Talk:Russia

Map showing annexed territories

There is a wrong map on Wikipedia (British). They show the map of russia with the Ukrainian territories illegally annexed by the genocidal war. Wikipedia.com must correct this map right now, if it stays that means that Wikipedia.com supports terrorism. 188.191.238.238 (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

It is correct note. Why did not Wikipedia react to? 4Mykola (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Possibly because the title did not mention maps. Which map are you talking about please? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I think they are talking about the map in the infobox. Which correctly shows territories Russia claims as her sovereign territory but which have limited recognition (shown in a lighter colour to indicate such). Wikipedia uses the same approach for Azerbaijan. India, Israel, Morocco and Pakistan, there is no reason not to follow the convention of marking disputed territorial claims. 89.242.184.95 (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You are completely correct; disputed claims are always shown on Wikipedia maps on nation-state articles regardless of recognition. They are to be displayed even when such claims have zero international recognition outside of the claimant nation (the case in almost all territorial disputes) or are considered by the international community to be unjustified/unethical/just plain silly. The emotional claim by OP that "Wikipedia supports terrorism" is very juvenile and frankly ridiculous.

Also further see China and List of territorial disputes. WikiAcct789 (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Add Buddism in religion

Buddism it’s second native Russia’s religion of three racial and ethnic nations in Russia with own lagre territory and congregation Dmitriy Tehlin (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CJ-Moki (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@CJ-Moki https://www.rbth.com/arts/327646-kalmykia-buddhism-russia Gerçois (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Gerçois:  Done CJ-Moki (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@CJ-Moki thanks Gerçois (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Gerçois: You're welcome. CJ-Moki (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 february 2023

"Under the administrations of Vladimir Putin, Russia has experienced democratic backsliding, and has become an authoritarian state under a dictatorship, with Putin's policies being referred to as Putinism."

Frankly, this could be better written. It seems kind of run-on-y

Under the administrations of Vladimir Putin several changes have taken place. Russia has become an authoritarian state under a dictatorship and has experienced democratic backsliding. Putin's policies being referred to as Putinism within the media. (maybe add some other media sources too)

And put this in a new paragraph. DarmaniLink (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Religion in Russia

According to Institute of Sociology in Russia Academy of Science (biggest russian scientific organization) there are 79% of Orthodox Christians in Russia [1]

According to Levada-Center (biggest russian sociological organization) there are 74% of Orthodox Christians in Russia[2]

According to Pew Research (on of the biggest international sociological organization) there are 71% of Orthodox Christians in Russia [3][4]

According to VCIOM (Russian Public Opinion Research Center) there are 68% of Orthodox Christians in Russia[5]

According to Russian Church's officials there are 75% of Orthodox Christians in Russia [6]

According to Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) there are from 70% to 80% of Orthodox Christians in Russia [7]

According to EUREL (sociological organization in University of Strasbourg) there are 80% of Orthodox Christians in Russia [8]

According to Acton Institute (american sociological institute) there are 70% of Orthodox Christians in Russia [9]

...

Then why this article contains such an outdated data as 47.4% ?

Mumbling macaw (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

To try to answer your question, there is a difference between 'identify' (the wording of the question the majority of your sources are using) and 'belong', the wording the source in the inbox uses and Source 9 (EUREL) of which you have tagged mentions quoted; "According to data from the Russian Centre for the Study of Public Opinion, in 2010 75% of those interviewed claimed to be Orthodox. However, a significant number of these Orthodox do not themselves say that they are members of the Church. According to a survey by the SREDA Research Centre in 2012, only 41% of the Russian population claim to belong to the Russian Orthodox Church."

When dealing with religious statistics, it is probably better to use the wording of 'belong' rather then that of 'identify'. Why? Because a large degree of the population may 'identify' as a religious identity due to their cultural background but do not necessarily belong to a 'religion' or are 'religious' (whatever way we want to call that) themselves, to take an example, in the Pew Research article 81% of Women identified as Orthodox but only 63% had a belief in God. It may be worth however including these sources in the section on religion along the lines 'while only 47% claim to belong to a Christian denomination, 80% of Russia self-identifies with Christianity' Tweedle (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Mumbling macaw is a sockpuppet of Отрок 12: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Отрок 12/Archive. About the Sreda Arena Atlas, it is the most reliable survey of religion in Russia ever conducted, it was a complement to the 2010 census, and it was holden by the independent research organisation Sreda with the support of the Russian Ministry of Justice; it is therefore a set of official statistics related to government institutions. Those listed by Отрок 12 are small-sample surveys from private organisations, qualitatively not matching with the Sreda Arena Atlas.

Also see the various past discussions here and here.--Æo (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The East Slavs emerged

@Mellk reverted my edit with per MOS:LEAD the lead ideally needs to be four paragraphs, hence one paragraph for history; also "East Slavic lands" ignores migrations and Finnic tribes, Muscovy as a "component" formed later[10]

1. Four paragraphs is a rule of thumb. “Needs to be” seems unnecessarily inflexible. The history paragraph covers 950 years (c.600–1547) of pre-Russia and 240 years (1721–1961) of Russia, and readability and understanding is improved by splitting it.

What is the role of migrations, Finnic tribes, and Muscovy that is omitted? I don’t understand the objection. My objections with the current text are that new things are named without indicating their relationship, and the use of passive verbs casts no light on what they represent.

2. The second sentence beginning with “Kievan Rus’ arose” is about the 9th century. Do you mind the low-information word “arose” is expanded to “was established as a state by Varangians”?

3. How can we say where it arose, if not with “in East Slavic lands.” How can we relate the first sentence about the East Slavs to any of the rest?

4. Do you mind if “with the Grand Duchy of Moscow growing” is expanded to “with the principality of Moscovy being established and conquering neighbouring principalities”?

5. If “one of its components” is inaccurate, can we connect Muscovy to previous sentences with “a new principality on its northeastern periphery”? —Michael Z. 19:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned by others before, the history paragraph is already too long, so splitting this paragraph and adding more (inaccurate) information is unnecessary. Mellk (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

What’s inaccurate in the above?  —Michael Z. 19:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Saying "in East Slavic lands" is inaccurate. Saying "was established as a state by Varangians" is an oversimplification. Mellk (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

What is an accurate description of where “the first East Slavic state, Kievan Rus', arose”?

What is the simplest way to name who established it as a state?  —Michael Z. 19:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

That is something for the body to go into detail. Mellk (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Well if it’s too long, then I will shorten it so it is not so scattered and confusing.  —Michael Z. 19:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be obstructing improvements by objecting to any change but refusing to justify your criticisms or admit to any possible improvement. This is disruptive.  —Michael Z. 19:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Or maybe your edits are not "improvements". I have told you why. You have a strange fixation on the early history, I mean, you suggested some time ago to just clearly stating that Russia is not Rus even though it does not say that. Mellk (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so I am trying to tease out of you what you will allow to be improvements. You can decline to participate, but what you are doing is like WP:DISRUPTSIGNS 4: “Does not engage in consensus building.”

What’s written there allows and perhaps implies that Russia is Rus. It names a bunch of things implying that there is some kind of continuity and is vague on the details. It is poorly written. I want to improve it.

If you won’t allow it to be longer, maybe I can improve it at the same length if you allow me to edit. If it is too long, I will cut some of it. If you’re not willing to let me edit, just say so, and we can move this to the appropriate forum without further delay.  —Michael Z. 20:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It already says the first East Slavic state. That is clear enough. The history paragraph has already been discussed before including your complaints about the colonial, statist point of view. What you show is an unwillingness to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Mellk (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

So, you won’t even allow me to improve the structure and clarity?  —Michael Z. 20:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking me for. I gave my reasons for that particular revert.

There are only two sentences for the history up to the Russian Empire. I suppose the first sentence could be changed to emerged as a recognisable group in Eastern Europe, if it is not specific enough. Saying in East Slavic lands is inaccurate unless you want to say that the Finnic tribes did not exist. Mellk (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I’m asking you to let me improve the disjointed lead, so this article doesn’t have to remain B-class forever.  —Michael Z. 17:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Are unsourced edits like this going to increase the grade? By the way, the reason why Polotsk (and others) were not mentioned is because this is referring to the regional powers. Mellk (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it isn’t. Another example of poor writing: it doesn’t say “of the regional powers,” whatever they are.

Again, you’re harping on improvements while preventing dealing with the obvious serious problems with the writing in the lead.  —Michael Z. 19:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Vladimir-Suzdal, Novgorod Republic and Galicia-Volhynia are mentioned beforehand. And by including Polotsk you are missing others. More importantly this is unsourced. The source does not mention Polotsk and it says "only the Republic of Novgorod escaped occupation" just like how it was reflected in this article (also where does it say "surrendered" which you added?).

Start by not continually making unsourced changes which for an admin is shocking. Mellk (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It also mentions Murom, Polotsk, and Rostov before. It was not referring to out of “only the regional powers.” It was referring to “only.”

Now you’re easing into making assertions about me, personally. I’ll warn you not to continue along this path.  —Michael Z. 19:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The quote from the source is: "Of the principalities of Kievan Rus', only the Republic of Novgorod escaped occupation, but it paid tribute to the Mongols". Your edit was an unsourced change, simple as that. Mellk (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Population count

Why is Crimea included in the Russian population count in the infobox? It does seem a bit extraordinary given that Taiwan is not included in China's population. If internationally unrecognised claims are to be included as part of the infobox then it should either be for everyone or no one. 118.211.121.167 (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Because Russia controls Crimea, whatever your opinion is of its status, so it is included and itself is enumerated in their population census. If China controlled Taiwan like Russia controls Crimea I can say for certain we would include a population figure with Taiwan included and not included. Tweedle (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Where is the standard set that population is to be determined by census results and not internationally recognised territory? 118.211.121.167 (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

It is internationally recognised that Russia controls Crimea. HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The more relevant point on control is that items such as censuses will include Crimea, as Russia will be operating its administrative functions there. China is not running its census in Taiwan. CMD (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The original user has a point. Two versions of population should be mentioned. One number for its internationally recognized borders. The other one for its occupied territories.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I don't see "two versions of population" for, say, Israel, much of whose de facto territory is not recognized internationally as Israeli. Seryo93 (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is, whether we include in population counts territory that is simply annexed by force by a country. My question is, where is the standard set? If the only thing that matters is whose troops are occupying the land at this exact moment in time, well and good, that's the way it is, but you need to provide some proof that this is the standard for population counts across the entire website. 118.211.121.167 (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

That’s a nonsense answer. Crimea is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. Crimea’s population is internationally recognized as in Ukraine. So it is not a reason to add it to Russia’s population, no matter who estimates or counts it. The census is immaterial, as the population figure is not even from the illegal Russian census, but a more recent estimate.

Why give Russia’s population including some occupied Ukrainian territories (Crimea) and not others (parts of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia)? The current situation is bizarre, but it underscores the illigitimacy of pretending Crimea is Russia in the infobox.  —Michael Z. 21:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the legitimacy of Russia's authority there, it still oversees the region. Gerçois (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The legal status is occupation, not “oversight.”  —Michael Z. 08:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac, no matter what their legal status may be, they are the ones in control Gerçois (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

So what? What is your point? Under their control or not, Crimea is not a part of internationally recognized Russian state which is the subject of this article. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay. But that doesn’t make it Russia, nor its population Russia’s population.  —Michael Z. 22:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

(And as I mentioned above, that still doesn’t explain why you want to include the population of some places that Russia controls in Russia’s population, but not of others.)  —Michael Z. 22:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

That is really the main thing I was getting at. Only some users now say as a defence that it's because Crimea is included in a census and the other areas are not, but I fail to understand where or how this standard has been set. 118.211.121.167 (talk) 09:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac because they are not in the russian census we can't remove Crimea because is in the census Gerçois (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure we can. There’s all sorts of Russian propaganda we don’t report as fact. The field is “population of Russia,” not “the Kremlin’s aspirational population of Russia.”  —Michael Z. 14:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac it is a fact that Crimea right now is under Russian control whether illegal or not, it is not propaganda, Gerçois (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah but that still does not make Crimea a part of Russia. Do you not understand what a state is or how do international laws work? DoctorWhutsup (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

As are parts of the Donbas, but we’re not discussing Russian control.  —Michael Z. 21:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2023

I would like to fix a mistake on the population of the country it is actually 143.4 million people in the country. 119.18.0.228 (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CMD (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Not human rights in Russia, but - most probably - rather their violation criticized

The article currently contains:

”Human rights in Russia have been increasingly criticised by leading democracy and human rights groups.”

I would swear that human rights groups do not criticize human rights in Russia; they most probably criticize human rights violations in Russia.Redav (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Change "the first human settlement on Russia" to "on territory of today’s Russia"

For the early history and up to the date of official adoption of the name "Russia", all the mentions of Russian territory should either use the period correct name, or say "territory of today’s Russia", just like it does in any other article on history of any other country.

This means for example in the section "Early history" the phrasing "the first human settlement on Russia" should be changed to "on the territory of today's Russia" since there was no "Russia" back then. SpicyMetaBalla (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Population density in infobox

Someone fix that please. Calesti (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac: Could you please fix what you have done to the population density parameter in the infobox? Calesti (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The number is unclear (as I tagged it), unsourced, and doesn’t appear in the article body. I’d rather remove the number than remove the tag which is preventing it from being displayed.  —Michael Z. 19:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

"disputed territory"

The term used to mark light-green territories on the map is more than just dubious. The vast majority territories in question do not fit the definiton of disputed. I suggest that the terminology should be changed to "Russian-occupied territories" because well, that is what they are, are they not? DoctorWhutsup (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@DoctorWhutsup it includes the Kuril islands disputed is more appropriate Gerçois (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

More dubious is that the map does not highlight Abkhazia or South Ossetia in light green Iskandar323 (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

South Ossetia and Abkhazia are both currently independent states that operate their own government, which is not under the direct control of the Russian Federation. Russia does not claim it as russian Gerçois (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it just patrols the borders with its army. Russia also claims it is not 'at war' in Ukraine. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The infobox map should not go even further than the Russian government in claiming various territories. CMD (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 they are highly influenced but not under direct control unlike Ukrainian occupied territories which are under Direct control Gerçois (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The map is a locator map of Russia, so only territories that someone says are Russia are shown: so occupied parts of Georgia and Moldova do not belong (unless we agree to change the scope of the map).

It includes two colours, representing territories with two different statuses:

1. Dark green: internationally recognized as Russia.
2. Light green: not recognized as Russia.

All the territories in category 2 have been:

• Occupied by Russian military.
• Claimed as Russian by Russia.
• “Annexed” by some procedure claimed as legal by Russia but violating international law.
• Not recognized as Russia by most or all states nor by the United Nations, including the respective state the territories belong to.

The label should clearly cover this common situation of them all. Just “disputed” is a WP:EUPHEMISM that unnecessarily leaves out too much, gives the impression that the situation could be different or even opposite from the reality, and therefore non-WP:NPOV because it allows a counterfactual pro-Kremlin, anti-other states, anti-UN, and anti-international law interpretation.  —Michael Z. 07:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Why Ukrainian territory is marked as disputed one?

Ukrainian territory invaded by Russia should not be shown on the globe map as a disputed one. Presenting it in light green suggests that it belongs to Russia and supports russian propaganda. 109.70.118.146 (talk) 09:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)