of minerals and fossil fuels, full stop. Otherwise France could be labeled tourism superpower, Japan a technology superpower or Australia a kangaroo superpower. If this article wants to be taken seriously it must take a step towards neutral academic speech. Otherwise it will always be a wannabe cowboy. Italiano111 (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an article Energy superpower. If you intend to challenge this term, please go and discuss it there. The difference between energy superpower and tourism superpower or kangaroo superpower is that energy superpower is able to wield a significant political influence thanks to it's energy resources, which is not the case with tourism and kangaroos.

As for the "nationalistic pathos" of the intro, this is the common practice in the intros of the articles to present the information on the most prominent features of the country, and do it in short and expressive way. Russia is the largest country in the world and really prominent in many respects (see the List of statistically superlative countries for example), and on historical scale too, so it isn't surprising that some may get impression of too much pathos from a good summary of Russia. Greyhood (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I tend to partially agree with Greyhood on the "energy superpower" issue, but only up to a point. In general the "(something) superpower" language is fairly POV laden and does contribute to the nationalistic boosterism and should be avoided, unless absolutely essential, in the lede sections of articles about countries, on WP:NPOV grounds. There are some other colloquial terms that are often used in informal discourse such as "naval superpower", "tourism superpower", "cultural superpower", "education superpower" etc. Packing such terms in the lede does contribute to the national boosterism effect and is best avoided to the extent possible. The "energy superpower" may be an exception worth making here, for the reasons Greyhood stated, but I am not too sure about this. It may be better to achieve the same goal by giving more specific and factual energy production info instead - that would avoid the inherent POV connotations associated with all "superpower" terminology. Nsk92 (talk) 21:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, of course, on national boosterism concerns. The terms like superpower and great power may cause the same problems, but they are widely popular and well-defined academic terms, we can't disregard them, though we should use them correctly. Energy superpower is a popular term accepted both by Russian and Western media, and covers in just two words the Russia's possession of vast volumes of energy resources of almost all types, huge production, exports and the usage of energy as a political tool. That's quite important things to understand about Russia, its a quintessence of its economy and politics, and energy superpower is very handy to describe this.Greyhood (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Italiano, I just have read the intro in the Italy article and it seems that it was written in exactly the same pattern as Russia's intro ;) Greyhood (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The term "energy superpower" has only 4 Wiki Languages. Obviously this is NOT at all an accepted term by Western media. Unlike Great power it is not a fixed terminology. Russia is a gas and oil exporting country, nothing else. Otherwise Germany, which has a larger impact on the globe through exports, could be labeled a machinery superpower or development aid superpower. Please stop this foolish gambling with absurd claims. By the way who is influenced by selling raw materials other than some tiny neighbours of Russia ? China or the EU states? Selling minerals is hardly a sign of superpower. Its a sign that you are so poor having nothing else to offer. Italiano111 (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the term energy superpower is less established and less accepted than superpower or great power is explained by the fact that it is relatively recent. I don't want to argue here on the validity of the term itself, and suggest you to address the people on IR project or energy superpower talk page if you want to question the coverage of the term in Wikipedia.

As for "Russia is a gas and oil exporting country, nothing else." - this is a very common image created by many Western media, but it is not true, or better say, it too much an oversimplification. 1) Firstly, Russia has its own production of almost everything, including machinery, though it's not as effective and massive as in Germany, of course. It is not Russia's fault that it has to sell its resources to Germany and buy machinery instead. It's Germany and other such countries having no resources and no other way but to make their living on high technology. If Russia stops selling resources to Germany and other European countries and prefers developing and buying its own equipment instead of foreign one, that would cause huge problems to resource poor countries, but not so for Russia. Of course, currently Russia is selling resources and buys equipment and technology to modernize the less developed areas of economy. But that may not last forever. 2) Russia produces quite a number of quality products, but many of them are simply held off by artificial trade barriers in the West. Another problem is too few established Russian brands in the area of common consumer goods, that general public is mostly aware of. However, Russia produces quite a good and relatively cheap weaponry, and that's a high tech, just like the modern oil and gas industry, by the way. Russia exports electricity, builds dozens of nuclear stations at home and abroad (Busher in Iran is the latest example) and is the largest commercial satelite launcher, an exporter of rockets and rocket engines, a leader in space technology (space power, like some call it). And there are many other developed areas of Russian economy, like IT outsourcing, aircraft industry, and others. 3) Oil and gas are just the most massive exports, which obscure the other products and domestic production and trade in the eyes of the foreigners. And for some reason half of Europe crave to see North Stream and South Stream built, and these projects define Russia's good relations with Germany and Italy, while Ukraine and Belarus are totally dependent on Russian energy, and Central Asia dependent on transit of their oil and gas through Russia. I can also tell you about an energy factor in Russia's relations with Iran, China, Latin America, India etc. - various projects in space industry, nuclear energy, aid in development oil and gas industry, etc. My kind and hopeful advice for you is doing some real research on Russia, not bringing stereotypes into discussion here. My regards and best wishes, Greyhood (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That there is an article called Energy superpower is a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We don't have to follow the decisions and judgement of editors on another article. I would argue that that page has a great deal of original research and is not one of wikipedia's finest moments. Judging from the talkpage from three years ago, when there was activity on it, it seemed like it was a bunch of people (college students) covering an "emerging concept", relying largely on moments when people had used the phrase in the media. I'm not convinced it's a coherent concept in itself, more of a meme that's been spreading to describe Russia under Putin during the period of high energy prices. In other words, it's not an independent analytical concept. As such, we should be careful of treating "Energy superpower" as in the same league as "Great Power" in terms of coherence and scholarly analysis. How about we say Russia has recently often been referred to in the media as an "energy superpower", without (and this may annoy people) linking to the energy superpower page. I think that page is misleading as a description of real world discussions because of all the OR there, deciding amongst the editors which country should be called an energy superpower. I'm not convinced that when people call Russia an "energy superpower" they are just referring to the size of the oil and gas reserves, and not also the strategic nature of them and the use Russia has put them to in gaining political traction.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I certainly suggest you to insert your wording into the Energy section, and a bit more short wording into the intro, for example just "and has been referred to in the media as an "energy superpower".Greyhood (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but Russia is an energy superpower it is the largest energy producer in the world, source[1]. I mean the way this article has changed from the last few days from superpower to great power? Whats next on the Russia article ` great energy power, space superpower to great space power or military superpower to great power military. The editing allone in the last few days has been nothing but belittling the sources throwing out good reliable information and content for something I don't agree with the article the way it reads in the first place. My opinion the article looks like Sesame Street[2] which looked much better last week than it does now.--Globalstatus (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Russia is not the largest electricity producer, but one of the largest exporters, plus it possesses the largest energy resources and is an important transit country.Greyhood (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The intro has been amended. Mentioning the geopolitical status does make sense only once. Thats why the energy superpower claim should be removed. The great power term seems sufficient. See the US article for comparison. If the mentioning of an oil/ gas exporting country seems necessary, please add it. Regards Italiano111 (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't ignore the arguments that have been presented to you so far. We may agree on removing energy superpower, but not on the reasons you give. Russia is not only oil/ gas exporting country. I've indicated the other aspects of it's energy resources and politics, and mentioning an energy factor in Russia's politics is rather important. Greyhood (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

And please don't do misleading edits constructing phrases like "established influence from the times of the Russian Empire" (Russia has established influence ages before, and we are speaking about the global influence since the time of Russian Empire) and "Soviet era saw some technology achievememts of the nation" (there were plenty of technology achievments before and many after). Greyhood (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

After comparing many country articles (FA or similar quality) it becomes clear that the geopolitical status is only cited once, usually at the end of the lede. It also makes sense to merge the geographic features in the 1. para only. Italiano111 (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Italiano111, I feel there are two problems with your arguments. One, like the arguments put above by greyhood, is based upon WP:otherstuffexists. We don't have to follow what other (even FA) articles do in every detail. The other problem is to do with appreciating what Russia is (it's not Luxembourg or Lithuania). Russia is very, very big and it cuts deep across two continents. It borders both Germany Poland and China. Its presence in international politics causes constant discussion (especially among certain cold-warriors who need an enemy), its position internationally within Russia causes great debate, and its many neighbours (it being, as I said, very, very big) fret over its real or imagined plans to dominate the region. Geopolitics is part of what makes Russia, in a way that it doesn't make Italy, or even the US. Remember that I say all this as someone opposing the unequivocal attribution of "superpower" or "energy superpower". Russia is not just another country, even in the best scholarly terms.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Russia is hardly "very" big. Its the 12th largest economy among roughly 190 UN members. The land mass is large of course, as the land mass of Canada or Australia. Here is a recent estimate of Russia´s position in the world made by an US-EU think tank: Global Governance 2025 - PDF page 23 It puts Russia on par with Japan and Brazil in the year 2010. It pretty much underlines my argument of Russia´s influence. The "energy superpower" term is a composite marketing construction. Nothing serious in academic terms. This article like all other country articles (and Wiki entries) should of course be valuated on the same quality standards. So yes, the world-world-world boosterisms should be merged in single sentences with neutral speech. Italiano111 (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Russia is the 12th economy in the nominal terms, but its GDP PPP or real GDP that reflects the true economic size of the country, not nominal. And "world" is a pretty neutral word, by the way. Greyhood (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

When I said big I didn't mean "it has a large GDP". I would have written that if I'd meant it. I meant literally big. Its geographical position, its military strength and the legacy (and instincts) of empire and superpowerdom mean that its unsettled geopolitical status is of particular significance, even before one starts to think about its control of commodities. It can be very tempting to be parochial and see Russia as at one end of Europe, at the edge of the map. Anyone who puts Russia's contemporary global political influence on the same level as Japan's is just being silly - or in this case, departing from the reality-based community. (I looked at that Washington DC think-tank PDF - "power as a percentage of global power"? Eh? This treats power as uni-dimensional, bloc/country power as discrete, and implies that Japan has suddenly developed a foreign policy independent of the US, which would certainly be news to the Japanese. Sometimes these broad-brush descriptions of World Affairs are depressingly armchair.) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to ask if we could talk about replacing the current wording on Energy Superpower as it reads "In recent years, Russia has frequently been described in the media as an "energy superpower"" to maybe "Russia is a "energy superpower". The reason why is we all know Russia is an energy superpower but because Russia has over taken Saudi Arabia [3][4][5] but that Russia is the most important energy superpower over Saudi Arabia now, way over. It should be discribed as Russia is the top dog in this issue, we need to define Russia as the most important energy superpower.--Globalstatus (talk) 06:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Global, can you re-phrase, in your own words, the argument I put against such a formulation? There's no point discussing this issue with you if you don't understand or won't listen to the points that other people have made.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Right now I noticed there is 2 broken links on 203 and 204. I am trying to find the error but they are 2 energy superpower articles missing. On the phrase, my opinion is I think blunt, personally because Russia stands are number one on this energy superpower issue. American's critize Russia being oil dependent, I hate that as Russia is more than oil but the term Russia is an energy superpower in some form or discribing why it is number one but in some way of saying - "Russia is an energy superpower" or "Russia is a major energy superpower" or "Russia is categorized is the number one energy superpower" or etc phrases as examples.--Globalstatus (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on what's here, and at WP:RSN, it looks like there's, at a minimum, strong evidence that the term "superpower" used to be used for the USSR (in fact, this seems fairly indisputable). It also seems that some reliable, credible sources consider Russia a superpower now, although others disagree. The same thing seems to be true for "energy superpower" (some think yes, others no). Would it be possible to make the article reflect that? In other words, "The former USSR was considered a superpower.(ref(s)) Russia is considered to still be a superpower by some,(ref(s)) while others argue it no longer lays claim to that status.(ref(s))" And do something similar in superpower. Would that appropriately meet all viewpoints? My guess is that since superpower isn't really a strictly defined word (at least, not everyone agrees on the exact definition), and that it's often used in a substantially more relaxed way by the general media than in academic literature, that it isn't going to really be possible for us to definitively state one way or the other, and that the article should reflect a possible disagreement within the sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Your "compromise" is precisely what the article says now, on all counts. It's what the consensus here wants it to be. Globalstatus is disputing what you recommend. S/he wants the article to say, definitively, regardless of all the dissenting RS, that Russia is a superpower. That's what's unacceptable in wiki terms.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...I thought something tasted funny. Now I know it was my foot, stuck ever so deeply in my mouth. Apparently, I should read the article, not just the talk page. So, I guess I don't get the dispute then...it seems obvious to me that this would be a disputed point, and that the article obviously has to recognize that. I'm sure that GlobalStratus can find sources that state the Russia is currently a superpower (or energy superpower, or whatever), but I'm sure others can and have found sources that say the opposite, so, in order to be NPOV, it seems clear that the article has to say both. GlobalStratus, are you saying that Russia's superpower status is not in dispute? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes Qwyrxian - there is more evidence that says Russia is a superpower now than a great power. The weight of the sources such as media are supporting superpower status which does questions the readers on seeing great power when you can otherwise search websites or news sites that Russia is a superpower; questioning the Wikipedia Russia article.--Globalstatus (talk) 08:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

Not wanting to be too bold on a good article, I'd like to throw a couple of suggestions out there in terms of article improvement and see what others think about them.

• Reorganizing the articles based on the format used in most other of the featured articles, simply through
  • Moving the geography section below the government and politics section
  • Making the detail on the subdivisions its own section before the main government and politics section
  • Moving the demographics section below the economy section
• Cutting down the history section. Way too much history for a basic Russia article, could probably be shortened into a short summary of history, possibly even without subdivisions
• Cutting down the science and technology section, and the excessive main article spam there. There are currently 8 main articles listed. If this topic is important enough to have such a long section, it may as well actually have its own article Science and technology in Russia, which would nicely leave just one main article in that section
• A summary or introduction in the culture section. It just jumps straight into the subsections, which it shouldn't, as this article is meant to provide an overview for the country, not detailed information on every aspect of it.

Those are just some probably easy fixes that would make this article better. No good article should have a too long tag on it. In general I think main sections should be about the length of the current Imperial Russia section, and subsections about the length of the current Demographic subsections, but that's just my personal opinion on good lengths, so others may disagree. Whoever removed all the excessive pictures did quite a good job of it, so props for that. Anyway, those are my thoughts. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you on history and science and technology. The structure where geography precedes history seems more logical, especially in the case of Russia, and we don't have to necessarily copy the pattern of other articles, as I understand.Greyhood (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, structure was just a point, probably doesn't really matter. I noticed history is being cut down, I assume the cut information is present on the History of Russia article? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, most if not all of the cut info is presented in the History of Russia, though that article definitely should be improved in its own way, since it concentrates too much on politics and doesn't pay enough attention to exploration, culture, economy and technology. Greyhood (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Always best to check. Anyway, be nice to see a separate subdivisions section either way. If it could be nicely prosed with differences between the different divisions more clearly explained, that would be a bonus. Is it worth just syphoning the current science and technology section to its own article and massively reducing the content here? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the new article should be made out of Science and technology in Russia redirect. The current section in Russia article will provide the basis for the history section in the new article, while some information on the present situation and prospects can be extracted from the Education in Russia, Russian Academy of Sciences, Economy of Russia, Aircraft industry of Russia, Nuclear power in Russia, Defence industry of Russia, Russian Space Agency and the like articles. Greyhood (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

GAR and urgent work needed

See WP:SIZE; this is the longest article I have ever encounted on Wiki, at over 17,000 words of readable prose. There is NO featured article even close to that size, no matter how broad the topic. Further, there are large chunks of uncited text, and the arguments given for that in the last GAR are invalid. There are also dab links (I added tools above) and dead links. There are also POV concerns, and the article is not stable. This is not a good article. Please don't remove the {{very long}} tag again until/unless this is resolved. I have a fast connection, and it took three minutes to edit the article just to add the tag, which means that most editors in the world can't load this article to read it, much less to edit it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it usually takes 3 minutes to load. Perhaps WP is just slow today? Btw, how long does it take you to load Gaza War? It's even longer (255 kB versus 223 kB). Offliner (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The article takes few seconds to load, and I haven't the best possible connection. It is just 10% longer than the articles Hungary or United Kingdom. Yes, certain sections need to be cut (Health, Science and Technology and some others) and I intend to do the task very soon. The article has been stable for quite a long time except for the recent disruption by amateur editor Globalstatus, and hopefully we have just resolved this issue (or will resolve it later if Globalstatus wants to get blocked). The article just has been reassessed, the general amendments about references have been made, while no specific concerns have been presented and no inline tags inserted, as I had asked. Greyhood (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:SIZE is measured in terms of readable prose, not KB. The editor who edit warred to remove the tag is incorrect. United Kingdom is 13,000 words of readable prose, and loads find for me (although it's still too long, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to remove a maintenance tag). Gaza War is also a problem, at 17,000 words. See User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics for prose size on all featured articles to see just how far out of whack this article is (it came to my attention because it was nominated at FAC, when it shouldn't even be listed as a GA in its current state-- it does NOT meet GA criteria, and the responses given on the GAR are invalid, issues are not addressed, and there are numerous other issues not even raised on the GAR). Removing maintenance tags without resolving the issues is a blockable offense, and edit warring. They are intended to alert our readers and other editors to issues that need to be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be cut down, but it takes only a few seconds to load for me - not three minutes like for you. Btw, which tool can we use to measure prose length? Offliner (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Dr pda/generatestats.js (add to your monobook, e.g.; User:SandyGeorgia/monobook.js). Also, just because this article may (attempt to) rely on WP:SS doesn't mean text doesn't need to be cited here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

OK've reinserted the tag, but you clearly overemphasize the matter, SandyGeorgia. This article has about 600,000 views by month and so far it seems few people has had problems with it being too long. It really takes seconds to load, not minutes, on a mediocre connection. I just have hoped that you will insert the tags into specific sections of the article, which would be really helpful, and the same with references. Greyhood (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

1) I just went to another computer with a different ISP, and it took a minute and a half-- still too long, and that means more than half the world can't load this article. 2) Deciding where to cut is a matter for consensus; with a problem this big, the tag belongs at the top. 3) 600,000 views per month doesn't tell us how many of those editors couldn't load the article, or wouldn't even attempt to edit it. (Possibly it loads faster for regular editors here because images are cached or some such thing-- for a new editor, it's a nightmare, and I won't even attempt to edit the article because it takes so long to enter an edit.) The excess images here are also slowing down load time:

File size: 820 kB

Prose size (including all HTML code): 238 kB

References (including all HTML code): 247 kB

Wiki text: 218 kB

Prose size (text only): 111 kB (17563 words) "readable prose size"

References (text only): 42 kB

Images: 1690 kB

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It took about 45 seconds for me, slightly longer than Gaza War, possibly because of all the images. Geometry guy 21:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I tried it again and it took a few (<10) seconds, as the current page is now cached. Purging the page takes about 30-40 seconds, indicating the workload needed server-side to regenerate the page from the Wikisource - this should be largely independent of the speed of the user's internet connection. Try this link to see for yourselves the rebuild time. Geometry guy 21:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, this way it is 20-25 seconds on my computer, thank you for the link. It has been already clear that the article needs cutting down anyway. In the next few days I'll try and see see if the cutting of say 30,000 bytes will make any difference in upload speed. Greyhood (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It is about the same for me. I followed Geometry guy|'s link on my computer and it took the page 24 seconds to load from scratch, with a purged cache. My internet connection is fairly slow, not broadband. Nsk92 (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've done some testing on loading different country articles with purging. It's 18 sec for United States, 20 sec for United Kingdom and 25 sec for Russia. So if the US and the UK set a standard, than perhaps not so much work should be done on Russia. Interestingly, some articles that are larger in size and have more images, like List of Russian explorers, took just 7 seconds to load. Greyhood (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Please also check out criterion 2b. If I am the editor who responds to the request to reassess the GA status of this article, then given the prior opportunity to fix GA citation concerns, I will delist the article immediately if there are any uncited quotations, statistics, or opinion per GA criterion 2b:

• reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

If all such concerns are resolved before I take on the article (and I will wait a few days), I will provide input on sections which could be shortened to meet criterion 3, and endeavour to help editors maintain GA status. Geometry guy 22:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that there are any unsourced statistics and quotations in the article, except for one very common Russian proverb, which is part of a language, not opinion. Sometimes there are links to some lists on Wikipedia that provide statistics and sources, but that's a general practice on wiki. Greyhood (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If you believe there are no current GA problems with the article, that will make my job much easier if I take this on. Geometry guy 23:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The main promblems of this article is too few citations in the Culture section and perhaps a few other subsections elsewhere. And yes, the size of the article, it should be cut at least by 20% I think, and a number of images better be removed. I can do much of this work myself, but I may be busy in real life in the next two days, so please don't be too fast on any status modifying. It would be very helpful also if anyone tagged the specific places that especially need references, as well as specific sections that especially need reducing in size. Greyhood (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Under other circumstances, I could quickly add cn tags for you, but the article is just too slow loading for me to undertake that work-- I'm sorry I can't help :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Good work from Greyhood so far. I hate to say this, as we are trying to cut, but the late 19th/20th century classical music section could do with a little bit of expansion, (and dance (inc. ballet) treated separately). It's one of the most notable Russian cultural exports - arguably a good deal more important than literature in terms of influence outside of Russia. Visual arts, on the other hand, might be a little more terse, for the same reasons. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if removing the images is the first priority, since other articles with pretty much images load better than Russia. There is too much prose, overlinking and oversourcing in some cases. I propose to concentrate on cutting the text and only then the images when there is not enough place for them. Greyhood (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:MOS#Images; text should not be sandwiched between images anyway, and this is happening all over the place. Images do significantly slow down load time, and this article has too many anyway, regardless of prose. They are cluttering rather than enhancing the article. The other thing that could be quickly done to speed up load time is to replace the cite templates with vcite, for example {{vcite journal}}. Although I agree that cutting prose should also happen soon, so we can see what text remains uncited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggested sections that can be cut to daughter articles (many of which contain uncited text anyway):

• Soviet Russia
• Science and technology, which should link to one daughter article, Science and technology in Russia, and use tighter summary style here
• Transportation
• ALL of culture (tighter focus on most important, also link one daughter article, Culture of Russia, rather than linking to a gazillion daughters here)
  • Sports
  • National holidays

Also, see WP:ACCESS regarding order of items in sections-- many images are in the wrong place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Progress

As of this version, size is still an issue.

File size: 754 kB

Prose size (including all HTML code): 222 kB

References (including all HTML code): 226 kB

Wiki text: 195 kB

Prose size (text only): 102 kB (16172 words) "readable prose size"

References (text only): 38 kB

Images: 1562 kB

I suggest much more aggressive cuts are needed, particularly to History, Science and technology, Culture, and the excess images. The article is severely undercited, and trimming text to daughter articles will aid in citation. I suggest the article and images need to be cut by about 40%. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The work is indeed in progress. I've already made significant cuts to history. Science and technology and culture are the next aims. Greyhood (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me add further encouragements for your efforts to bring this article down to a reasonable size. You are doing good work. It may be helpful soon to start a GA reassessment to discuss balance and focus issues as well as other GA matters. Geometry guy 23:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Some 70000 bytes has been cut off from the article since the start of the work on reducing the size, that's about 1/3 of its volume as it was two weeks ago. The article is now smaller than that on the U.S. and UK, and it loads faster (on my computer the loading time decreased from 25 to 15 seconds). Some 50 images have been removed (about 50%), and thanks to the help from GreatOrangePumpkin all the checked dead links have been either deleted or replaced with new references. All the requests for citations have been met with adding the references, or just the corresponding tagged lines have been either deleted or reworded.

I think that a futher reduction of the article is neither desirable nor possible without deleting much of the valuable info; and I'm a bit tired of making minor cuts here and there that don't change the size dramatically. So I'd prefer to advice against it and to avoid the further work on reduction, but if someone have any substancial proposals about it, let's discuss. Anyway, in my opinion the time has come to turn to other GA matters. GreyHood ^Talk 19:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed tags removed

I have twice added cn tags to this article, which is grossly undercited, and twice they have been removed. Wiki is not a reliable source-- we don't refer to other Wiki articles for citation. Text needs to be cited where it occurs, in this article, and GAs must be cited. Also, the article is still slow slowing with an enormous number of images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I know that generally we don't refer to other wiki articles for citation, but all my experience from editing Wikipedia tells me that it is a very common practice when people refer to well-sourced on-wiki lists with rankings and medal tables. You see, it is rather easy to provide refs to your recent cn tags, but do we really need it and doesn't it contradict the idea of not exaggerating the size of the article? GreyHood ^Talk 22:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As for the images, the number of them is certainly not enormous, just 54 or 55, and there are articles with hundreds of images that load faster, so I don't think the images are the main problem. GreyHood ^Talk 22:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I've provided citations for most of your tags so far, and in the case of Energy section all of them have been taken directly from the corresponding lists of countries. This resulted in updating some information, so I should thank you, SandyGeorgia, for your placement of tags anyway. Sorry if my reverts disturbed you, I have done them in a good faith and along the line of reducing the article's size. Still it would be nice if someone show me the place in the rules that prohibits to use on-wiki lists with rankings and medal tables without additional sources, I'm just not that good in Wikipedia rules, perhaps. GreyHood ^Talk 23:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Requestioning sources on Russia as great power

Because the article has changed from superpower to great power over the last several hours I am now going to question the article as a great power as it stands. I want to read sources that say Russia is a great power and not from great power article (not the table in the end) (that is not an effective source) because contributing editors who have denounced edits in the great powers is not the accurate source of information when there has been conflicting contributing editors that denouced the sources on there. Since the article is misleading the readers I am questioning its sources to say otherwise with information stating Russia is a great power and not a superpower. There should be a weight of sources to have this article state it is great power (because the intro is misleading) or the article will mislead the editors or edit back to superpower status again as sources are avialable under Russia as a superpower. Provide these great power sources please.--Globalstatus (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop making amateur comments. Russia is a great power just because it is in the United Nations Security Council, and hardly any sources are needed to support it. Russia has to be a great power in order to be a superpower. If you promote Russia's being a superpower how can you question Russia's being a great power? ;) Greyhood (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Then send the facts over because you repeatly say Russia is a great power then come send the facts. This is not a mice and cat game and your making it impossible to get the facts because you haven't provided anything. The United Nations Security Council has no facts and if so you why don't you send them yourself but you have the energy to change Russia faster to great power than getting these great power sources instead. Please provide these sources I am looking to review?--Globalstatus (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing that says Russia is a great power under United Nations Security Council--Globalstatus (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If you can't extract the sources on Russia from the great power article, even when I've specifically indicated that these sources are in the lede there and in the table in the bottom of the article, than it's your problem not mine. Greyhood (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again, media sources and not acedemic sources on Great Powers when you said you wanted acedemic sources in the first place, so that does not make sense.--Globalstatus (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

:So far no one has provided any acedemic sources on here to say Russia is a great power. If you have the acedemic sources then provide them here. If this goes unanswered then the dispute will be to apply back Russia as a superpower again. I will wait for some sources only, not comments for changing the article back. Since I am discussing this first I am follwoing the rules.--Globalstatus (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting to get these sources on Russia being a great power. Since no acedemic sources has been provided it will leave open on returning back to superpower status again. So I am waiting for the sources to view to verify Russia is a great power. I have been asking this question for 5 days now and no sources have been provided. So be informed if sources are not provided leaves open conensus to open back Russia as a superpower again by using these talkpages asking for the answers on these sources needed, so far nothing has been sent yet.--Globalstatus (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

While I haven't read the sources Great Power seems to clearly indicate in sources 28, 29, and 38 (see that page for links) that Russia and/or its historical predecessors are Great Powers. Does that meet what you're asking for? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem is they are not acedemic sources as 4 editors on here are making a big deal about acedemic sources and those 3 you mentioned are not acedemic as I am trying to get people realizing if they do not provide acedemic sources then consensus will have to otherwise debate on Russia being a superpower again for example. There is a lot of sources on Russia being a superpower of the 21st century but I filing a complaint to the board on 4 editors not allowing reliable sources such here on rules for sources[6]. I am defending true sources on the article but there seems to be some editor corruption on the consensus as they are allowing 3 non-acedemic sources on Russaia being a great power on the article and not allowing any sources on Russia being a superpower after 2006 so therefore this is a problem on discussions but as long as I ask I have rule in my favor to change the content back from last week. If there is no acedemic sources that say Russia is a great power then there is a problem which will have to be fixed.--Globalstatus (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Can other editors confirm the above? We do not prefer academic over non-academic sources in most cases (specific exceptions apply for strictly scientific/academic/medical subjects). Whether to call Russia a superpower, great power, or whatever should be based on what reliable sources (of all types) are calling it, not what academic sources call it. If the majority of reliable sources call it "That big wild red country," that's the term we should use to (although we can certainly add a section discussing the relative accuracy of such a label). So let's everyone drop the issue of academic vs. non-academic, please. As to the superpower issue...what are the sources like on that? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm that Globalstatus does not understand a number of points.

• First, that the term "superpower" is applied by some RS to Russia, while other RS explicitly reject it. And then there's a whole lot of RS describing the US as "the world's only remaining superpower". His/her rather charming suggestion to ask a professor to write an article about it misses the point completely - the term is contested, and as a result the article reports it as contested. Globalstatus wants us to ignore any disputes in order to push his/her explicit POV of being nice to Russia.
• Secondly, the term "great power" is one that is used in the academic literature on international relations. That newspapers don't use it much is neither here nor there (although as I pointed out, the media in Russia use the equivalent phrase rather a lot). It is more or less unquestioned by analysts that Russia is a great power (seat on the UN security council, involved in the 6-way North Korea talks, in the International Quartet for the Middle East, massive nuclear and conventional forces, in the G8, clear regional dominance in Eurasia, large influence (which is used) on commodity/energy supply and prices - you can see why.).
• Thirdly, Globalstatus' belief that books like these are not academic stretches credulity to breaking point.

Qwyrxian, regarding what qualifies as RS, in this case academic sources are better than occasional mentions in the mainstream media (and Globalstatus appears to be dumping google news search results for Russia + superpower), because they are terms employed in a clear analytical framework. Some of the more in depth media pieces would also be good, but not comments thrown out without any clear explanation. Globalstatus has admitted to being here to force in a POV and has shown no ability whatsoever to understand what other editors are saying. We raised this at an ANI, but admins declined to respond either way.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No that is not the case, I did provided a number of sources (over 100 sources), in fact I provided more sources on Russia being a superpower of the 21st century than those who said Russia being a great power for example even if they were media sources vice versa over acedemic or edu. Here is an acedemic source on Russia being a superpower here though[7]. It is more or less unquestioned by analysts that Russia is a superpower than a great power too and the UN security council has no power to annouce any country is a superpower or great power, it is not their role to do so but an opinion. Suppose the contested acedemic sources by professor Dilip Hiro[8]why the US is no longer a superpower[9] in his view or why professors Edward A. Kolodziej and Roger E. Kanet claim the US is no longer a superpower as well here[10] basis how the US polices have failed and how they have failed big. However I never disputed the US not being a superpower I just provided sources on Russia being a superpower. There's enough articles and reviews since 2007 that Russia has raisen back to superpower status again on a number of reasons by the media, world leaders, educators and more. Saying Russia is a great power is just a hypothetical opinion as there is not enough sources after 2007 to say other wise and that is the response I have seen here, just opinons by editors Russia is a great power, than how so, there is no recent acedemic sources to say so. Sources that were provided on Russia being a great power was short cased and had no reference quotes in those sources from the 3 sources on the article pages nor did anybody provided a case after 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 on any acedemic source on Russia being a great power, since I asked no one provided those sources either. The weight of media articles on Russia being a superpower outweighs the articles saying Russia is a great power. Here's just a few sources that point Russia is a superpower by news media's from the around the world and institutions on these sources here[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71]

[72][73][74][75][76][77] and I have plenty more that say the samething.--Globalstatus (talk) 08:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I can find hundreds and hundreds of web sources which claim that people are reincarnated, and many of those sources were written by people with great educational attainment. It means nothing. Instead of spamming the discussion with lots of links quoting world leaders who engaged in diplomatic flattery, try USING YOUR COMMON SENSE. Russia is not a superpower. This is more than just my personal opinion - it is manifest, and it is manifest to all but the most deluded and nationalistic Russian. Russia's GDP is not very big, and even its PPP GDP is a fraction of that of the only superpower, the USA (and you should read about why nominal GDP is a better measure of an advanced economy. Poor countries with large populations tend to have a big PPP GDP, because everyone buys lots of eggs and sheep etc.). Russia's ability to project military power is not as great as the UK or France, and they are manifestly not superpowers. Russia's cultural influence is not great, except for ballet and vodka. Russia is a GREAT POWER, because it has lots of nukes and is a member of the UN security council, but if it wasn't for the nukes, even this privilege would not exist. 86.166.19.77 (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, it is also absurd that we now have an article which, in the same paragraph no less, tells us that Russia has the 12th nominal/7th PPP GDP and 5th Military spending, and also declares that Russia is a "recognized superpower" (on top of the fact that no agency has done said recognition). Consider that the UK, for example, has 6th nominal/6th PPP GDP and 3rd Military spending, which is better than Russia on all counts, but the UK has not been considered a superpower for 70 years! Someone fix the article, please. I'm tired of my honest edits being reverted. Fixing the article is in the interests of patriotic Russians more than anybody else. Russians should be proud of their fine country for what it is, not for what it is not. People will respect Russians for being honest; no respect is to be earned from self-deceit, only ridicule. 86.166.19.77 (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The article declares that Soviet Union was a recognized superpower, not Russia, so nothing to fix. GreyHood ^Talk 17:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The list I provided above are all stating Russia is a current superpower, that's what the sources say.--Globalstatus (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

AN/I thread

See WP:AN/I#User:Globalstatus thread related to this article. Nsk92 (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem I have responded too--Globalstatus (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Guys I feel that you really need to look first at the term Superpower and question whether it be used AT ALL within Wikipedia before trying to decide if Russia is or is not. A thought that comes to mind is surely something as subjective, and I mean subjective as in a sense of what the average person thinks (I use the 'average person' because they are truly the most important people in the world as a collective, because they best represent everyone, far more than some analysis made by a group of people who are most likely incapable of said decision when it truly comes down to it.....) Do THEY agree with either of your positions, this may be a good start in further discussing the issue? BoredextraWorkvidid (talk) 07:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Terms like Superpower and Great power are of course analytical constructs, not "realities" in the natural science sense (scare quotes to calm the philophers of science). But they are used in the literature, with a fair bit of agreement on the meaning at least, to classify certain states when trying to understand how international relations works and has worked historically. True, they are also terms used in the media and in everyday language. However, academics will use them with much more precision than the press or the "average" person, and with clearer reasons. In an encyclopaedia, while common usage is notable, it's academia that offers the better standard of correctness and should be used as a guide. (Imagine if our pages on quantum physics were determined by average understanding!) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Right now the article is misleading the viewers because there is no sources that says Russia is a great power. But when you Google news events on Russia, superpower pulls up more than great power in media articles. Yet the community here of 4 editors perfer to call Russia a great power when there is no evidence to support that. Ask for acedemic sources from the editor, no one has any answers. Isn't that right VsevolodKrolikov?--Globalstatus (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

If I google Putin fascist I get more hits than Putin statesman. Google searches are meaningless. "Great Power" is a technical term not used by the anglophone media much, but it is used by experts. In Russian, where the term великая держава is used much more in the media and across disciplines, you'll find lots of articles stating quite clearly the opinion that Russia is not a superpower, but a great power (and what's important, as people have been saying to you over and over again, is that there is no agreement on the attribution of superpower, so we report the dispute, not choose one version over the other). For example Russia is not yet even an energy superpower and may not become one, and Russia is a great power. As for your rejecting the sourcing at Great power, that's really seems like someone refusing to look at something they don't like. They're academic books published by university imprints - notably OUP. Do you have personal reasons for pursuing this point? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but your sources are outdated, Russia is the worlds largest and biggest energy producer superpower, here's the facts: [78][79][80]

Second Russia is a superpower here's video feed of one of the worlds most important figures speaking on terms why Russia is a superpower from Febuary 16, 2010[81]. Your pdf link is outdated as it is 2008 and does not specifically get into great detail of Russia being a great power so this such is not as good link.--Globalstatus (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, it's disappointing that you reject a source as being out of date in 2008, and then offer sources from 2007 and 2006. Maths might not be your strongest suit. And thank you for revealing an aspect of your mission, i.e. trying at all costs to get Netanyahu's diplomatic homilies to Putin onto Wikipedia. While being head of government of a smallish country does grant his views a certain notability, last time I checked we didn't take Netanyahu's word as law over-riding everything else in matters of political science. We wouldn't take Ahmadinejad's either, mind. Wikipedia is very even-handed on such matters. I'd be very interested to know why all this is so important to you.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have sources for that? I don't think I can believe you because that is only comments, please show me what you mean in some sources please.--Globalstatus (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

A source for 2008 being after 2007? A source that we don't treat Ahmadinejad as the sine qua non of authorities on political science? A source that Israel's not a very big place? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No you seem to be off the topic here, a source for saying "all costs to get Netanyahu's diplomatic homilies to Putin onto Wikipedia. While being head of government of a smallish country does grant his views a certain notability, last time I checked we didn't take Netanyahu's word as law over-riding everything else in matters of political science"? What did this information come from?--Globalstatus (talk) 07:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Global Governance 2025 - PDF page 23 From the same site: [82] Italiano111 (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This link does not say anything other than great power, there is no criteria why for example. It is not a good source as its lacks the information in detail why. I have just collected 11 article on Google news this week on articles from the media why or say Russia has become a superpower and that's just news sources where those sources outweight this link above. There is not much sources on Russia being a great power in detail and this one above lacks detail.--Globalstatus (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Globalstatus, I tentatively suggest you to create an article Global status of Russia (no pun intended), classify your sources and put them into that article. GreyHood ^Talk 11:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What a Joke--Globalstatus (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Vadiklk, 9 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Russia's area is 17,075,400(as stated in wiki), but it is written that in sq miles its 10,610,162, which is a wrong conversion(division by 1.6 instead of 1.6*1.6 = 2.56). I suggest the are will be changed to 6,670,078 sq miles. Hope this will be changed.

Vadiklk (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for noticing! --Illythr (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

ST section edits

Why was the mention of Kolmogorov removed from the Science&Technology section? Kolmogorov must be included in any top ten or even five scientists in Russian history by any measure and was one of the greatest mathematicians ever. The editor saved Lyapunov and Markov and removed Kolmgorov. It makes no point. May be the ST section had to be cut but not to absurdity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.71.15.144 (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done. GreyHood ^Talk 10:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Links

What happened to the links for the flag and coat of arms??? Fry1989 (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong area,

Russia's area is 17,075,400(as stated in wiki), but it is written that in sq miles its 10,610,162, which is a wrong conversion(division by 1.6 instead of 1.6*1.6 = 2.56). I suggest the are will be changed to 6,670,078 sq miles. Hope this will be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vadiklk (talk • contribs) 19:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done as well, although it took a few seconds to realize that you mean that the number in the infobox remains uncorrected. BTW, the ratio is slightly greater than 2.56. --Illythr (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Mongol invasion and yoke in the intro

• "overrun by the Mongol invasion" is just a figure of speech, see an example
• Dates 1240-1480. Better not include them into the intro. As you see, the intro includes only the most important dates and turning points in Russian history. 1240 was the year when Kiev was destroyed, but the North-Eastern Russia was invaded earlier, and the yoke de facto started a bit later. Then, different regions of former Kievan Rus' had different history: western territories were not controlled by Mongol-Tatars but were conquered by Lithuania and Poland, Novgorod and Pskov were not actually conquered and maintained high degree of independence in the earlier years of yoke, evading paying tribute for many years. Grand Duchy of Moscow also didn't pay tribute for decade-long intervals even before 1480, being de facto independent from the Golden Horde in political decisions (they payed tribute specifically to prevent invasions in the later years, not on regular basis). There wasn't even any serious military engagement in 1480 and this year wasn't so much of a turning point. 1380 in fact was much more important. And we simply can't put all these details into the intro. It's just enough that the Mongol invasion and the Golden horde are mentioned there once. GreyHood ^Talk 22:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

HDI

Someone changed the HDI from 0.8.. to 0.7... is this right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.91.236.107 (talk) 10:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The UNDP that releases HDI has changed methodology of the index calculation in the latest report. All countries have seen similar HDI "decreases" in the List of countries by HDI. However, in the last edition Russia was on the 71st place and now it is on the 65th. There was also an absolute growth of 2010 index value for Russia when compared with the new recalculated index for 2009. GreyHood ^Talk 10:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion; Fresh Water

Suggestion: either make "fresh water" in the article link to Freshwater, or remove "fresh". --82.171.70.54 (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. GreyHood ^Talk 16:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Highest point of Asian Russia

At least Klyuchevskaya Sopka is higher than Mount Belukha, which was stated highest in the geography section. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

•  Done Fixed. GreyHood ^Talk 15:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Russian Federation

I think we should rename the article Russian Federation and put a redirect to russia on here. The first sentence would start out like this or something like this, The Russian Federation or more commonly known as Russia.

--65.96.29.229 (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Russia and Russian Federation

Chapter 1, Article 1, Item 2 of the Constitution clearly states that both names are equal. Therefore it is incorrect to say that the official name of the country is just Russian Federation or Russia. HotXRock (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

•  Done Fixed. GreyHood ^Talk 15:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Science & Technology

I would suggest to include Lev Landau and Nikolay Bogolyubov as two leading Soviet theoretical physicists. And may be add Lev Pontryagin to Kolmogorov, Gelfand and Sobolev as his contributions were really fundamental. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.70.215.220 (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Bear - a symbol of Russia?

This article says that the brown bear - a symbol of Russia. That's not true. --92.124.23.27 (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a wiki page regarding the Russian Bear. It has just a single source, but seems credible. If you don't believe this to be true, please find contrary evidence in a credible source. Personal opinion is not the basis for inclusions in an article.204.65.34.246 (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I am from Russia. --92.124.23.27 (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.189.4.165 (talk)

Ну и что? Wikipedia relies on reliable published sources, not simply the personal experience of editors. garik (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Even the Russian article notes, by the way, that while the bear has tended historically to be used as a symbol of Russia mainly among Westeners, its use has increased among Russians themselves, especially in the twentieth century. The English-language article claims nothing more than that. No one's saying that it's an official symbol of the country. garik (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem lies in the fact that Russia is associated with a bear in the west (as in Russia, called the countries of Europe and the U.S.). This region has always had many detractors and enemies of Russia. That is why these countries began to promote the association of Russia with a bear, as a clumsy and cruel beasts of the forest. Particularly active anti-Russian policy were the UK and U.S. A lot of things advocated governments Foes of Russia. They promoted the fact that in Russia the streets bears go, that Russian - alcoholics in Russia prevails crime that Russia has a lot of prostitutes that all Russian - the communists, we some savages from the north... But all this is in fact a lie! This anti-Russian propaganda. In Western Europe, for example, there is an association with the Polish plumber. But the plumber - it's not a symbol of Poland!

In Russia itself, the association between Russia and the bear had a non-existent. (Excuse me, if something is incorrectly written, I do not know much English, so I use internet-translator.)--Palaiologos (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine. As far as I can see, there's nothing in the article that contradicts you. Where is the problem? (Ну, ладно. Поьсколько я вижу, нет ничего в этой статье, что вас противоречит. В чем проблема?) garik (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that in English-language sources, you can still find echoes of the anti-Soviet propaganda, which turned into anti-Russian propaganda. Yes, I could just go and write captions for pictures of brown bear is something else. But I decided to draw public attention to this problem. In my opinion, the stereotypes have no place in Wikipedia, especially in an article on the country. (Sorry if I'm too blatantly self :-) --Palaiologos (talk) 05:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

So it's the picture caption that bothers you? Is that any better? Relevant widely-held stereotypes should be included in Wikipedia, provided the article makes the context clear. And this article does make clear (and did before I edited it) that the bear personification originated in the West. It also links to this article, which goes into rather more detail. garik (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "too blatantly self"). garik (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Religion

Under Religion, this article says- 'more than three-fourth of Russians celebrate...'. Surely this should be 'More than three quarters of the Russian population celebrate...' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambrewin (talk • contribs) 08:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Am Afraid that Russia is neither a superpower or great power Stop, claiming it on wikipedia

Seriosly , Russia cannot even hardy control itself as the massive corruption and criminality skyrockets and the economy nearly collapses , sure putin maybe helped through oil and gas money but still has more poverty than libya or poland for example , anyway there is no reference anywhere about russia being a superpower or a great power

That was already discussed several times, see [83].--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 14:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

lol poland and lybia have lower gdp per capita than russia according to the new data of word bank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita --Karesu12340 (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

yeah but that person wanted the article to say that russia is a superpower and i mean that russia is neither a superpower or great power !!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigety gigety goo (talk • contribs) 14:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Then please look into the archives: [84]. I see at least one discussion about "Super power".--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

GDP per capita or income per capita are surely not very suitable indicators for being a superpower. If so, Luxemburg would be the greatest superpower and China one of the weakest countries. So stop argumenting with the level of poverty. --Voyevoda (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Germany a western european nation is worse off than russia , russia has much larger bigger growing economy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemagic-germany (talk • contribs) 18:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about ? Russia is a very good at internal control , and who said that corruption and criminality rises , while it is a problem it has become better now , putin has made economic and macroeconomic reforms and thats why its better it has nothing to do with "oil and gas money"Russia has better and larger economy than libya or poland and it is a fact that russia is a great power or meybe even superpowerDuelatic (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Russia will meybe a superpower in the futureChaosname (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Russia is a great power todayChaosname (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

9 time zones

I am not sure, but it looks like there re just 6 or 7 after President Medvedevs last reform.--DissidentRUS (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope, nine is correct. See Time in Russia for the list. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 27, 2011; 13:46 (UTC)

The Article should, in "See also", have a link to Time in Russia. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 188.221.252.154, 8 July 2011

Timezone & DST. Russia adopted constant time (ie no DST) from March 2011 onwards, when they moved the clocks for the final tim,e so pls delete reference to summer time. New times/timezones are those of (northern hemisphere) summer, but henceforth they will be the standard times for Russia, with no DST.

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_Russia

188.221.252.154 (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done yet: The corresponding law will enter into force on 5 August 2011. --illythr (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

First East Slavic State

Where is the evidence for this statement? --Eleven Nine (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Where in the article is this statement? Kievan Rus' was one of the first, but I haven't seen claims that it was *the* first... --illythr (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Russian economy

Russia is the 11th largest nominal economy not 10th. Please change it in the economy section and in the beginning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.82.63 (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 12:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

On the economy section it still states that it is 10th in nominal economy. (69.115.82.63 (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC))

ah sorry. Done--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 10:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I always wonder why people bother putting nominal GDP in those boxes as it's pretty much a meaningless number - at least it should say "converted at official exchange rates".Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Gini coefficient

On the sidebar, it lists it as 42.3. Surely this must be 0.423, since the number can only range from 0 to 1. And if you look at this image, it seems to put Russia in the 0.40-0.44 range: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gini_Coefficient_World_CIA_Report_2009-1.png 71.32.243.176 (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The Gini coefficient is often multiplied by a 100 to make it look like a percent. So it's often expressed as being between 0 and 100. The distinction is obvious from the context.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Normanist theory and related issues

I have to revert Alphasinus edits once again. Here are details:

• The nation's history began with that of the Slavs,...

Most Russian history textbooks traditionally start with the coming of East Slavs to the East European plain. Most modern Russians are descendants of East Slavs and share their genetics and speak Russian language, that is East Slavic language. While contributions of other ethnicities to Russia's history, culture genetics etc. are also great, the East Slavic dominance is out of the question, the East Slavic roots of Russian nation are obvious, and it is traditional approach to Russian history. I suppose that Alphasinus wants to connect the start of Russian history with coming of Varangians, but the state and nation are different things, to begin with.

• Founded and ruled by a Varangian (North Germanic) elite...

If I had more time for serious tasks, I'd long ago expanded the article Varangians and related articles with material from Russian wiki, such as from ru:Варяги or ru:Русь (народ), supported by references from quite academic scholars. It is definitely known that Varangians came to Russia from over the Baltic sea and that their culture was predominantly Scandinavian. While it is normal to suppose that initially they were mostly Scandinavians (likely, mostly Swedes due to geographic considerations), the exact ethnic composition of Varangians is unknown. Germans, Baltic Slavs and Finns could also be Varangians since according to one hypothesis the word designated any warriors and traders from the Baltic. While the origins of Varangians are complex and not entirely clear, the origins of Rurik are even more disputed. Finally, already by the time of Christianization of Rus Varangians were very strongly assimilated and integrated into East Slavic society and therefore it is obviously incorrect to say that Kievan Rus' had Varangian or "North Germanic elite" for the most part of its history.

• The name Russia is derived from the Rus, a group of Swedish Varangians (Vikings}

Once again, while it is a strong and widely accepted hypothesis, it is just one of many. There is no place to review all of them in the general article like Russia. GreyHood ^Talk 16:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Answer to Greyhood. Here are details:

• Most Russian history textbooks traditionally start with the coming of East Slavs to the East European plain. Most modern Russians are descendants of East Slavs and share their genetics and speak Russian language, that is East Slavic language. While contributions of other ethnicities to Russia's history, culture genetics etc. are also great, the East Slavic dominance is out of the question, the East Slavic roots of Russian nation are obvious, and it is traditional approach to Russian history. I suppose that Alphasinus wants to connect the start of Russian history with coming of Varangians, but the state and nation are different things, to begin with.

To say that "the nations history begins with the east slavs" is silly sentence, and should be removed alltogether. It's not said in the source either. Like you say, "the state and nation are different things", Russia is a state, the Russians are a nation.

• If I had more time for serious tasks, I'd long ago expanded the article Varangians and related articles with material from Russian wiki, such as from ru:Варяги or ru:Русь (народ), supported by references from quite academic scholars. It is definitely known that Varangians came to Russia from over the Baltic sea and that their culture was predominantly Scandinavian. While it is normal to suppose that initially they were mostly Scandinavians (likely, mostly Swedes due to geographic considerations), the exact ethnic composition of Varangians is unknown. Germans, Baltic Slavs and Finns could also be Varangians since according to one hypothesis the word designated any warriors and traders from the Baltic. While the origins of Varangians are complex and not entirely clear, the origins of Rurik are even more disputed. Finally, already by the time of Christianization of Rus Varangians were very strongly assimilated and integrated into East Slavic society and therefore it is obviously incorrect to say that Kievan Rus' had Varangian or "North Germanic elite" for the most part of its history.

I've never written that Kievan rus ad a "North Germanic elite" for most of it's history, it is true that the rus were assimilated by the slavs later on, but mainstream sources do write that the first leaders were varangians (vikings).

• Once again, while it is a strong and widely accepted hypothesis, it is just one of many. There is no place to review all of them in the general article like Russia.

Mainstream sources write that the word Rus came from the vikings. There are many people why dispute that the Soviets perpetrated the Katyn massacre, and who produce alternative fringe theories to justify their claims, but that shouldnt prevent us from writing that it was indeed Stalin who did it. Alphasinus (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• What do you mean by "silly sentence"? East Slavs, Russians and Russian nation existed before the modern state of Russia. And this is a traditional approach to Russian history which hardly needs a source.

>I've never written that Kievan rus ad a "North Germanic elite" for most of it's history.

• But the sentence could be understood that way.

>Mainstream sources write that the word Rus came from the vikings.

• Than you just haven't read enough sources. Also, you should understand that it is hypothesis, not fact. And this should be reflected. GreyHood ^Talk 15:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I should note that your edits are highly inaccurate and misleading in many ways:

• The territory of Russia was settled before the Indo-Europeans, so why start the account from them?
• Why remove the East Slavs from Russian history completely? Sorry, but this is exactly an alternative fringe approach.
• Why use the misleading term "North-Germanic" at all?
• How exactly Slavs were "ruthlessly exploited"? This is highly dubious POV, unsupported even by the Primary Chronicle.
• As for the "Judeo-Turkic Khazars" - they were not ethnic Jews, they were followers of Judaism. And Slavs paid tribute to them even before Khazars converted to Judaism. GreyHood ^Talk 15:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Most things in 9th century history as hypothesis. All we can do as wikipedians is to cite the professionals.
• As for the "Indo-European" sentence i'm simply citing your source.
• Scandinavians are North Germanic just as Ukrainians are East Slavic. What's misleading?
• The Vikings of Eastern Europe were engaged in slave trade. Ahmad ibn Rustah. The word slave is derived from the Slavs.Etymology of Slave.
• What about fixing the Judeo-Turkic note instead of reverting the whole contribution alltogether? Alphasinus (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• So we should report hypothesis as hypothesis and do it accurately. And we can't go into details of complex questions in the general articles like Russia.
• As for the "Indo-European" sentence, the source also cites East Slavs, and the emergence of East Slavs is obviously much more important in context of Russia than the emergence of Indo-Europeans.
• Misleading is the possible connection to the region of North Germany.
• The etymology of the word "slave" is unrelated to the question - your own source says the word appeared later than the period we discuss. Anyway, the slavery was quite common in Europe at that age. And if some sources, as Ahmad ibn Rustah says Rus exploited Slavs, the other sources, like the Primary Chronicle, often describe them as equal. So there is no need to push one-sided description in a general overview article. GreyHood ^Talk 16:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

IIRC the "slav->slave" connection has much more to do with the Balkans than with Russia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Alphasinus, its nice how you choose three Britannica references to support your inaccurate claims, but not used the Rus (people) article from Britannica which directly states that the origin of Rus is disputed.

Rus, also spelled Ros, ancient people who gave their name to the land of Russia. Their origin and identity are much in dispute. Traditional Western scholars believe them to be Scandinavian Vikings, an offshoot of the Varangians, who moved southward from the Baltic coast and founded the first consolidated state among the eastern Slavs, centring on Kiev. Russian scholars, along with some Westerners, consider the Rus to be a southeastern Slavic tribe that founded a tribal league; the Kievan state, they affirm, was the creation of Slavs and was attacked and held only briefly by Varangians.

Don't know why Britannica uses almost exclusively Normanist view in other articles, perhaps to make the long story short, but the fact that it is just one view is obvious and we can't ignore the Russian point of view in the article about Russia. Britannica is a tertiary source and has its faults. Also, Alphasinus, you have not addressed various inaccuracies and dubious claims I've mentioned here. So please consider your edits once again. Your support of one-sided Normanist approach is incorrect. We should report the primary point of view but pay respect to other notable points of view. GreyHood ^Talk 18:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

russian gdp worldbank

russias gdp in ppp is 2,812,383 dollars according to worldbank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

plz edit it since worldbank data came later it should be the most accurate.--Askosh (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Foreign relations

I am surprised to see that there is no mentioning of Russia-United States relations in the post-Cold War era. Since Barack Obama became president in 2008, both countries have sought to reset relations in a manner of rapproachment. The New START Treaty in 2010 was landmark legislation approved by both countries that reduces their nuclear arsenals. This information is too important not to mention in the foreign relations section of this article. Yoganate79 (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Russkyia

I'm currently beginning my study into the Russian language and have noticed this article uses the feminine form of Russian(the people),Russkyia and not Russkie. Both of the previous sentence are phonetically spelled in English. Is this correct usage in the article? I bring this up only because most other laungages are male Dominate in there nouns, such as Spanish. It would make sense however, because Russia (the country) is usually referred to as mother land. I'm sorry if this topic had already been brout up as I'm on a phone and unable to access the archives. Also. Brought up for proper correction if I'm right. Doubt I am though. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.68.17 (talk) 09:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind pointing out the specific sentences you are asking about? I've done an inline search for "russkaya" (which is a feminine form of the adjective that means "Russian"), and found only "russkaya zemlya" and "russkaya pravda", in neither of which "russkaya" refers to the people, and in both of which the feminine form is used because the nouns "zemlya" and "pravda" are of feminine gender. If these are not the ones you are asking about, I'll need more information, please. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 4, 2011; 14:57 (UTC)

Ivan IV the Terrible

I was very surprised when I found out that some english sources claimed that грозный is translated in Russian as "awesome" or "magnificent". This is absolutly not true. As written in the main article about Ivan IV more acurate translations could be "fearsome", "redoubtable" or "severe". — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiZis (talk • contribs) 03:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "awesome" (awe-inspiring) is in fact pretty synonymous with fearsome (see awe in the dictionary). The confusion arises because young people colloquially use the word to mean "cool." Various sources do indicate "Ivan the Awesome" as a possible translation. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Gini index

Hello everyone! I found out that there is a inconsistency with low/medium/high in the Gini rankings - f.e Russia Gini (2008)42.3[5] (high), Uruguay Gini (2009) 42.4[3] (medium), Nigeria Gini (2003) 43.7 (medium) - shouldn't Russia have ranking "medium"? This low/medium/high isn't very objective because it is hard to say when does low go over to medium and medium over to high. I suppose that "Gini (2008)42.3[5] (83th)" would be more objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siim44 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Fixed as proposed. GreyHood ^Talk 18:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

time zones

Now that we know that President Dimitri Medvedev has an intention to keep his country on summer-time for the entire year, how does that affect our record of time zones in the Russia infobox? Thehistorian10 (talk) 08:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)thehistorian10

Russian GDP

А на душу населения указать ввп очко играет? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.113.185.7 (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"nominal GDP is recognizable enough term; in 2009 there was recession; the figures of nominal wages growth seem to be perfectly valid - despite internal inflation, that was still huge growth in terms of international capabilities"

If you think nominal GDP is more recognizable then ok, but it really makes no sense to call it that. It's nominal GDP converted at exchange rates.

With regard to the other two changes. The 2010 is the most up to date one. But if you're going to change it back to 2008 you should change the % back to 5%. Also 4% growth in 2010 does not sound like a recession.

But most of all the 80$ and 600$ figures are completely wack. I don't know who the idiot who wrote the story for AP is but they need a remedial course in economics. Yes, between 2000 and 2008 there was a lot of growth. About 70% in terms of per capita income in fact. But not 750%, that is simply ridiculous (actually, even accounting for inflation, which over the period was roughly 100%). 70% growth over 8 years is nothing to sneeze at. Over the same period growth in US for example was something like 10-12%. China during the same period grew by about 75%. A change of 750% implies an annual growth rate of about 28% which has never happened in the history of any country on earth in terms of real income. And the only time it has happened for nominal incomes is in cases of runaway inflation. I would just remove that sentence and replace it with numbers for per capita income from academic sources or from international organizations. Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Just realized that the objection might be to the '11th straight year of growth' (2009 recession interrupted it) rather than 2010 per se. I still think the article would benefit from having up to data info, though yes, it is also worth mentioning that between 2000 and 2008 there were 8 years of growth.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, with all those typical infobox parameters and lists like the List of countries by GDP (nominal) the term seems OK and no need for further specifications.

I've fixed the figure of average growth back to 7%, thanks for reminding me of this.

Since there was recession in 2009 it was incorrect to speak about 11 straight years of growth. Though, perhaps, the sentence could be reworded to reflect more details and more recent data.

If you have better sources for income, please insert them to the article. However, this document from Rosstat shows that the average wage in Russia was 2223,4 roubles in 2000 and 17290,1 roubles in 2008 which is 670% growth in roubles. Given the fact that rouble became stronger to dollar between 2000-2008, I'd expect that 750% growth in dollar value would be normal. Yes, there was inflation etc, but when we are speaking in nominal terms, that seems normal. Also, while there was internal inflation which reduced the real income increase, the possibilities of Russia in imports and in foreign travel grew significantly. GreyHood ^Talk 15:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think adding "converted via market exchange rates" helps to clarify the distinction between what is meant by "nominal" in this context and the PPP approach. But if you think otherwise, that's fine.

The figure actually listed in the source is 5% not 7%.

I'll try to reword it to include both the 8 year streak and the most recent data.

You can get income data from, for example the World Development Indicators [85] (pretty much any international organization numbers are going to be based on these). That's where the 70% I mentioned earlier comes from. You can also get the data on the price level (CPI) and exchange rate there. Between 2000 and 2008 prices increased by about 270%. Exchange rate data indicate that the value of the ruble relative to the dollar went up by about 12% - so yes, it got stronger but nowhere near enough to explain the discrepancy between the 70% increase in incomes and this purported 670% or 750% increase in salaries. At the same time I just don't see what the purpose of including nominal values is in the first place - it just simply doesn't tell you anything about living standards, purchasing power, well functioning or strength of the economy or anything like that. So how about replacing the MSNBC source with actual data from WDI? I can pull the exact numbers but want to know that I'm not going to be wasting my time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What source do you mean exactly lists the figure of 5%? The CIA World Factbook seems to give only the figure for 2008, not an average growth. Can't see where is the original source, but the figure of around 7% must be true. If I remember right, the present growth rate is 4-5% and it is deemed noticeably lower than pre-2008 growth.

As for the nominal without real growth, both figures have some sense, so if you want to add real one no need to remove nominal. GreyHood ^Talk 13:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The source is this [86]. Click under "economy" and look under "

GDP - real growth rate: ". It says 5.2% for 2008 (not 5% actually). 4% IS noticeably lower than 5.2%. One percent point difference is very large in terms of growth rates.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Your recent link lists more up-to-date figures, with 4% growth in 2010. Yes, there was 5.2% growth in 2008, but there was higher average growth as calculated for the entire period of 2000-2008. Perhaps I'll try to find the sources for these figures. GreyHood ^Talk 11:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Here are the data for real GDP growth in Russia from Rossatat. 2000 - 10%, 2001 - 5.1%, 2002 - 4.7%, 2003 - 7.3%, 2004 - 7.2%, 2005 - 6.4%, 2006 - 8.2%, 2007 - 8.5%, 2008 - 5.2%, 2009 - -7.8%, 2010 - 4%. GreyHood ^Talk 12:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see, you're talking about annualized average growth for the whole period 2000-2008. Sorry about the confusion. Yes, using the GDP per capita data from World Bank gives ((14767/8612)^(1/8)-1)=6.97% which is essentially 7%. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I meant annualized average growth. Thanks, your additions are very nice. GreyHood ^Talk 21:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Why including the 2011 GDP forecast when we are still in October and we will not know what will be the GDP for the 4th Quarter of 2011 until March 2012? In my opinon you should wait to March 2011 to include the 2011 GDP for Russia.--83.35.205.55 (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The intro of this article states "Modern-day Russia has the world's 11th largest economy by nominal GDP or the 6th largest by purchasing power parity." I suspect these placings are out of date. The CEBR league (Centre for Economic Business Research) has Russia as the 9th largest economy in 2011 - having moved from 10th position in 2010. Aria613 Dec 27 2011.

Too many links

The "Culture" section has way too many links. I would like to fix it, but I can't edit it for whatever reason. Can someone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Up Tack (talk • contribs) 03:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You can't edit this page, because it was semi-protected (you are not autoconfirmed). I agree with you, some of the words are too common to link.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 20:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I delinked a few, like "mushroom". I think the rest is fine. Regards--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 20:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Length of runways

In the transport section: "The total length of runways in Russia exceeds 600,000 km." Okay, I might be missing something, but that seems absurd on the face of it. If "Russia has 1216 airports" then that means there would be almost 6000 kilometres, on average, of runway for each airport. That can't possibly be right. Perhaps they meant meters? The reference link at the end of the sentence seems to be dead as well.--Slyguy (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where you get 6000 km per airport from because 600,000 km divided by 1216 = 493 km which sounds correct because most runways in Russia are not airports. They are basically compacted grass strips cut into forests, or packed gravel or ice in more northern latitudes. Airports with paved runways are limited to areas where paving can be laid (for the same reason paved roads are to a large extent limited by latitude and substrata). Aria 613 Dec 27 2011.

Thanks for the reply. I made a typo and added an extra zero.--Slyguy (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Откуда такая информация: "most runways in Russia are not airports. They are basically compacted grass strips cut into forests, or packed gravel or ice in more northern latitudes. Airports with paved runways are limited to areas where paving can be laid (for the same reason paved roads are to a large extent limited by latitude and substrata)"?

File:Zuguomuqin.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Zuguomuqin.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Bordering states

Poland and Lithuania both border Russia. Russia owns an area of land which contains the city Kalingrad between Poland and Lithuania on the Baltic sea coast. The bottom of the article for Russia does not list these countries as bordering states, nor does it mention the Baltic sea.

EDIT: Russia also has a maritime border with Sweden (via Königsberg), is there no mod available to at least review the proposed changes to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luccca (talk • contribs) 22:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 February 2012

Russia isn't the 11th economy in the world. It's the 9th.

80.117.36.101 (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

 Not done, not according to our sourced article: List of countries by GDP (nominal)--Jac16888 ^Talk 11:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Demographics

Only part of the key for the ethnicity map is shown. Nothing other than the red >80% can be seen without clicking on the image. SomeGuyNamedDavid (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

File:TransSiberianRailwayAtKm9288.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:TransSiberianRailwayAtKm9288.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:TransSiberianRailwayAtKm9288.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in literature section

Failing to mention Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn seems a big oversight to me. Is he, for some reason, too controversial to mention? 74.192.196.108 (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Vladivostok distencemonument.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Vladivostok distencemonument.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Vladivostok distencemonument.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

/* Imperial Russia */ directly conflicts witth article on Sweden

The following two statements are contradictory yet one appears in the entry for Sweden the other in the entry for Russia: from Sweden
"The eastern half of Sweden, present-day Finland, was lost to Russia in 1809."
from Russia#Imperial_Russia
"This continued with Alexander I's (1801–25) wresting of Finland from the weakened kingdom of Sweden in 1809."
Would someone please clarify/correct one or the other (or both!)?
LookingGlass (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

D'oh! apologies to all for failing to be able to read! LookingGlass (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

File:MoscowHighRiseNight.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MoscowHighRiseNight.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:MoscowHighRiseNight.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The most beautiful pictures of Earth

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Most beautiful picture of our planet Earth has recently made ​​Russian meteorological satellite Electro-L. Special weight, and the spectacular photography of the Earth this gives the fact that the single shot, unlike most of NASA photos that have been recorded in parts and then welded together into one image. So NASA herself found this picture of Russian competitors, which has 121 megapixel, called out the best "single-shot" image in the history of photographing the Earth from space. Russian Electro-L satellite orbiting the Earth at an altitude of 36 000 kilometers above the equator, and every half hour photo shoot of the whole country which sends a control center.78.2.97.91 (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article for this is Elektro-L No.1. --illythr (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Languages of Russia

In the languages section reads: According to the 2002 Census, 142.6 million people speak Russian, followed by Tatar with 5.3 million and Ukrainian with 1.8 million speakers.
Demographics of Russia has the 2002 population as 145,306,000. But, the top 3 languages give total as 149.7 millions, so there is 4.4 million too much even in the top 3 only. Or are the second language speakers included too? Usually that would be separately mentioned, but here is nothing about it. 85.217.22.146 (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It's about having command of a language, not exclusively being a native speaker. See Russian Census (2002)#Language abilities. --glossologist (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Russia will build a base on the Moon

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: The Russian space agency plans to conquer the Moon. Director Vladimir Popevkin Roscosmos said that they want to make a permanent base on the Earth's satellite. In addition to lunar exploration, Popevkin said that the base could also serve to continue the study of the solar system. It is expected that the Russians will come back to the moon before the 2030th year. This is not only a success of Roscosmos, but also a success of Russian state and Russian people.78.2.65.232 (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Come back to the Moon? :) And since when did the Russian state/people start counting vague exploration plans as "success"? What ever happened to the usual practice of claiming success when the goal is actually reached?

Anyway, this probably belongs in this article, not here.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 24, 2012; 18:42 (UTC)

Demographics

We should update the demographic data, particularly on the chart, with up-to-date information from the 2010 census (which is already referenced elsewhere). --Zurkhardo (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

New OECD Data About Russia

If we have room, we should consider updating and/or incorporating some of this latest data into the article. It's pretty varied. (http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/russian-federation/)--Zurkhardo (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

One million deaths due to drugs

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Approximately one million people died from drugs in Russia since 2001. year, announced on its website the Russian Federal Office for the Fight against Drugs (FSKN). These statistics refer only to persons aged 15-34 years, and in a country that has 143 million inhabitants, about five million are addicted to narcotics. One third of the crimes committed in Russia is related to drugs. However, the drug is good bussiness. Only heroin trade from Afghanistan brings an annual income of 4.5 billion euros, according FSKN. 78.2.77.148 (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

First, provide a reliable source; second, how is that important? How is this not biased? What are the rates for other countries? I am sure that USA have more incidents. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 09:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 July 2012

Please change Stenka Razin to ""Stepan Razin"" cuz of his real name

Urmasmorrey (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The article for that person is Stenka Razin and it states that he was commonly known as Stenka. I'd like to see consensus before making a change of this sort. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 August 2012

Please change the word "poplular" to "popular" in the 1st sentence of the last paragraph of the Sports subsection because it seems to be a typographical error. Thank you for your help and understanding.

178.40.169.177 (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks. Dru of Id (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 September 2012

Hi, I was reading the wiki entry for Russia, and I noticed a factual error with a broken link. Under Russia>3Politics>3.2Military the third paragraph down reads "The country has a large and fully indigenous arms industry, producing most of its own military equipment with only few types of weapons imported. Russia is the world's top supplier of arms, a spot it has held since 2001, accounting for around 30% of worldwide weapons sales[108] and exporting weapons to about 80 countries.[109]" It should read, "The country has a large and fully indigenous arms industry, producing most of its own military equipment with only few types of weapons imported. Russia is the world's second most supplier of arms behind the United States, with an average of 5.8 Billion dollars a year made in worldwide weapon sales over the last 10 years." The source site I have for this information is: http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/html/export_toplist.php Thanks for your time. Please let me know the results of my findings. Aaron Vicarious.sight (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: I can't find the info in the stated source and Arms industry says the opposite with a source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The page Arms industry says that America is the worlds largest arms exporter. The source it gives is http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/toplist.php This is the source I meant to post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicarious.sight (talk • contribs) 08:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicarious.sight (talk • contribs) 06:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Too much blue

There's way to much blue in this article, too many links. Just an example: "It is one of the five [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty|recognized][nuclear weapons states] and possesses the [Russia and weapons of mass destruction|largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction]." Even the single word 'recognized' is linked. Someone should clean the article and especially it's entry up. E.g. the part with Russia's neighbour normally belongs to the Geography section. 193.174.142.101 (talk) 08:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

This is an open invitation for participating in the RFC about "does a largest cities template/city population template like Template:Largest cities of Russia, add value to the articles about nations (esp. featured ones)?". Comment on the page WP:RFC/City population templates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Folk instruments

Please add to the list of Russian folk instruments [domra] - this is a very popular Russian folk instrument, the precursor of the balalaika. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tronokostr (talk • contribs) 01:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Odd

Odd how this article fails to mention the defeats against Germany in Prussia, and instead makes it sound like the army was stabbed in the back. It also fails to mention the Polish-Soviet War, Holodomor/peasant starvation and anything like this. It describes Germany's "annexation" of the Ruhr, although this article is about neither, yet fails to mention the "Soviet Russia" invasion of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Who wrote this article, did Russia itself grow hands to type? --92.228.246.134 (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to make specific suggestions for improvements to the article, along with reliable sources that can be linked to from any new text. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The Soviet famine of 1932-1933 is already mentioned; removed the "annexation of Ruhr", added mention of the occupation of the Baltic states. Not sure how to add Polish-Soviet war and the WWI stuff, as the history section is already quite bloated. --illythr (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Further reading??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia#Further_reading is this part of the references?? It should be put into the references or external links or just be removed. Such things dont belong into countries articles they seem like advertisements.--Venajaguardian (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

 removed Regards.--Tomcat (7) 14:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Russia Strategic Partners

EnglishGermanItalianArab like best friends Russian nation, a strategic partner Russia. USA Finland China Eastern European countries Hungary Czech Republic Estonia Latvia Lithuania Poland Baltics Ukraine Armenia Georgia post-Soviet states - Russofobia tough anywhere. Russofobia-Remained free only Islamic, Arab and African People's Peopl. Arabe's - brought Islam to curls Big bibleische nation today for a strategic Partnere Mosqua power elite. The us explain why Russia main politician's blokieren UN troops for Siria why she arabed cleavage city Brussels in Free City "Babilon - 5" with 40% of People islamique supported secretly, why Russia has not starred in Iraque Krig and Milliard's USD Iraq debt for Russia suspended in air, why could fight Al Qaeda 10 years against U.S. Armi brave, bin Laden fled about 18 years of all western and eastern intelligence agencies always managed on time, etc. United States (Gross domestic product 15,094's trillion USD) Operates approximately 8 Million's Israelites a la small strategic partner, Russia (Gross domestic product 1850's trillion USD) 336 Million's Arabe's a la great partner. Russians about 143 million's. But, with the help of Allah and Mosqua Poltiker's they make. Although, Arabe are often poor but know God's work - pouring blood, take away the life well. Jihad posted there and here, as in Quran - "WITH GOOD AND BLOOD". For the United Russia! Perhaps it is useful to increase a sentence in Article Russia. Adoptleads (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Erroneous Statistics

Under the Economy section the following statement is made in regard to Russia: "The country has more higher education graduates than Eurasia".

This doesn't bear scrutiny for a few reasons: 1) According to Wikipedia, Russia is considered part of Eurasia, so it is impossible for a sub-set to be greater than the universal set. 2) Assuming that the reference "The country has more higher education graduates than Eurasia", meant "more than the rest of Eurasia combined"? [148] for this assertion quotes the Huffington Post, which quotes a College Board report. Even compared with Europe this could not be true in absolute terms. Russia's population of 143 Million with e.g. 54% graduates vs European average of 24%, but 739 Million population would dwarf the total number of Russian Grads before accounting for Asia.

I suggest this phrase is amended to "The country has a higher proportion of higher education graduates than any other country in Eurasia". This would then be correct and a lot less misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.72.32 (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this definitely makes sense. I will change it provisionally, but the sources are required anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Vikings were NOT Varangians

Please do not mix 2 totally different tribes; primitive swedish sea pirates, Jarls - Vikings and Slavic Venetic military tribe of Varangian. In Swedish language remained more Slavic elements than vice versa; in Russia remained none of the swedish linguistic elements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.121.108 (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Please try to support your POV with modern academic sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

photo of Lenin

Perhaps the photo of Lenin should include his birth name as well. It seems like a simple and harmless addition.Paragraphbee (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Russias population

its not 143.3 million but 143.369 now as it increased. See the countries by population and the link provided for russia.--Quandapanda (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population#Countries http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/population/demo/prPopul.xls

This is a distinction without a difference. In the time I used to write this sentence, Russia's population went up or down by a person or two. Oops, another one died. Change the population number - oh, darn, someone was born. Change it to refle- what? someone just died? Well, change the population number againParagraphbee (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 April 2013

"Its lakes contain approximately one-quarter of the world's liquid fresh water, 20% in Lake Baikal alone." to "Its lakes contain approximately one-quarter of the world's liquid surface fresh water, 20% in Lake Baikal alone." 72.19.113.148 (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand this. The article clearly states that the volume of fresh water located in the lakes of Russia is 20% of the total volume of fresh water available in the world. Why do you think this is wrong?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I have closed this edit request the above comment indicates there is no consensus for this request. If the OP still wishes to pursue this edit request please reopen it and respond to the question above. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Viktor Vasnetov

Sorry to interupt, but I couldn't help noticing that the painting of Ivan the Terrible is atributed to Ilya Repin, it is actually a painting made by Viktor Vasnetov

From what I see, it is attributed to Vasnetsov.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 January 2013

For future changes the term country should be replaced with nation, given the cultural and geographical vastness of nation states such as Russia, the term country does not correctly apply. 69.208.92.150 (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: "Future changes" cannot be applied now. In any case, I'm not at all clear that cultural and geographical vastness lends itself more to the word "nation". Feel free to discuss this further, but there's no need to make a formal edit request unless you're requesting a specific, immediate change. Rivertorch (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I am pretty sure "country" is a more appropriate term - it is ethnicity-neutral and tied to certain geographical borders. Nation, on the other hand, implies shared descent, culture, history. For instance, "nation-state" implies certain level of homogeneity among its residents. As you said, Russia's residents vary vastly in terms of both culture and ethnicities. The term "country" is more neutral and thus more inclusive.Cosainsé (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I just love Wikipedia's double standards. Beslan Massacre terrorists are not called terrorists, while in article on 9/11 they are called that (and the Massacre is not called massacre). And now this, we can't even be called a nation with our measly 81% of Russians, wow. You're not sure if "cultural and geographical vastness lends itself more to the word "nation"", so how about this sentence in the article about the US: "[United States] is one of the world's most ethnically diverse and multicultural nations, the product of large-scale immigration from many countries." Just wow. And I used to donate money to you guys. 128.68.33.146 (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

First: Don't think that articles are written by some paid employees/editors of wikipedia. You can create account and after some edits/days you can also edit wikipedia protected articles as per WP:MOS. Second: I did search. United States is called 'federal republic' in lead, not 'nation'. Article Russia already calls Russia as 'Nation' at least 4 times. Also there is separate article Russian Nationalism. I also found some news articles like this but can't figure out yet its importance related to the article. Perhaps you should have made your point more clear or you are mistaken. neo (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Russian economy is under 17,000 (PPP per capita) everone knows World bank GDP calculations are bogus and crazy inflated.

Just look at all the other sources for GDP of Russia they are all around or under 2 trillion, over 3 trillion is a gross overestimation. People reading this will think Russia is almost as developed as western Europe while in reality its no where near as developed as even poorer EU countries such as Poland or Slovakia. Stop misleading readers and just look at ANY other non bias source. Like this other wiki page (on Russia's economy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.208.182 (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

-thats not true, stop being biased poland and slovak republic are eastern european countries and of course therefor just as poor as russia. Russia has actually resources while poland and so on hasnt which is of course logical that it should at least have the same living standard, eastern european countries in the EU are no way near being first world countries just look at how many poles living in the UK now to have a better life. Worldbank data is valued and actually comes always later than imf therefor more detailed. The reason why russia has such a difference in wordbank data is because worldbank updated the conversation rates for all oecd and canidate countries. You can also see at turkey that it has 1.2 trillion dollars gdp with worldbank and also germany has 100 billion more while australia has 100 billion less with worldbank. http://forums.imf.org/showthread.php?t=120335

It was actually asked in the imf forum why there was such a difference in Russias gdp in comparison to worldbank and this is what an official said from IMF

I don't see the point in this notice at all - if you will take nominal GDP per capita the result is actually better - Russia get higher place in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.6.1 (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

[QUOTE=Angela E.;146087]The WEO uses the PPP exchange rates from the ICP 2005 cycle to estimate PPP GDP in 2005 and then extrapolate the data for other years using relative GDP deflators. On the other hand, the World Bank has updated PPP exchange rate data for the OECD countries using the OECD-Eurostat PPP data completed in 2008. The revised 2008 PPP exchange rate from OECD differs quite significantly from the estimates from the ICP 2005 round, especially for Russia which leads to the discrepancies you've highlighted. The WEO will update the PPP exchange rate when the ICP releases its new estimates some time in 2013.[/QUOTE]

see--Quandapanda (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Area Error

According to World Factbook, the area of Russia is 17,098,242km² rather than 17,075,400km² (see CIA World Factbook - Area - Russia). This is also reflected in the french version of this article (see the talk page). Can someone please confirm this and make the change.
--Spike35031 (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I have made the change and this post is no longer relevant.

--Spike35031 (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 June 2013 Russia reemerging as a world superpower

The Russian Federation has been suggested by some as a potential candidate for resuming superpower status in the 21st century.

http://www.cambridge.org/us/knowledge/isbn/item1171684/?site_locale=en_US

http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6527&Itemid=68&lang=ka

173.131.138.182 (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Signalizing (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Add Russia as potential candidate for resuming superpower status to general description. It's cited in the article of potential superpowers.

The Russian Federation has been suggested by some as a potential candidate for resuming superpower status in the 21st century.[9][10]

Atnandrew (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I agree with the editor who answered a similar request in the thread immediately preceding this one. This deserves discussion before it's added. Rivertorch (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

OECD : huge mistake

Russian Federation isn't at the moment a recognized member of OECD/OCSE.Please correct this huge mistake in its presentation.151.40.3.61 (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not see where the article states it is.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Article reports Russian Federation is member of "....OCSE.."...all invention.Read the article to laugh.It's part of boosting russian propaganda.Russia would be a memeber but at the moment it isn't because of development level considered not sufficient by OECD/OCSE.151.40.3.61 (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, OSCE thinks Russia is its member [87]. Concerning OECD, I do not see the claim in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Russia isn't its member.It's asking to be it.Do not invent please.To be partecipant doesn't mean to be a memeber.Otehr states like

Brazil are in the same position of Russia.They aren't members.151.40.3.61 (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Please complain with the OSCE.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Now it's ok ,but you should set in the way as you did to me in the article.OCSE could be also the french name of OECD.151.40.3.61 (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Read here OECD.Russia isn't a member.That's an invention.Current members are 34 and Russian Federation isn't there.Stop lies.Please remove Russian Federation as member of OCSE /OECD in its presentation.151.40.3.61 (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Again: Russia is not a member of OECD but a member of OSCE. This is precisely what the article says. And please stop accusing me in lying, otherwise your ip will be blocked from editing. Is this clear now?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

OCSE (very similar to OSCE as name but not as institution) could be also the french name of OECD based in Paris.You should set OSCE in the way it's possible to realize it as you did with me.Thanks.151.40.3.61 (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that OSCE occurs two times in the article. The second time it is linked; the first time it occurs in brackets as an abbreviation behind the full name, and the full name is linked. OECD occurs once (in the reference list) and it is linked as well. May be I could be able to help if you clarify what you want, but at this point I am not sure.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

OSCE needs brackts. [[]] This to do not misunderstand with the OCSE official french name of OECD.151.40.3.61 (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I still think it is not necessary. May be someone else could help.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry because the reality is well respected so.Russia isn't in the OECD /OCSE.Thanks all the same.151.40.3.61 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Russia history

I don't know where these huge historical inaccuracies about Russia's creation and beginning stem from but allow me to assure you all - they are just that - historical untruths, lies. The state of Muscovy only came into being in the 1100's. The Ukrainian state of Kyiv-Rus had nothing to do with Russia, as neither Russia nor Muscovy existed at that time. Kyiv-Rus was not Russia, it is just that - Rus, the forerunner of Ukraine. 300 years ago Muscovy took on the name of Russia. True historical facts about this are freely available to all. Fabricated history has unfortunately been at the forefront on Russia for centuries! The sooner the World gets to grips with this simple fact - the better!!!

Walteruskin 14/7/13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walteruskin (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Really? Ever heard of Novgorod?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Original territory of Russian state included Novgorod, Ladoga, Belozero, Smolensk and Rostov (862). Kiev was conquered only around year 880 and was a border town. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.6.1 (talk) 13:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

And? Do you imply Russians conquered Kiev in 880 from the Ukrainians?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Forest CO2 absorbtion

The article states "Russia has the world's largest forest reserves,[127] known as "the lungs of Europe",[128] second only to the Amazon Rainforest in the amount of carbon dioxide it absorbs."

Stable forests are not net absorbers of CO2. As a tree grows it absorbs CO2, releasing O2 back into the atmosphere and using the carbon to add to its mass. But a forest is not just a collection of growing trees. In a stable forest, growth of new trees is matched by the rotting of dead trees. Rotting of dead trees has the opposite effect of photosynthesis, O2 is combined with the carbon in the wood and CO2 is released back into the atmosphere. If this were not the case, forests would have to have an increasing stockpile of carbon somewhere. The soil of forests tends not to increase in depth (eg the Amazon rain forest, despite being very old, has only a thin covering of soil). So while growing trees do absorb carbon dioxide, (stable) forests don't. FreeFlow99 (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyone have a "Russian" world map?

Most of us are probably pretty familiar with world maps showing places like Taiwan and Kosovo as independent countries. Any one got an official (not Wiki) world map doing likewise for Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Source / Internet link sought. Frenchmalawi (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Temple of All Religions

Is this really the best image for the religion in Russia section? It is, frankly, a footnote in the country. A nice novelty. Indiasummer95 (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Needs to be deleted because of the Freedom of Panorama restrictions.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Religion statistics

Regarding the readdition of these changes: as I said in my edit summary, I question not the precision but the reliability of the replacement sources. Considering that the replacement sources show markedly different figures than the previous ones, I think the question is worth exploring. The previous source (CIA World Factbook) is a known quantity, widely used across Wikipedia for demographic data. The first of the replacement sources is a relatively new NGO whose standards, methodology, and agenda are unclear; the second appears to be to a news site. I'm not going to revert again at this point, but the burden is on the user adding new content or replacing sourced content to justify inclusion, and simply bludgeoning the content into the article isn't good practice. Please discuss first. Other users, please comment. Rivertorch (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Query begun at the relevant noticeboard. Rivertorch (talk) 05:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Based on the response at RSN, I am tagging the two sources {{verify reliability and {{verify source}}, respectively. This should not be construed as meaning the sources aren't reliable or don't support the listed stats, only that their reliability and ability to support the content have not been established. Rivertorch (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Russia now is 5th largest economy 2013

Time to update Russia's GDP, it's 5th now[88] and probably will be 4th or 3rd by 2015. We need to correct this.--82.212.94.58 (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

According to IMF Russia is still in 6th place in 2012 - Purer13 (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2014

Section "Language":

Change "make their native language official" to "make other languages official".

Republics (political constructs) do not have "native languages" as they are not living entities.

174.19.165.103 (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have used the language of the Constitution - republics have the right to establish their own state languages. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2014

Home cooking!

64.187.166.110 (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 23:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Federal University

Should there be an incorporation of the difference between a Federal University and a Private University? Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural_Federal_University (Named after Boris Yeltsin) Twillisjr (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Falsification

This map ([89]) falsifies history. Kievan Rus disintegrated before the advent of cities Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod. The name " Belgorod Dnestrovsky" appeared in the Soviet Union (1944). The name "Vladimir Volynsky" -1795 year. ... ... Michaila vnuk (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a FALSE "fact" in the ancient history on the Russia page................and because of the "Semi-protected" lockdowns, I am unable to CORRECT the mistake. It was NOT the Mongols, nor the Grand Duchy of Moscow that "gradually unified" the many tribal territories of early Russia - it was a certain Viking leader who was KNOWN for his even temper and fairness. The warring Russian warlords - themselves - asked this Viking leader to help them settle their differences and establish peace among the Russian tribes.......and he DID !.

Also, the NAME of Russia does NOT come from Early Slavic.........the name comes from "Rosi", a Viking word meaning "rowing" / "seafarer". Another source of the word "Russia" comes from the ancient Celtic word "rusi" which means "river"........because both the Vikings AND the ancient Celts entered and explored Russia before it even became Russia. The Russian people are NOT just from the Slavics - they are ALSO from the Vikings AND the Celts. My sources for this info: American Heritage Dictionary (which also gives the origins of nearly every word in the dictionary), and TWO books about the history of Ireland. I ended up purchasing BOTH of them because they each have historical facts the other doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastalwestgirl (talk • contribs) 20:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Who really cares with how things are going right now in Russia, but celts has really nothing to do there. I can't find any links, but I recall that there has been some articles by russian historians, that Novgorod was established by vikings & prussians(vikings were intermarried there - just like later in Britain) - despite that prussians were westernmost of baltics they have some linguistic similarities with slavs, that other surviving baltics don't have, for example root Nov- is also used in their language. Prussian name might as well turn later to russians, or it might be way around, that prussians got their name by vikings and is just local variant of pronouncation. North german roðr means rowers - just what vikings did on sea.92.22.50.162 (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

apologies to wiki, no direct message bar in ru-ss so posting here, possible terror attack Russia

as i read about islamists calling on attcks to russian oil lines, cars in the distance hirn and my mother starts scrubbing the floor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.170.116 (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent events

I just added a (recentism) tag to the article because the section that encompasses the recent crisis in Crimea seems to be longer or just as long as the section that discusses the entire 20 year Russian Republic. Let's try to keep events in their historical context. JOJ ^Hutton 12:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. But my edit was reverted. --TarzanASG (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Well hopefully we can get more eyes on this, but even a few experienced editors with knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines cannot keep up with tons of inexperienced editors and ips. JOJ ^Hutton 13:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

A better name would be "Contemporary Era" encompassing Putin's controversial elections, the Georgian crisis, and Crimea. a> monochrome_monitor.exe/ 21:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Hell, the reason I came to the talk page was because of the fact that that subsection exists! CTYankeeAbroad (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimean Referendum

The section 'Russian parliament authorization for Crimea', contains the following line: 'A Crimean status referendum was held on 16 March 2014. In spite of protests of the Yatsenyuk Government and some Western politicians, the international observers from European countries (none of whom had official status) recognized the referendum as legitimate and agreeable to the international laws', the part highlighted in bold is not mentioned in any of the sources cited in that section, someone able to edit the article may want to double check, then remove, edit or leave as necessary. Facemeltaaaaaargh (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This part of the article does need to be changed. The referendum wasn't recognized as legitimate by the EU, the US and various other countries. It is just simply incorrect to say the referendum was seem as legitimate when it was not. Only Russia recognizes the results of the referendum. The news article cited says in it that it the referendum was seen as illegal by the US and Europe and it has been condemned by the international community.

That is not right, there wasn't a condemnation by the "international community" this could be only done by the general assembly of the UN. --Wrant (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The UN is not equivalent to the "international community". Sam Tomato (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

None of the citations provided said anything about the observers being unofficial. Removed uncited material as per policy and added a reference that did cite the number of countries sending observers. - Hoplon (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

That looks better, though still shows no information on who the observers mentioned are, or what official organisations they belong to. Considering the OSCE have denied claims that they provided the observers, and stated themselves that they consider the referendum illegal, perhaps it could be updated in order to include that as well. http://www.osce.org/cio/116453 Facemeltaaaaaargh (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The uncited claims are back, added by User Caterham305, looking at the history it appears to be the third time this user has added that information, again with no sources. Facemeltaaaaaargh (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits to that section today were meant to make sure that the text in the article matches what the cited articles say. I don't know what distinction you are trying to make between "official" and "unofficial" observers. If the OSCE decided to send observers (they didn't) then those would be the "official observers of the OSCE". If three random Polish Plumbers decided to send observers then those would be the "official observers of three random Polish Plumbers". Not to put words in your mouth, but I think what is being asked here is whether the organizations or individuals sending observers are "recognized", not "official". But that would lead us back to the big question of who makes recognition decisions. Ultimately, we can't do any more than cite reliable sources. - Hoplon (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

What it said was fine after the edit you made, just seeing as claims have also been made, and denied, that the OSCE sent observers, that the info could be included too, would it be considered relevant to the topic? (with reliable sources of course). I'd say yes but I'm not entirely sure, thought it better to bring up than not. Also, the same person keeps adding the following text (in bold), which is uncited, 'The election was attended by observers from 21 countries who found it legitimate and agreeable to international laws', the source cited does not state that at all, only that observers from 21 countries registered to attend, it says nothing about their decision on the legitimacy of the election, and I don't see how it could, being written 2 days before the election took place. Facemeltaaaaaargh (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added the OSCE link and attempted to correctly characterize what it said. - Hoplon (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Have to disagree with the following line: "The election was attended by observers from 21 countries and was found legitimate and agreeable to international laws.[93]" This is an unconfirmed statement: only an Crimean spokesman said this (see article). The majority of the 15-nations UN Security council (currently China, Russia, USA, UK, France, Argentina, Australia, Chad, Chile, Jordan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Nigeria, Republic of Korea and Rwanda - http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/) have declared the referendum illegal, with Russia using its veto and China abstaining from voting.

Also - Ban Ki-Moon is going to Moscow and Kiev to talk about it. With the UN still moving around in the background, it's too early to declare Crimea a part of Russia, since the final word hasn't been said on it. Also, while Russia can veto in the Security Council, in case Ukraine decides to bring it as an case to the General Assemblee the outcome will be unpredictable. (It's possible to do so in case the Security Council cannot settle on agreement - which in this case will be very likely unless Russia decides to change the current circumstances regarding Crimea's status) MicBenSte (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits were just made to remove the uncited "who found it legitimate and agreeable to international laws" text, and to clarify who precisely made the "21 observers" claim. Regarding the UN, all we can do is watch and wait and report what happens as per reliable sources. - Hoplon (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The article says "United States and the European Union have stated they considered the vote to be illegal" but that implies that the vote is legal. I am not sure what would be more neutral but I think this section is somewhat biased. Sam Tomato (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, I think it would be relevant to say whether Russia allows a subject to vote to leave the Russian Federation and would the subject be allowed to leave. In other words, does Russia allow the subjects that already exist in the Russian Federation to do the same thing that Crimea did to secede from the Ukraine that they consider to be legal? Sam Tomato (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Might want to notify me before deleting my post?Meevinman (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea

Map needs updating to include it. 71.173.29.187 (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Crimea should appear as light green-coloured (like in other similar cases: the Pakistani-Indian-Chinese claims on Kashmir, or the Argentine claims on Falklands, South Georgias and Antarctica), as it is now a disputed territory between Ukraine and Russia; also Ukraine’s map should be changed. ★ Nacho ★ ★ 17:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea is Ukrainian, do not change maps! Occupants wont get the Crimea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by УАВячеслав (talk • contribs) 03:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Serbia has recognised russia's claim to crimea so it is partially recognised as part of russia now. It should be shown as light green on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.14.189 (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it is more like striped (annexation), see Morocco. Russia controls Crimea but this is not recognized internationally, it is not just a claim. The map of Ukraine should indeed show Crimea as light green-colored.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, Crimea already appears as light green-coloured in the Ukrainian map. Also, there is an edit war on Russia’s map (5 reversals in less than 20 minutes).

Disagree. Russia violates international law to control Ukraine's Crimea by military aggression but this is not recognized internationally.Superman218 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

And?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea is part of Russia whether its legal or not. Wikipedia is about information not political agendas and peoples feelings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.230.122 (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The Georgian annexation was also controversial, but those territories are on there. I'm all for adding it in light green (or striped) as long as we use a key with "disputed territories" or "occupied territories". a> monochrome_monitor.exe/ 21:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Wait, is there a legend for "disputed"? Crimea is light green on the Ukraine article, why isn't it on this article? a> monochrome_monitor.exe/ 21:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Because "claimed" and "annexed" are both disputed but are two different things. Look at Morocco.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

So is anyone going to update the map, fixing its numerous outdated errors, including the non-recognition of Crimea which should be put in light green as it is on the map of Ukraine. WhyHellWhy (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Crimea had a lawful popular referendum, and is part of Russia legally. If not, then you might as well add Ukraine as an anarchic states since it has no "legal" government because of it's far right coup, and not recognized by everyone.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.13.245 (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done - I've made a new map showing Crimea in light green and added to the infobox.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. Trillionaire! a> monochrome_monitor.exe/ 02:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem :) --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The map is gone again! What happened to the map showing Crimea in light green? -A concerned Wikipedia user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.150.7.41 (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Is anybody reading what I write? Crimea should not be light-green, it must be striped. I revert the edit please update the map to striped.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm Polish and all for Ukraine, but Wikipedia should show the facts on the ground and not politics! Crimea was taken by Russia and is a part of Russia at present, so it should be on the map of Russia and on the map of Ukraine as occupied. This is how it looks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.254.49 (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the Polish IP editor. We've got to ignore personal views here of whether this is seen as a good or bad thing. Also, I don't really see how the opinion of foreign Governments such as the UK, USA, EU etc has any bearing whatsoever of the reality on the ground. The simple fact of the matter is that Russia controls Crimea, it is now a subject of the Russian Federation, Ukraine has lost all control of Crimea, the autonomous Crimean Parliament has declared its self part of Russia and formal accession has been ratified. Crimea is now part of Russia, its a fact, not a grey area. Opposition to changing this seems to be based on other countries not agreeing with it, their disproval is having zero impact on the reality of the situation, as I have outlined. Hot air is just hot air. Owl In The House (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I support FutureTrillionaire's use of light green. It follows Wikipedia's conventions on orthographic maps. Regardless of whether Russia de facto controls Crimea, the legal legitimacy of that control is in dispute, and there is substantial opposition to it. Light green represents a claimed territory, claimed territories do not necessarily have to be territories outside of de facto control, but rather can be territories under disputed legal claims. I reject proposals to copy the Morocco map that shows Western Sahara in striped dark green because that map does not represent Wikipedia's conventions on orthographic maps.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Applying Morocco's striped concept wouldn't make sense, because not all of Western Sahara is under Moroccan Control. 19:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)~

I support Owl_In_The_House the reality is the Crimea is part of Russia if we like it or not Ukraine not longer controls it at all and I don't see why this map should be any differnt then the India map where it controls and owns a part of it's territory but china "claims it" but India is the one who owns and controls it so it's dark green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.155.144 (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If the orthographic maps of China and India do not follow Wikipedia's conventions on orthographic maps that describe what colours to use - light green for claimed territory, then those should not be considered as models to follow.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea has not yet been formally annexed by Russia - while a treaty of annexation was signed by Putin, it still needs to get approved both by the Constitutional Court, and both houses. It's a foregone conclusion, how that's going to turn out, but for now, the legal fiction of Crimea being an independent state is still ongoing, and will probably continue for about a week. Until it is formally annexed, Crimea should not be shown as part of Russia on the map. Jmcanon92 (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The treaty actually is applied from the date it is signed (i.e., March 18); that's according to the document itself. It needs to be ratified before taking full effect, but for all practical intents and purposes it allows Russia to treat Crimea as a part of the Russian Federation. And once ratified, the effective date will be March 18, not the date of ratification.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 19, 2014; 16:56 (UTC)

"By 2 March, Russian troops had complete control over Crimea." The people in charge may want to delete or edit this information as there is no evidence that the troops in Crimea were the Russian Army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.222.97.19 (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

There's disproportionate coverage of the recent Crimean referendum. The recent events in Crimea should not have a section that is the size of the whole "Soviet Union" section of this article. 69.109.40.16 (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The international community

"condemned and illegal - international community", there are 193 states and only a fraction of the countries condemned the situation and said that the referendum is illegal. Even if the phrase is widely used in the press it doesn't mean that it's right. It's not an established term in this context and should not be used in the article. Only the UN can pass a legally binding resolution according to the international law. --Wrant (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your point that even if widely used by politicians (and cited by the press) there is really no authority that can speak on behalf of "the international community". I would clarify that only the UN Security Council can pass binding resolutions; UN General Assembly resolutions by definition are non-binding. I question this statement "Only the UN can pass a legally binding resolution according to the international law". UN Security Council resolutions are only binding on UN members. They are not binding on non-members nor do they have any special place in international law outside of the UN itself. - Hoplon (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, I agree with you. But wouldn't this mean that the resolutions from the UN security council could even breach the international law? For instance by accepting an intervention? --Wrant (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Could the UN security council breach international law? Sure, it's possible, but that isn't the matter under consideration. In this case there is a difference of opinion about whether something is legal or not under international law, and unfortunately there is no "supreme court" that makes final determinations on international law. Russia and Crimea have specifically made the case that this vote is legal under the UN Charter, the Montevideo Convention, and a prior ruling from the International Court of Justice. I haven't read a specific explanation that states the case for this election being illegal, but I believe that argument would claim it violates the Helsinki Accords, the Ukrainian constitution, and the Budapest Memorandum. - Hoplon (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Not to be a pill or sound rude, but does any of this matter to the improvement of the actual article? Wikipedia uses the information given by the sources and occasionally the opinions of verified experts. Do our own interpretations of international law matter in this context? CTYankeeAbroad (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

For purposes of the article, absolutely we can only use reliable sources properly cited. For purposes of discussion on the talk page intended to better the article, I feel such conversation is useful. - Hoplon (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're at now. Sorry, my view on these discussions has been coloured by the various screaming comments by IPs and overly emotional editors. CTYankeeAbroad (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"Comprising 85 federal subjects" in the lead

Prior to the annexation of the entire Crimean Peninsula, it was 83. Now given the view most of the sources take with regard to Russia's actions I don't think that the 85 number should be represented as fact in the lead. There should at the very least be a footnote or bracketed statement saying that two of those subjects are under dispute as of March 2014. Something along those lines. CTYankeeAbroad (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

At least, we can leave 83 until FedCouncil approval and presidential signing of two important laws - ratification itself and amendment to art. 65 of the Constitution (the latter one is FKZ, equvalent of Western organic laws). BTW, Russia already had territorial disputes before (A)RC and Sevastopol, but until now they weren't in a lead. A footnote is a good idea, anyway. 92.100.195.45 (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Currently it seems, that in fact Russia controls Crimea. 92.100.195.45 (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This we know, but according to the sources, not many countries recognise a de jure claim on the land. It can't be denied that the administrative divisions exist as that is a Russian internal matter, but it should be noted that they are in what Is considered occupied territory. CTYankeeAbroad (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Occupation happens without joining territory into state. What we see is closer to annexation: (A)RC and Sevastopol are declared federal subjects of Russia (no different from other 83), and their population is excepted to acquire same rights, freedoms and duties as other Russian citizens (except those, who opt themselves out of RU citizenship). Yes, it's unilateral act (without consent of Kyiv government, just like Kosovo secession from Serbia); but it's not occupation. It's a territorial dispute. 92.100.209.187 (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The Golan Heights and West Bank were both annexed to the State of Israel in 1967, but are considered occupied territories by the international community. I was not disputing the fact that the republic and the city have been annexed by Russia or that Russia has created administrative divisions for them. I am stating that the international community doesn't recognise the new territorial acquisition. Back to the original point though. How should it be presented in the lead, which is the first section most everyone reads? CTYankeeAbroad (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Current variant "...comprising eighty-five federal subjects (including the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, which are internationally recognized as a part of Ukraine)" seems pretty fine. It reflects both actual control by Russia and existing territorial dispute in a neutral way. 92.100.209.187 (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, hadn't seen this new addition (editing via phone). It sounds good. The only change I would make is to put "the city of..." Before Sevastopol as it currently reads like the name of the entity is the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol. CTYankeeAbroad (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, didn't notice this thread when making a change; sorry. It should actually be "federal city" (a regular city cannot be a federal subject). I'll correct. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 21, 2014; 15:48 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Russian President has signed accession laws: Подписаны законы о принятии Крыма и Севастополя в состав России kremlin.ru (in Russian). Seryo93 (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Annexation of Crimea section

This section reads like everything is great, and there's no disagreement from the Ukrainian government or the international community, and there are no sanctions imposed against Russia at all. No POV here whatsoever, lol USchick (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

National Geographic Plans to Show Crimea as Part of Russia on Maps

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2014/03/18/national-geographic-plans-to-show-crimea-as-part-of-russia-on-maps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.112.38.118 (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Not annexation, accession 94.28.238.185 (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Annexation of Crimea

Why is this a separate section? Shouldn't it be in the Russian Federation section, which discusses the history of modern Russia? More importantly, why is this section nearly the same size as the entire history of post-Soviet Russia? This is recentism and the History section of the article now fails WP:DUE. --50.46.245.232 (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is a massive victory for recentism. Much pruning is needed. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I think that the word "Annexion" isn't polite, because there is at least a lot of discussions whether it was an annexion or not. "Adoption" is more likely to be correct here.

The most correct term would be Anschluss (присоединение) of Crimea.--Pirags (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The direct English translation of присоединение is "attachment". Esn (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Military intervention in someone else's territory is not 'polite', either. Whatever any contributor's stance is on the matter, Wikipedia does not enter into discourses over whether a term is 'polite' (see WP:EUPHEMISM). The 'correct' (literal) translation is also irrelevant. What is used is the correlating English language terminology and, being a legal reference, lexicologically the corresponding term is 'annexation' or 'accession'. They are both neutral terms and apply to both legal or illegal actions. They neither condone nor condemn, as annexation or accession also refers to legal contracts therefore, from the Russian Federation's POV it can be understood that the contract was entered into by means of a referendum. Anschluss? I didn't realise this was German Wikipedia, nor that the Russian Federation is part of the Third Reich. Enough with the apologist silliness and the POV condemnation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)