Talk:Russia

Dissolution

Yes, the text does indeed suggest that the Soviet Union just dissolved magically, for no reason at all, maybe because they got bored of being so awesome:

" the Soviet era of the 20th century saw some of the most significant Russian technological achievements, including the first human-made satellite and the first human expedition into outer space. In 1991, the Russian SFSR emerged from the dissolution of the Soviet Union as the independent Russian Federation. "

Like, nothing happened there in between? Volunteer Marek 02:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think any readers will read the current text as suggesting magic, and don't see how your piping affects the potential magicality of the reading. CMD (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Any reader that is not already knowledgeable about the subject (I sometimes get the sense that some Wikipedia editors are writing for themselves rather than a likely audience) will think that SU decided to just dissolve cuz why the hey not. Volunteer Marek 06:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Readers will not "think that SU decided to just dissolve cuz why the hey not". CMD (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I'm sure people know that superpowers, or even just any country at all, don't just decide do dissolve without reason. Michael60634 (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The lead is not expected to include all details. On this matter they can be found in the History section. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Yet it chooses to include some details but not others. Why is “first ever human satellite” essential but economic collapse of SU is not? Volunteer Marek 06:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I personally find space exploration far more interesting than economics and politics. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thats nice. De gustibus non est disputandum. However, “i personally find” is not a Wikipedia policy. Volunteer Marek 06:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, just like “Russia’s monarchic rule was abolished and replaced” by no one in particular, and how the RSFSR conquered former Russian-empire colonies “with three their Soviet republics.” The lead is a sea of euphemisms. It ought to say who did what, and not bend over backwards to avoid mentioning Russian colonialism.  —Michael Z. 04:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It mentions the revolution. Or do you expect something long like "Following the February Revolution, Nicholas II abdicated and the Russian Provisional Government was established, ending monarchic rule in the country"? Mellk (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

And the civil war is mentioned, what do you expect to have written instead that does not bend over backwards to avoid mentioning Russian colonialism (I also guess your point is also SU is actually just Russia in this specific case for your argument)? Mellk (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a great example of why passive voice is bad writing style. Using subjects and active verbs this could introduce a bunch of facts that make it much clearer without much more text, possibly including that:

• The tsar abdicated at the urging of military and government officials
• A provisional government was violently overthrown by the Bolsheviks communists
• Nations in the empire tried to establish independent states
• The Bolsheviks reconquered some Russian-empire territory by a combination of military conquest and the imposition of their own puppet governments

This would indeed help the reader understand imperial Russia, post-imperial states, the RSFSR and the USSR, and events in 1991 to the present.  —Michael Z. 00:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Similarly, “emerged from the dissolution” gives no clue as to what actually happened.

“SU is actually just Russia” – I would never put it that way. But the Russian nation, however one defines it, has a very long imperial history, and its leader is trying to preserve an empire that started falling apart around 1991, so something along those lines. Also help dispel any notions that Crimea was always Russia, Ukraine was always Russia, Finland was always Russia, Kamchatka was always Russia, &c. We may as well try to relate post-colonial history as it’s done in 2023.  —Michael Z. 00:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

In general, in addition to the omission of certain info, there’s just a bunch of passive voice usage that even putting POV issues aside, does not make for GA quality level article writing. Volunteer Marek 06:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The wording of that specific sentence is a non-issue. I think you will find a piece by even the most fervent anti-Russia author to be pro-Russia unless their introduction is a winded polemic. If you see problems and have solutions, dedicate your time to writing the latter down for others to consider, instead of making general complaints and vague platitudes. Yue🌙 01:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2023

In accordance with the article's language used (British English), I would like to suggest changing "ruble" to "rouble" as the consensus is that "ruble" is American English and "rouble" is Commonwealth English. CorwenAv (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Editors contemplating this request may want to look at Talk:Ruble#Request for comment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I just read that, and have no idea what the conclusion actually means in reality here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I simply want to request some sort of consistency. An article written in American English would not use spellings such as "centre", likewise an article written in British English should not use "ruble". A certain user seems intent on imposing a single spelling across the website despite obvious evidence that it is a dialectical distinction. CorwenAv (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

What you say makes sense to me. What Jonesey95 said didn't help at all. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this article in British English should use the British spelling rouble. The RFC linked above reinforces exactly that with its decision: “this should be treated as a normal ENGVAR issue,” meaning maintain consistency within the article, per MOS:ENGVAR  —Michael Z. 21:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done  —Michael Z. 21:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much, glad to have this fixed :) CorwenAv (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac: As an editor involved with Corwen (and TheCurrencyGuy, their sockpuppeteer, who has a rouble predilection), I have reverted your edits per WP:BMB.

Notwithstanding the RfC outcome (which I respect), the fact that no one besides Corwen/TCG decided to change "ruble" could mean that editors do not deem "ruble" to be inconsistent with the otherwise-British English used on the page. NotReallySoroka (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @NotReallySoroka, but I made the change because that was my own determination as well, once it had been brought to my attention, and would still do so.

The article ruble says ruble is American and rouble is “Commonwealth.” The British-English ODE says “rouble (also mainly North American ruble),” and the American-English NOAD says “ruble (also rouble).”

The RFC determined that spelling of r*ble should follow articles’ ENGVAR. So as this article is tagged “use British English,” I would still change it. Okay?  —Michael Z. 22:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The spelling should clearly be changed back to rouble. There is no excuse for reimposing a spelling mistake in the context of the language variant the article uses just because a banned user noticed it. 89.242.184.95 (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Russia - terrorist country

Russia in 2022 became leading country in terrorism. 78.60.222.37 (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Russia#Post-Soviet Russia (1991–present) Moxy- 16:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, last paragraph there, and more detail in Terrorism in Russia#2022.  —Michael Z. 17:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, which info should be summarized in the lede. Volunteer Marek 20:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

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)

Occupied Georgian territories in lead

The lead should make mention of the situation of the occupied territories of Georgia, as it is directly relevant to the current borders, legal or illegal, of Russia. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Russia has not annexed the occupied Georgian territory. CMD (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I have edited the text to recognize who occupies these territories.[1]  —Michael Z. 23:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The article does list international borders, and this is a place it could mention which are disputed, and perhaps which are un-delineated.  —Michael Z. 23:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Status of the Kuril Islands

The article is also conspicuously missing any reference to the disputed nature of Russian's ownership of the Kuril Islands within the international community. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Addressed in #Small question., below.  —Michael Z. 22:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Industrialization came “At the expense of millions of lives”,

This quote from the write up on the Soviet Union feels like it’s pushing an agenda. The United States page doesn’t talk about manifest destiny costing “millions of lives”, it rather gently says we took territory and Native Americans were displaced. Maybe let’s keep the editorializing off this website 2600:8800:721F:BE00:7540:CF24:522E:9182 (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Industrialization and 'collectivization' did come at the expense of millions, if not tens of millions, of lives, as according to many sources. If you want to add something about the U.S., an entirely separate article. Then do so, as long as you can back it up with reliable sources. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Small question.

Why is the Kuril Islands now part of Russia, not an uncontrolled territory unlike Crimea and the Oblasts? I thought it was still disputed to this day... Any reasons why? MasterWolf0928-Æthelwulf (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I added a note and link to the mention.[2]  —Michael Z. 22:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's settle this for all: the neutrality of the lead is disputed. We must do something about it.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

. Some random serbian (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

What changes are you suggesting? Michael60634 (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

idk Some random serbian (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not particularly helpful. Michael60634 (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Whoever thinks the lead is not neutral should fill in "talk=talk page section name" on the template as I don't know which talk page section details the current dispute. It should all be discussed in one section otherwise we will get confused. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it’s the talk page section called “ This article had multiple issues” or the one called “lead 2 but that’s just a guess. Volunteer Marek 15:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2023

There's a typo in the section Etymology: "[...] who were orginally [sic] a group of Norse merchants [...]". The correct spelling would be "originally" Recica2 (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done CJ-Moki (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Questioning the neutrality of this article

Russia has been characterized as a dictatorship since March 2022 I think and I think that this description shouldn't be here. Wikipedia characterises Russia (and Belarus) as dictatorships while other countries in Central America and Africa which have way lower scores in Democracy Index are not characterised as dictatorships. This can be quite misleading and I think that we should either keep the de jure political system in Russia (and Belarus) or change half of Africa and Central America to dictatorships. Bilikon (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say. There is no other standard. What reliable sources may or may not say about other countries doesn't tell us anything about Russia. If you believe those articles don't accurately reflect the sources, that is a discussion for those talk pages. But there is no question that the sources characterize Russia as an authoritarian dictatorship. You are essentially saying we should contradict the sources here because you believe other articles are wrong. What could possibly be the use in that? Factual errors on the encyclopedia don't cancel each other out. 25stargeneral (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@25stargeneral Yeah, the issue is that people are calling only anti-Russian western sources as "reliable" using this as an alibi to claim whatever anti-Russian source media outlets says regardless of its actuality because "Oh hey, that big western journal said that, it must be true!" without considering the clear bias of said sources 151.38.253.181 (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking through some of your other contributions on this subject, I'm thinking maybe it was a mistake to treat this as a serious comment. I've issued a DS alert. 25stargeneral (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

No Central American countries that have a lower index than Russia (much less “way lower”). Only 6 sub-Saharan African states out of 44 have lower scores than Russia.

Democracy Index 2022 says:

Russia recorded the biggest decline in score of any country in the world in 2022. Its invasion of Ukraine was accompanied by all-out repression and censorship at home. Russia has been on a trajectory away from democracy for a long time and is now acquiring many of the features of a dictatorship. (p 4)

A corollary of the war has been a pronounced increase in state repression against all forms of dissent and a further personalisation of power, pushing Russia towards outright dictatorship. (p 12)

 —Michael Z. 07:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)