Jump to content

Talk:Russia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleRussia was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 13, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 1, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
July 16, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
July 24, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 2, 2007Good article nomineeListed
December 7, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 22, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 18, 2010Good article reassessmentKept
September 29, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
October 10, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
January 30, 2022Good article nomineeListed
April 30, 2022Good article reassessmentKept
February 7, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 12, 2004, June 12, 2005, and June 12, 2006.
Current status: Delisted good article

Toolbox

High income economy

[edit]

There needs to be a mention in the third para of the lead about Russia being classified as a high-income economy by the World Bank. Since it is also mentioned in the economy section.[1] 45.118.63.52 (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk: Hello. Can you do the change? 45.118.63.56 (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Mellk (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellk: Thank you. But shouldn't the sentence about the economy come first in the last para? It was recently transferred to the last bit of the para without any discussion. You can see FA class articles such as India or Germany for example. There are no country articles on Wikipedia, as far as I know, mention organization memberships on the first sentence of a para. 45.118.63.56 (talk) 09:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But this was previously reverted so if someone else feels that this should be re-arranged, I will let them do that instead. Mellk (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mellk: The revert was done without any discussion and altered the long-standing lead which has not been changed for over 4-5 years. Can you do the re-arrangement? Because nobody else will. And besides, it looks a little weird to mention the economy at the last sentence. 45.118.63.56 (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JDiala: can you make this change? 45.118.63.49 (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@45.118.63.49: The ordering for this isn't a huge deal from my perspective, so I'll respectfully decline. JDiala (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it's your personal matter 37.111.243.223 (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Russia was classified as a high-income country". World Bank. 2 July 2024. Retrieved 25 July 2024.

Great power status

[edit]

On mentioning the "great power" status of Russia in the lead, currently we have in the article body that Russia established itself as a great power during the 18th century, and then later mentioning its historical status as a great power citing a source from 2008.

Upon a quick Google search I found several sources putting into question Russia's status as a "great power", particularly after its invasion of Ukraine.

Here they are: Janko Šćepanović, Phillips P. O’Brien and Taras Kuzio.

Therefore I have to disagree with this edit summary that Russia being a great power is not remotely contested, all these sources above are scholars.

I will not revert the edit maintaining in Wikipedia's voice that Russia is a great power, but it seems some kind of update is needed here. TylerBurden (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is an Atlanticist think tank a reliable source? Obviously a propaganda wing of a Russian adversary will claim Russia isn't really powerful. The Foreign Affairs piece is WP:FRINGE as it seems to deny the concept of a "great power" entirely. JDiala (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't about adding fringe views about denying the concept of great powers, it's about questioning Russia's status a great power, specifically: "This stunning revelation of Russian weakness calls into question not just Moscow’s status as a great power but also the very concept of a great power." The former part of the reference is relevant for this article, the latter is not.
Taras Kuzio is a political science professor, not a propagandist, if you have some kind of references of your own to support those claims, please do provide them.
I notice you didn't even mention the first reference, so I take it you didn't find anything wrong with it?
Here's another source. TylerBurden (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, even professors can be dubious sources in certain contexts if they're engaged in brazen paid advocacy on behalf of regimes. You don't need sources to assess the reliability of a source; WP:RS applies only for content. Your other source, the one linked in your most recent comment, isn't that convincing because there's only one sentence where he clearly writes that Russia isn't a great power but that's just linking to the Foreign Affairs paper which we've already discussed; he also clearly attributes those views to the Foreign Affairs paper (it's not stated in his own voice). As for sources for my position, there are several cited in the second paragraph of the article on Great Powers.
Your first source by Šćepanović is, I must concede, a decent source. For that reason, I'll self-revert my recent edit. I think it's fair to say it's "generally" considered a great power; we should use weaker language like "generally." However, I would object to more extreme edits, like removing the great power claim entirely. JDiala (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"propaganda wing" or "brazen paid advocacy" are Your personal opinions or proved facts? Because this is 'not a forum' You know? YBSOne (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are think-tanks. That's literally brazen paid advocacy, by definition of "think tank". JDiala (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many sources saying it is no longer a great power, but rather a Pariah state, e.g. [1]. But the actual issue is even bigger. There is nothing about contemporary Russia (the subject of this page) being great power in the body of the text, hence nothing should appear in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A pariah state and a great power aren't mutually exclusive (obviously). Relatively recent sources also call Russia a great power (1, 2, 3), but even they didn't it wouldn't matter since article isn't only about contemporary Russia (there's an entire section on history). An alternative would be saying it has "historically been a great power" as done in the article body. JDiala (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Hill is made up of opinion contributors, possiby not a RS, and the latter says plainly "Responsibility for the destruction of Syria falls squarely on Putin’s shoulders." YBSOne (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which section of this page describes modern-day Russia as a "great power"? This page has bigger problems though. It dedicates a lot of space to several countries which are not modern-day Russia, including Imperial Russia, USSR, and laughably, even Kievan Rus. My very best wishes (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles on Wikipedia about countries aren't restricted to the modern nation-states. They discuss ancient history too. The point is that the reader gets a rich understanding of the history, traditions and culture, not just modern politics. JDiala (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This: "Russia is generally considered a great power and is a regional power." implies current Russia, not ancient Russia (there is no ancient Russia). The only source You provided says "great power, but..." YBSOne (talk) 08:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, a country that is the successor of a former superpower (the USSR, if you didn't know) is not a great power. It rather belongs to the lower strata of the middle powers, akin to Kenya and such.
Again, how could a country that owns half of the world's total nuclear weapons be a "great" power? And, its not as if "Russia" was considered to be among the European great powers for centuries before even the establishment of the Soviet Union (as Imperial Russia). Somehow its still a part of the UN Security Council. I think its a bit more laughable that Italy is still considered a "great" power. Its all about Eurocentrism really. Swoonfed (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Try and focus on what people are actually saying instead of contributing with useless snark. TylerBurden (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point still stands that Russia owns over half of the world's nukes. I saw an argument above that a "great" power cannot be a pariah state. The only part of the world where Russia is apparently considered a "pariah" state is the tiny sub-continent of Europe and some parts of North America. China and India (as well as most of Asia and Africa) somehow are leaning towards Russia's foreign policy, even its war with Ukraine. So, I guess that's the vast majority of the world. And the fact that Russia is a part of the UN Security Council by itself grants it "great" power status. But that can be ignored now, considering its not fitting to the agenda.
Another hilarious argument made above is that we should not include the historical versions of Russia in this article. That is amazing. So when we talk about the United Kingdom, we should only talk about the current state of the kingdom and exclude its history as a genocidal empire which spanned a quarter of the world's total land area and population?
But Eurocentrism is a reconcurring issue in this discussion. Not shocking considering almost all participants in this discussion are from the Western world. But you can, I guess, just use a source from some Western media that is probably comparing Russia to Liberia and get done with it. Swoonfed (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so you're not here to actually discuss the article in good faith, you're here to whine about Westerners and viewpoints you don't personally agree with. See WP:NOTFORUM before you dig yourself into a hole. TylerBurden (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TylerBurden: Russia as a great power: from 1815 to the present day Part II (Cambridge University Press) - 03 October 2022. An excerpt from this journal: "Russia was one of the great powers for much of the 18th, all of the 19th and almost all of the 20th centuries. Its victorious armies entered Berlin in the 18th century, Paris in the 19th century and Berlin again in the 20th century. Modelski (Reference Modelski1996: 336) has pointed to the role of war as a selection mechanism in international politics. This is illustrated by the Russian victories over Napoleon and Hitler and its resulting recognition as a great power. Russia is generally considered to have re-emerged as a great power in the 21st century, although this is controversial."
The current sentence in the article about Russia being a "great" power with a "generally" added to it can remain in the article, I think. Unless its removed because of personal opinions. Swoonfed (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both members of the UN Security Council and members of the nuclear club are, of course, considered great powers. Russia became a great power on 21-23 December 1991 but before that it was nominally a "sovereign state" within the superpower Soviet Union. Russia itself was never a superpower de jure, although some thought that Russia and the Soviet Union were the same. If we go into more detail, then we can say that the USA was easily defeated by terrorists and try to draw some conclusions from this. This is a bad idea. ruASG+1  20:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Will have to agree here....and as per the vast majority of sources as outlined by Šćepanović, Janko (2023-03-22). "Still a great power? Russia's status dilemmas post-Ukraine war". Journal of Contemporary European Studies. 32 (1). Informa UK Limited: 80–95. doi:10.1080/14782804.2023.2193878. ISSN 1478-2804. In March 2022, political scientist Daniel W. Drezner rhetorically pondered Russia's great power status (Drezner Citation2022, 15 March). Drezner, as well as others like Dan Depetris, agrees that, on principle, Russia can still be counted among the great powers, mainly thanks to its size, possession of large nuclear and conventional arsenals, as well as influence in the global energy markets
    L
    A discussion about their great power status can be seen in..Laruelle, M.; Radvanyi, J. (2023). Russia: Great Power, Weakened State. G - LReference,Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-5381-7477-7. Moxy🍁 20:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles with comprehensive analysis should be used as sources. I think it is rather strange to argue in isolation from the context, talk only about Russia and don't talk about other countries. If Russia is not considered a great power, then France and the United Kingdom are not considered great powers at all. If we talk about some ideological influence, then perhaps everything was in the context of the spread of communism and the Cold War. The term "superpower" is probably outdated. If we talk about military power, then there are much more populated countries than Russia, France and the United Kingdom and also with nuclear weapons. If we talk about destructive power, then we can even take it to the point of absurdity and say that terrorists have become a great power (this is not true, of course). Perhaps the term "great power" will become obsolete or change dramatically. It is better to support nominal definitions. Nothing better has been invented yet. Otherwise, the entire terminology is destroyed. I think. ruASG+1  21:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 August 2024

[edit]

Why its wrote in article that their history have started from Kyivan Rus' from adoption of christianity in 988, when they dont have Kyiv in their borders as of now? Why they have part of ukrainian history in history of maskovia? 89.209.129.71 (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because Kievan Rus' held territory much farther beyond the borders of its capital, and included much of European Russia today. It was also the first prominent east slavic state of the territory of Russia and Ukraine, and to the Kieven Rus' people, there was no distinction between "Russian" or "Ukrainian", only the people who lived in Kieven Rus', (the various East Slavic tribes) and thus it is a part of the history of every country which Kievan Rus' held territory in (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus) even though Kyiv is not a part of Russia today. Just because Rome is not a part of France does not mean that France under Roman rule is not a core part of French history. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, if someone refers to the subject as 'maskovia', then this can be disregarded as a troll. Mellk (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@89.209.129.71: Quite hilarious how the state of Rus' had most of its territories situated within the borders of modern-day "Russia". Its not as if the Rus' first arrived to Novgorod (a city located within northern Russia) first, and then expanded their territory southwards to Kiev. But no, only "Ukraine" is Rus'! Not those Tatar-Mongol-Finno-Ugric "Mascovites". Swoonfed (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, this is exactly what needs to be expanded. It is necessary to specify Novgorod as the first capital of (Kievan) Rus and Kiev as its second capital or to describe "Rurik's state" as it is accepted now in Russia. ruASG+1  20:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2024

[edit]

Remove "under an authoritarian dictatorship" from the table. Russia is not a dictatorship and has a semi-presidential system. Higger1 (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The claims in the article about being a dictatorship are backed up with sources. A change like this needs both reliable sources and consensus. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Type

[edit]

It Was A Federal Republic And A Post-Soviet State. КириллТелегин990 (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 August 2024

[edit]

Change the part of the first sentence, specifically where it says "Russia, or the Russian Federation" to "Russia, officially the Russian Federation", since that would clarify that that is Russia's official name, which it is. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both names are equal. See the invisible note in the wikitext: "Both names are equally official - see: Talk:Russia/Archive 12#Equality of the names." Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic groups

[edit]

The figures indicated that the share of ethnic Russians in Russia is 71% are deliberately misleading and present anti-scientific information. The real share of ethnic Russians in Russia is at least 80.85%

Ask any academic demographer or ethnographer, and he will tell you that the proportion of ethnic groups in the population should be indicated at least among those indicating ethnic origin. These are the features of many censuses. Study this issue.

And you can see other similar Wikipedia articles, for example, on Bulgaria. Where the share of Bulgarians in the population is indicated from their share among those who indicated ethnicity. 95.26.198.63 (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just need the sources pls. Moxy🍁 19:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source - 2021 Russian Census
Are you editing an article in the field of demography without even understanding it?
And you can't even look at Wikipedia articles on other countries where there is a high proportion of "those who did not indicate ethnicity" - how do they indicate the proportion of ethnic groups?
You don't need to have knowledge of demography to see the obvious bias. Logic and comparative analysis are enough. The example with Bulgaria is indicative. 95.26.198.63 (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Example with Bulgaria.
2021 Census in Bulgaria. Those who identified themselves as Bulgarians are 5.1 million out of a total population of 6.5 million. This is 78.5% of the total population. But everywhere the share of Bulgarians is indicated - 84.7%
And this is correct from the point of view of the scientific approach.
If you have different criteria for different countries and Wikipedia articles, then you are hypocritically or ignorantly biased. 95.26.198.63 (talk) 09:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW close. (closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is officially known as the Russian Federation. 2600:1700:6180:6290:B252:32CB:66B7:AE8D (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as it's not the common name. Killuminator (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2024

[edit]

Under "Formation" heading in info details chart, please delete: "• Kievan Rus' 882"

Reasoning: Only in 1547 did Tsar Ivan IV (the "Terrible") begin styling himself "Tsar of all the Russias", a name invented by him specifically to make a legitimizing link to an earlier polity; and only in 1721 did Tsar Peter I (the "Great") officially change the name of Muscovy to Russia to cement that link in order to legitimize himself in the eyes of Western European monatchies. Despite Russian propaganda, there is no connection of Russia to Kievan Rus'.

https://snyder.substack.com/p/putins-genocidal-myth

https://snyder.substack.com/p/kyivs-ancient-normality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Romanovs_1613%E2%80%931918

https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/digital/our-russian-cousins/

https://origins.osu.edu/read/kyiv-rus-ukraine-russia

https://theconversation.com/how-moscow-has-long-used-the-historic-kyivan-rus-state-to-justify-expansionism-178092

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/06/russia-and-ukraine-are-trapped-in-medieval-myths/

https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/ukraine-history-fact-checking-putin-513812/ 69.156.211.17 (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2002 Russian Post stamp celebrates 1140 years of statehood. I remind that the calling of the Varangians in 862 is considered "the birth of Russian statehood" but this does not mean that Russia itself in the modern sense existed then. The words Russia and Russian State begin to be used to describe the country after the partial reunification of the lands of (Kievan) Rus, which took place in 1478 (reunification with Novgorod) or 1485 (reunification with Tver) in the reign of Ivan the Great. This is an article about Russia. This is the way it is accepted in Russian historiography for many centuries. For example, Ukrainian historiography may think otherwise.
  • I support in the part that 882 has never in history been considered a formation date for Russia. I have previously pointed out on this discussion page. Unfortunately, some users behave contrary to the rules of Wikipedia, according to which we try to create a reliable encyclopedia. The imaginary "Russian propaganda" and the false image of Russia that exists only in the sick imagination of some people shows only of the ignorance of those people. Someone can consider that 882 is the date of formation of Russia, but in Russia itself and the scientific world never considered so. If someone fights with this date, they fight not with "Russian propaganda", but with the imagination of propaganda in his own head. It has nothing to do with Russia. I've been fighting Putin's propaganda for 20 years. Finding imaginary "Russian propaganda" when it doesn't exist in reality and rewriting history is as much falsification as any other. It doesn't lead us to find the truth, common sense and accomplish the goal of Wikipedia. It just adds another layer of false propaganda. Thus, I do not support the use of politicized sources such as those cited above (sometimes with xenophobic connotations against ethnic Russians and the existence of Russia as a state). The sources above repeat stupid stereotypes, use low-quality translation and give incompetent assessments without understanding the context. In particular, I also remind that in the Russian language there is no difference between the adjectives Rus', Russian and Ruthenian (in English, these are 3 different words, as we can see), but this does not mean that there is no understanding of the difference and there is no possibility to describe in other words. Right now, the article violates Wikipedia's rules on reliability many many times. I am ready to help if someone wants to fix the article. ruASG+1  14:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should note that the publication from the University of Rochester in my opinion tries to be more adequate in contrast to all the other sources above. But in Russia there are other points of view. ruASG+1  19:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I found good maps based on data from the Russian Academy of Sciences overlayed on modern borders from OpenStreetMap. That is what I perceive as the scientific consensus on early history in Russia and there is no Putin's propaganda or fringe viewpoints there except maps in the 21st century. I recommend it to anyone who is interested. But there are other points of view, including highly politicized ones. ruASG+1  05:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2024

[edit]

Russia area in square miles is (10,624,357) not 6 million. 17,098,246 Km to sq mile. 17,098,246 ÷ 1.609344 = 10,264,357 sq mile 46.153.107.115 (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. 17,098,246 * 0.38610216 (correct conversion factor) is ~6.6 million. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russia&oldid=1246894668"