Jump to content

Talk:Russia/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Nominal GDP

Left a good-faith comment/message on an objecting editor's talk page, mentioning this, but in the ranking of countries by GDP (nominal) - List of countries by GDP (nominal), all sources (incl. IMF) state Russia is 8th in 2013. This is supported by the respective RS, and has been verified. If no reply contradicting this data is received within a couple days, I will once again enter my edits and further reverts will be considered hostile & lacking a NPOV. --Therexbanner (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

A response has been left on my own talk page as to the circumstances of the revert. Per my response there, after the sudden interest taken by various parties (including socks) in the ranking, and a DRN examining the issues, the 2014 IMF figures were instated on this and the Italy article. While, previously, IMF figures were all over the place in backdating to the previous year or depicting the current year's estimated position, the new method employed consistently across the board for all nation-states are the figures in the IMF estimates between 2010 and 2019, and according to the 2014 estimates.
For example Mexico (ranked 14 in 2013 and 15 in 2014) - and other countries that have shifted position from the 2013 estimates - reflect the 2014 estimates, and all are depicted as showing '2014 estimate'. As such, it stands to reason that Russia and Italy are correct and in line with all other nation-states as being 9th and 8th respectively (and qualified by '2014 estimate').
Personally, I have no preference as to whether Wikipedia backdates to the 2013 estimates or uses the 2014 estimates, so long as the system is used consistently. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

CRIMEA ANE JERUSALEM Wikipedia should be more serious, because they indlude Jerusalem in Israel but not Crimea in Russia. Why? Jerusalem was ANNEXED by Israel after the 6 day War. Meanwhile, the case of Crimea is more similar to Texas, as it proclaimed its independence from Ukraine and the then voted in a referendum to join the Russian Federation. Without casualties, all peacefully. So, it was not an annexation but a REUNIFICATION.--81.35.196.42 (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

World Bank better source than IMF.

IMF has a very bad reputation of using outdated data and basing it's economic projections on it. The issue has been brought up on numerous ocasions in numerous countries over the last decade. Russia is just the most recent example. I propose the use WB data over IMF data whenever possible. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

As you've already been advised, this is not an issue for page consensus. The IMF stats are being used across the board for all contemporary nation-states. Please take this up at the appropriate venue, being at the WP:RSN. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Consistency on disputed territories

So, now that Crimea has been marked on the Russian map as a special territory, is the same going to be done with the Golan Heights on the Israeli map? 213.109.230.96 (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Of attempted military coup /Putsh in Russia in 2012. And, the role FSB and GRU. Find a word in the article. Russia supplies almost all EU - the border with Gaz and oil.The Europe stood Perhaps, before a big disaster. Manages a Putsh in Russia could Gaz - Valve moment during a few days to be closed. However, no interest / irrelevant?Dantist2 (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2014

REMOVE the below text as misleading and having any historical support or references 

Founded and ruled by a Varangian warrior elite and their descendants, the medieval state of Rus arose in the 9th century.

Andiv (talk) 10:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This line of text seems to be supported by the closest tailing reference. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Timezones

Timezones are changed, now it's UTC+2...+12, without gaps. Please update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.106.184.60 (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Still hasn't been updated. Someone with the required permissions to update the article should do this. Vizzyx (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 Done Infobox time zones updated (per Time in Russia) Dl2000 (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Flag

i notice the flag needs to be updated to more correct clearer and brighter colours see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Flag_of_Russia.svg#Found_official_colors, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Flag_of_Russia.svg#found_real_evidence_for_real_flag_-_please_restore and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Flag_of_Russia.svg#Color_flag_of_the_Russia

Dannis243 (talk) 12:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This has repeatedly been discussed, where it should have been if you wanted to raise this issue again, on the talk page of the Commons file. You do not have consensus or a right to simply replace the long-standing file with your new preference. If you revert again without consensus, you will have broken 3RR and may be blocked by an administrator. Again, I request you gain proper consensus. Fry1989 eh? 15:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Etymology

Etymological information on the country's name does not go in the lead--it goes in the Etymology section. Look at every other country article. Stop trying to insert this in the lead because it is not appropriate there. --Taivo (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Nuclear Weapons

The preamble states that Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear arms; this is very much disputed, and the article that the claim links to admits as much. Can this 'fact' be changed to an assertion, please? 31.48.208.236 (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2015

Please revert to previous version of this page due to the vandalization of the Russian Flag. 129.59.122.55 (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- haminoon (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Current map is contrary to Wikipedia practices

The current map with Crimea in light green runs contrary to Wikipedia practices in other articles. For Armenia, the map does not show Nagorno-Karabakh and for Israel, the map does not show the West Bank or the Golan Heights. As our other maps of countries that unilaterally occupy territories do not show these territories, I don't see any reason why the the map here should be an exception.Jeppiz (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jeppiz. The de jure situation of Crimea is quite clear under International Law. The UN Charter doesn't recognize the acquisition of territory by force. Therefore, if it is right that Russia controls de facto Crimea, the de jure situation is that it is not part of Russia. The Law has more weight than the fact, else a thief should be claim to own what he stole, which is nosense. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
International laws recognize the right of people to self-determination, a right that Crimean used.Blaue Max (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Jeppiz and Pluto2012. Of course, sometimes Wikipedia has to bow to nationalist trolls and compromise as much as we find it distasteful. The more insistent the trolls, the more likely a compromise. In this case, an army of the Kremlin's trolls awaits to edit war a change of the map and the lawful removal of the illegally invaded and occupied Crimean peninsula from Russia's map. --Taivo (talk) 10:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you include yourself as a "nationalist troll", as it seems you have a big conflict of interest here and are unable to have a rational discussion ? Please, assume good faith. Blaue Max (talk) 11:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Just requote:

adopt proposed map. I am about as pro-Ukrainian as they come in my personal life. I have lived and worked in western Ukraine and am married to a Ukrainian. But the de facto situation is that Russia controls Crimea and has unilaterally "annexed" it. This is well-documented in the media so is not WP:OR. Ukraine's objections to this as well as the objections of virtually every other country in the world are also well-documented in the media. None of this is WP:OR. So marking Crimea as "disputed" on the maps of both Ukraine and Russia makes perfect Wikipedia sense. It is the WP:NPOV position. --Taivo (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

. --Seryo93 (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Seryo93, just because I agree in principle with Jeppiz and Pluto2012 (that Russia's invasion of Crimea and subsequent sham referendum and annexation should not be rewarded in Wikipedia), doesn't mean that I'm not a realist that Wikipedia has to compromise with the trolls on occasion. There is no contradiction with what I wrote last year (which was at the compromise point after a run-in with trolls). Having seen the Kremlin's propaganda army in action for a year, however, (both on Wikipedia and elsewhere) I'm far less likely to assume good faith on their part. --Taivo (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The articles Israel and Armenia might not, but just FYI, India (which is a featured article) and China (good article) do show disputed territories in light green. Sp33dyphil (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the light green is informative and useful in for this article. I am not strongly involved into editing Israel nor Armenia but to the best of my knowledge, Armenia has not officially annexed Karabakh yet, and Israel has not officially annexed the West Bank. Russia on the other hand did officially annexed Crimea by an act of its Parliament. I guess it makes a difference Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
FYI: Israel has officality annexed the Golan Heights but they are not on the map of Israel.
By the way:
  • Wikipedia should reflect what secondary sources say
  • In case of disagreement, follow what the most reliable ones say
In the current case :
  • Which reliable secondary sources put Crimea in Russia (ie give weight to the de facto situation) and which do put this in Crimea ?
I don't see any other way to solve the issue. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I might also note that the argument of so-called "self-determination" is a complete sham in this case. One of the Russian special forces operatives inside Crimea has revealed on Russian television that the so-called "referendum" was completely rigged from the beginning: 1) Voters were only given the option of "Join Russia" or "Be Independent", not "Stay in Ukraine"; 2) Russian "voters" were driven from polling station to polling station to vote multiple times; 3) Tatars and pro-Ukrainian voters were prohibited from voting; 4) Results were known in advance. That's not "self-determination". --Taivo (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Apostrophe?

What is the meaning of the apostrophe appended to Rus'? It usually marks the possessive form in English but makes no sense in this case. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It's the most common way of marking palatalization of the preceding consonant in Eastern Slavic transliteration systems. (It's the "soft sign".) --Taivo (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Russian Federation not Russia

Russian Federation not Russia Constitution of Russia Federation not Constitution of Russia . on russian language - country - Russian Federation. President of Russian Federation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.72.163.224 (talk • contribs)

Doesn't matter. The Constitution explicitly states that the names "Russia" and "Russian Federation" are equivalent and equally official.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 26, 2014; 22:56 (UTC)

Russia is a republic of the Russian Federation! Yes, it's a total mess I know, but that's what it is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.245.189.166 (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Umm, that would be a "no"...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 10, 2015; 11:57 (UTC)

If Cremia is drawn as light green, why not Southern Kuril Islands?

Southern Kuril Islands are officially disputed between Russian Federation and Japan, just as the case in Cremia. No obvious reason treating them differently. 霎起林野间 (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Neither is disputed. If that were the case, Falklands would also be considered disputed. 162.221.121.79 (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
If you think that Russia's illegal "annexation" of Crimea isn't disputed, then you are high on some kind of hallucinogen. --Taivo (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Russia did not illegally annex Crimea. There was a referendum, and the overwhelming majority voted to be part of Russia. Consider that the majority of the population of Crimea is ethnic Russian, there is no way there could be any dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.42.2 (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC on removal of native state names from article lead sentences

There was an RfC opened that might affect tens of articles, including this one. Your opinions would be welcome. “WarKosign” 05:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Population for lead

There are still problems with how to include the total population with and without Crimea. Any idea on how the population should be addressed in the lead (as the infobox now includes a note to the figure including Crimea, with thanks to Inhakito).

Rather than make this inappropriately convoluted for the WP:LEAD, my take would be to use the same note next to the population in the body of the lead. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Is Russia part of Asia?

I know this question has been discussed earlier. But we are having a problem in the article Comparison of Asian national space programs where Russia has recently been added. I am not quite sure if it's right or wrong. If it's right then a lot of changes will have to be made in the article. For example, these two articles have been written not considering Russia as part of Asia:

Also, After reading this answer at Quora, I believe Russia is not part of Asia. What do you all suggest. Please respond. Thank You. - Jayadevp13 07:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The Politics part needs to be changed. Supreme Court of Arbitration ceased to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.242.101.53 (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is in North Asia, but the proper and less confusing term which might be used is Eurasia. Khestwol (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


Democracy or not?

Hi, as we all know Russia is not that freedom how it is presented officially and there are books saying Russia is not a democratic country anymore. So I just wanted to suggest that it should be somehow mentioned in infobox and I also wanted to know your opinions on Russian democracy.

Thank you and best regards, Itsyoungrapper (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


Itsyoungrapper,

While Russia does indeed, despite adamantly invoking the pretenses and regalia of a "democratic state," reflect that it has succumbed to the auspices of authoritarian magnates, it is not the objective of the infobox to disseminate opinions on the status of democracy's establishment in Russia - such information would most likely be included in articles on the Putin and Medvedev governments, rather than a portion of the article which seeks to exhibit only vital facts about the nation in question. Consult the page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes for further information, of which will confirm the air of simple presentation intended by infoboxes.

Sincerely, M.A.

Homeric Dithyramb (talk) 05:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Leading member?

Guys, please settle the dispute over whether Russia "is one of the 5 members of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), along with Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan" or just the leading member of this Union on a talk page rather than by edit war. When the issue is settled please drop me or any other admin a note and we would unblock the article Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Typo in First Paragraph

I don't really know if I'm doing this right but at the end of the first paragraph it should read "as of November" not "as at" as the page is uneditable I figured I should bring it up here. KorinVallance (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Valenciano (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
KorinVallance and Valenciano: I'm the one responsible for the translation, and can assure you that 'as at' is the grammatically correct translation for a legal document. 'As at' denotes that it is a snapshot of the population estimate on that date, and does not depict a estimate 'from' or after that date (i.e., it is retrospective, not a projection for after 1 November 2014). Nevertheless, as it is evidently causing confusion for readers unaware of the convention, I have simply translated it as being 'on' for one of the documents cited, plus 'in' for the first paragraph of the lead. As I've read both of the documents, they do not discuss any projected data but draw on statistics from 2013 and 2014. The use of 'as of' is misleading.
Personally, I find the compromise in the first paragraph to be equally as awkward and would have preferred to leave it as was. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

According to the Constitution of Russia, the country is a federation and semi-presidential republic, wherein the President is the head of state

Is the constitution respected? Was Mr Medvedev the real head as the president? Russian power-switching operation 2008 Xx236 (talk) 06:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Politics of Russia is outdated and has multiple issues, so the link Main article is controversial.Xx236 (talk) 09:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

History

The History section contains many controversial statements, either Soviet or nationalistic Russian.

The nation's history began

The history of ethnically non-Russian lands didn't. Russia is now multinational and selecting Russian history/mythology isn't neutral. Russia has Tatar, Ukrainian, Bashkir roots. Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

first constitutionally socialist state

Who cares about slave socialism?
Also the first state with a concentration camps network.Xx236 (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

initiated a threat of war to the Soviet Union

There was Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union. The best way to prevent the war with Germany was to preserve Poland.
The extermination of ethnic Poles in the SU known as the Polish Operation of the NKVD (1937–38) didn't prepare anti-Nazi cooperation.
The Katyn massacre proved that the SU wanted to preserve the division of Europe. Xx236 (talk) 10:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Checked Majority of archives captured well beyond publication date and were dead links, or redirects to top level of site. Replaced with correct archives, or marked as Cbignore where appropriate. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

multi-party representative democracy,

A joke?Xx236 (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC) Russia is a federal presidential republic. The executive power is split between the President and the Prime Minister, but the President is the dominant figure. http://russiapedia.rt.com/basic-facts-about-russia/political-system/ Xx236 (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC) https://www.kuwi.europa-uni.de/de/lehrstuhl/vs/politik3/Dokumente/lehre/Rogozinska_-_Russia_back_to_authoritarianism.pdf Xx236 (talk) 06:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC) http://www.ilaw.cas.cz/tlq/index.php/tlq/article/download/150/138 the Russian Federation is a semi-presidential republic with some special features Xx236 (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

As you're referring to the infobox, please note that the same broad understanding is applied to political systems on all country articles (i.e., Belarus). The infobox depicts general information about the nation-state, not critiques of the system. Any such criticisms are potentially for the body of the article if they're understood to be WP:DUE in the context of a broad scope article per the WP:TITLE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The article says multi-party representative democracy, with the federal government composed of three branches. It's completely wrong:
Let's respect the sincerity of the RT.Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
ru:Россия presents two POVs supported with many references:
Obviously you're not just discussing the infobox. I think that this discussion belongs on the relevant article's talk page. What is represented here really only acts as a WP:SUMMARY of the main article. Currently, it agrees with it (as it should). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm discussing Politics#Governance which cliams the Separation of powers in Russia. I aggree that this discussion should go to the main article talk, but as far noone cares about the main article, the last comment being Putin/Russia wants Crimea back, March the 7, 2014. Xx236 (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Freedom House, an international organisation funded by the United States, ranks Russia as "not free", citing "carefully engineered elections" and "absence" of debate.[131] Russian authorities dismiss these claims and especially criticise Freedom House. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has called the 2006 Freedom in the World report "prefabricated", stating that the human rights issues have been turned into a political weapon in particular by the United States. The ministry also claims that such organisations as Freedom House and Human Rights Watch use the same scheme of voluntary extrapolation of "isolated facts that of course can be found in any country" into dominant tendencies.[132]

I feel that this phrasing is somewhat biased towards the Russian point of view on this matter. Specifically, the description of Freedom House as "funded by the United States" seems to be a little off-topic, and possibly even violates the neutrality policy. Additionally, the citations given here cannot be considered reliable in my opinion, given that the only two citations are links to news sources controlled by the Russian government. The absence of any citations supporting the Freedom House point of view also tends to support this. GeneralKutuzov (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC) GeneralKutuzov 20 September 2015

Edit request

The link for Autonomous Oblast goes to a disambiguation page. It should go to Autonomous oblasts of Russia. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Done.Xx236 (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"Population"

It's written after the the number of population of the infobox that crimea is not included, I guess it should written about crimean population — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trabant1963 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Economy

http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/russia/publication/rer Xx236 (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-23/putin-s-miracle-dissolves-as-russian-middle-class-faces-crunch Xx236 (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Nielsen - 104 million middle class. What is the definition? My source gives 40% of the population.Xx236 (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

http://carnegie.ru/publications/?fa=59655 day middle class 20% (plus possible additional 30%). Xx236 (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2015

Spelling mistakes across the board. Please may I have permission as I feel it is my duty to inform the public properly as the previous Editor clearly did not know how to spell. 94.15.176.157 (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank You.

Agent 409.

== Se

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Russia now has 9 timezones... not 11.

Russia reduced its timezone coverage from 11 to 9.

[1]

Jacobmacintyre (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Jacob MacIntyre

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2015

In the first sentence of the fifth paragraph, "United States" is misspelled as "Unites States." Mwierenga (talk) 04:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Done a boat that can float! (happy holidays) 05:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Russia's population needs to be revised up

Considering the people of Crimea are all Russian citizens, Russia's population needs to be revised up by 2 million.

162.221.121.79 (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Crimea is not a part of Russia. So it should not be included. --Taivo (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
That's like saying Kosovo is part of Serbia. Pffft. 207.35.219.34 (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Kosovo has a fair amount international recognition as an independent state. Crimea has virtually none as a part of Russia. It's still internationally recognized as Russian-occupied Ukraine. --Taivo (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Let me educate you a bit. Russian Federation is recognized by all UN states so is all the territory that belongs to Russia and defined in Russian constitution. Russian population consist of people that live on the territory defined by Russian laws and constitution and not in some fantasy-Russia that exits in someone delusional mind. --188.187.57.140 (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
If you plan on being obnoxious, at least take a moment to learn some facts. Russia's own Constitution (Article 15), declares the supremacy of the international law over Russia's laws. And from the international law point of view, Crimea is nothing but an occupied part of Ukraine. Of course, no one takes what's written in the Russian Constitution seriously (Russia itself included), hence all the "Crimea is now a part of Russia because we said so and we have guns" circus.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 6, 2015; 17:37 (UTC)
OMG laughed hard. Theres no such international law that says that Crimea is occupied part of Ukraine. Or maybe you could give me a link to this amusing "international law"? You know, articles from Ukrainian propaganda media are not international law, right? ahaha As for Russian constitution, no it does not declare any international law supermacy over anything. It just declares supermacy of international agreements ratified by Russia over federal laws, not over constitution itself obviously. A little bit of education for you also. --188.187.57.140 (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Ezhiki, we're clearly feeding one of putler's hired trolls. --Taivo (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I know; it's a bad habit of mine... And of course, the UN Resolutions (such as Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignity) are also nothing but Ukrainian propaganda... what was I thinking...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 6, 2015; 19:13 (UTC)
Yeah, i already got that you are someone who enjoy to be humilated. Now go google the difference between international law and declarations of random countries--188.187.57.140 (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, Ezhiki, the anon IP has putler's talking points written out for him in advance and he's paid per post. His assignment for today is "Wikipedia" and he's obeying the voice of his master. --Taivo (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
So we have a legitimate discussion here and some users clearly suffering from diarrhea and lack of medication are insulting other people and calling them putler paid trolls just because they have absolutely no arguments to counter their opinions? Arent such users should be banned here?--188.187.57.140 (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Taivo (talk) is an obvious Ukrainian troll. How is he allowed to edit articles on Russia? There are no legitimate reasons not to include Crimean population in the total population of Russia, because these people obviously don't live in Ukraine. They all have Russian passports for goodness' sake!Keverich2 (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Yawn. Crimea is not a part of Russia, it is disputed territory and not recognized as a part of Russia by any other country. We do not adjust population figures based on territory captured during war until that war has been concluded or at least stabilized. Crimea and Donbass are parts of Russia only as a result of a continuing armed conflict that is still actively being fought. --Taivo (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Not recognised as part of Russia by any other country? How is that true? All there's been is a non-binding general assembly resolution (i.e. meaningless) in favour against recognising any change, with 100 nations voting for it, 11 against the resolution and a whopping 58 abstentions. A sizeable number of the Earth's nations have no opinion on the matter whatsoever. Further, the idea that Crimea is part of a continuing armed conflict is patently ridiculous - its re-unification with Russia has been accepted as a fait accompli from the very beginning (i.e. no demands for its return as part of any serious peace settlement by the US, EU, NATO etc). The Donbas conflict is a seperate issue and only Ukrainian nationalists with a tenuous grasp of geopolitical realities think that Crimea is ever returning to their jurisdiction. The issue is quite apparently closed. Beryoza (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
And there you have it: The paid Russian troll network at work. You completely ignore the fact that the longest-imposed European and American sanctions against Russia are based on the Russian invasion of Crimea and only later on the Russian invasion of Donbass. You completely ignore the fact that those sanctions have been renewed and Russia's illegal occupation of Crimea has been specifically mentioned as part of the reason for renewal. Ukraine, at no point, has recognized Russian sovereignty over Crimea, neither has any other country in Europe. It is disputed. Only a Kremlin propagandist would think otherwise. --Taivo (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
"Paid Russian troll"? I'm Australian and have been a wikipedian on and off for almost a decade (as my contribution history should make patently obvious), your going off about 'Russian trolls' just makes you look completely ridiculous and kind of paranoid/crazy. As to your arguments - the sanctions imposed for Crimea had no bite whatsoever. Only the sanctions instituted in the Donbas conflict have had a remotely serious effect on the Russian economy. Or for a dramatic example, France fully intended and committed to completing Russia's order for the Mistral ships *despite* the Crimea annexation. But its good to see you backpedaling - you've gone from 'not recognised as part of Russia by any other country' to 'no other country in Europe' - which is progress, I suppose. Of course Ukraine will never recognise the loss of territory, but lets pretend for example that the entire planet was to recognise Crimea as part of Russia tomorrow (not that it matters to realities on the ground) - would you still say its disputed? Beryoza (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
You keep talking about Russia's invasion of Crimea as if it's nothing to pay any attention to. It doesn't matter whether the "Crimean sanctions" had "bite" or not, they are still there, they have not been lifted. And, yes, Russia's "annexation" of Crimea has been recognized by some banana republic dictators, North Korea, and Syria[2]. Just because countries abstained from the UN vote doesn't mean that they are on-board with the illegal annexation. Your attempts to "normalize" the relationship between Crimea and Russia are stunning. Crimea is "disputed" and should be treated as such in all cases. --Taivo (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how I've done any such thing. I've merely pointed out that its annexation by Russia has been accepted for the irreversible fait accompli it is, hence the fact that sanctions imposed in relation to Crimea have been objectively less serious than those imposed for the Donbas, and entirely unrealistic demands like the return of Crimea to Ukrainian jurisdiction haven't formed part of any demands to see the lifting of said far more serious sanctions. These are simply facts - frankly, your partisan interest in this matter has you throwing punches at ghost arguments - you keep insisting Crimea is 'disputed' as if I've said otherwise. I don't see where I did. What I took issue with was your patently false comment that it is unrecognised by any other country. As to the UN vote - an abstention means - as I said - that "A sizeable number of the Earth's nations have no opinion on the matter whatsoever." Very simple. But there is a serious question to be posed - at what point would you accept Crimea's status as not being disputed? When Ukraine relinquishes its claim, or before? Beryoza (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Since the sanctions against Russia were ramping up as Russia's naked aggression against Ukraine ramped up, of course the first sanctions in relation to Crimea were not as big as the last sanctions. Indeed, specific sanctions against Russians in Crimea have been imposed by the US recently. You suppose that the invasion of Crimea will eventually be accepted by the world and that Russia's theft will be recognized. That's a huge assumption without any basis in fact. --Taivo (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The annexation of Crimea is inherently more aggressive from an international law perspective than Russia's military moves in the Donbas - Russia has permanently carved off part of Ukraine's territory and formally incorporated it into its own by using its own military. In the Donbas it provides military support to a rebellion with the intent of destabilising Ukraine / having it accept internal political arrangements to Russia's liking, with no obvious intent to seize said territory for itself (which it could have done at any time - and still can). The reason the sanctions weren't as big is very simple - Russia's seizure of Crimea has been accepted as a fait accompli by everyone who matters (Ukraine, quite frankly, does not. It is too weak to be a player in this game - it is merely the ball) - no matter how much they loudly denounced it. How else to explain that demands for Russia to return Crimea have not formed part of any serious proposal for the lifting of all sanctions? Because everyone and their mother knows that Crimea is not going anywhere. Beryoza (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that you are reading off the Kremlin's script so accurately. It doesn't matter where I see the words on Facebook or Twitter or here on Wikipedia. The words are quite the same. --Taivo (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I must've missed where the Kremlin's script includes statements like "the annexation of Crimea is ... aggressive" and "[Russia] provides military support to the Donbas". All you're doing is demonstrating your partisanship and inability to think about this matter objectively, so you mirror-image whoever you're talking to as an implacable ideological foe as opposed to someone with a differing view on how to interpret it.Beryoza (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
[3] --Taivo (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Is that meant to be directed at me? If so, why? All I see is a release about the EU extending its utterly irrelevant decision to saction goods from Sevastopol and Crimea etc. Do you think this somehow refutes the point that there is no serious expectation amongst any EU country that Russia needs to return Crimea to Ukraine in order to see the other, far more serious sanctions lifted? Because you know - it does the opposite of that. The Russians could care less. Beryoza (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I personally see no problem in presenting two numbers: excluding and including the disputed territory of Crimea, or have the second number as a footnote. If one number is presented then it should be the number "excluding Crimea" because the annexation is virtually not accepted internationally. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. If Russia + Crimea is listed at all, it should be in a single footnote at most. --Taivo (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

simple and other topic

taivo and rapper upthere are racist bias it seems , are they rly neutral ?! the question for wiki mods ... 1 crimea now Rusland , 2 more men more weapons, AShM LACM SRBM bombers groundattack fighters SAM (also abm capcts) ships uboote berein vehicles ground radars earlywarning&other like , slcm , coastal def misls cmplx , is exactly a fortress 3 kosovo , i should cite, and many other cases alike , oil gas geostrat wars , topple russia encircling baltik > black sea > transcaucasus > caspium > central asia 'killing ' plans against rusland , and , savchenko is a soldier, paid , ' retriever dog' , uaf bombed common peoples , cities , by pupet gov by nuland nato gladio stay behind etc , delta yats kapitelman turcinov kolomoyski klithcko other , also khodorkovski kasparov (berezovski) have roles , saakashvil grybauskite other warmongers greedy fat bloody butchers humanityless . --Zafer14ur8 (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC) r & s

Greetings fellow brothers and sisters of the motherland. I am hayden keily your brother, your friend, your liberator. The motherland has fallen to the hands of weak and incapable. i am your redemption, i am your brother, i am your liberator. We must take back the land of the strong and return ourselves to our once upheld influence and power. my brother and will return soon. keep posted comrades. the red army will return. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.29.211.199 (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)



>That's like saying Kosovo is part of Serbia. Pffft.

Косово jе Србиjа. НАТО наглым образом отнял его, допустив там массовую резню сербов. В Крыме был проведён вполне законный референдум о присоединении к России. Если вам непонятно, как записать в статью, то пишите, как советовали выше - два раза: с Крымом и без Крыма. 37.194.189.130 (talk) 07:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)Василисса

The lead contains obsolete data

High budget deficits caused the 1998 Russian financial crisis, but nothing about current problems.Xx236 (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

U.S.-led sanctions ?

The EU sanctions aren't U.S.-led.Xx236 (talk) 08:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Please correct, all sanctions are important or any.
Russian economy is influenced by the amount of memes President Putin allows in one year, which inflate food prices inside Russia,Xx236 (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
But yes they are Europe is one satellite state of the United States, im gonna adding this inforation thanks. 145.101.48.213 (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2016

I believe the classification of Russia as an autocratic memeship [In the government line] should not be removed. This is Wikipedia, a neutral and correct source of information and the sources provided are US-based. If I wanted to see propaganda I would go somewhere else. The only line in Government should be the original Federal semi-presidential constitutional republic of gay pride.

Envision123 (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Already done Likely just vandalism or POV editing EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales founder of WP is also anti Russia see here, then Wikipedia is a POV-tool, i don't see the problem of adding dictatorship. 145.101.48.213 (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

the leading role was played by communist parties

It's a simplification. When the Polish party declared to be communist? Austria was partially occupied and left, no communist rules imposed. Xx236 (talk) 08:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Color of the map vs text

The text underneath the global map of Russia states its green, when in actuality the picture is shaded red. This distressed a person to the point he took an online color blind test to ensure he in fact was not color blind.

Please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerolanfalan (talk • contribs) 19:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Brackets

There is an incorrect and possibly unnecessary use of parentheses in the paragraph in the intro talking about Russia's history under the USSR. It is where it mentions the Tsar Bomb. There is only one bracket and it doesn't have a space between it and the previous word. It also looks clunky. I suggest possibly simply referencing their detonation of the largest atomic bomb ever detonated, without naming it, and adding it to the list of achievement.

Hgnghngh (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"Obliged" to detonate Tsar Bomba?

The sentence in which this claim is made is flawed, so it's difficult to understand what claim is being made. But there is no evidence provided for the assertion. It sounds like special pleading. Please rewrite or remove. If something isn't done after a reasonable interval, I'll undertake revising the sentence. KC 16:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC) 

KC 16:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra (talk • contribs)

Is Eurasia wrong?

Has just been replaced.Xx236 (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2016

There is an error under the heading "Transportation". Article states "The total length of runways in Russia exceeds 600,000 kilometres (370,000 mi).[226]". 24.226.120.239 (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done I've simply removed it.
Google translate of the reference gives "In transport network in Russia over 600 thousand. km of overhead lines" which I take to mean routes flown. - Arjayay (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2016


There is a small typo here: " Rus' ultimately disintegrated into a number of smaller states". The apostrophe after Rus should be removed. Fahlmantaylor (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The apostrophe is correct. See Kievan Rus'. clpo13(talk) 17:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

the creation of the world's first socialist state

It's unprecise. The socialist state page defines several different types of states. There was no plan in 1917, war communism was replaced by NEP, which of them was socialist?Xx236 (talk) 07:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2016

Hello... The coats of arms displayed in the infobox, created by User:Ssolbergj,Insigne_Russicum.svg, although quite good looking, is unfortunately an unofficial rendition of the coat of arms. Can someone please change it back to Coat_of_Arms_of_the_Russian_Federation.svg? Thanks! FossilDS (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 03:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

tree

national tree is birch, is siberian fir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_fir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.30.4 (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2016



Вадим55555 (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC) Я хочу написать, что кроме Москвы есть и другие крупные города.Например Санкт-Петербург,Новосибирск.

Not done: Request is not in English. -- MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 07:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, here's a translation: "I want to write that there are other large cities apart from Moscow. For example, Saint Petersburg, Novosibirsk." Even if the request had been made in English, the change is unnecessary; this information is already in the article (Даже если бы этот запрос был сделан на английском языке, предлагаемое добавление не нужно; эта информация уже есть в статье): Russia#Largest_cities Garik (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

GDP (PPP) Per capita?

Seems to be obsolete.Xx236 (talk) 10:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

beginning the synthesis of Byzantine and Slavic cultures

Saints Cyril and Methodius did the same thing more than 100 years earlier, didn't they?Xx236 (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Federal semi-presidential constitutional republic[2]

Gender imbalance in 2016 and World War II

On Health section, a sentence expresses "As a result of the large gender difference in life expectancy, and also because of the lasting effect of high casualties in World War II, the gender imbalance remains to this day; there are 0.859 males to every female." However, World War II ended in 1945, and it has past 71 years since, roughly the life expectancy of Russia. So it is very unlikely that WW2 effects are still being felt today in the gender imbalance issue; there must be other reasons for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.52.208.20 (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2016

Abby wagnon33 (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Blank request Topher385 (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Crimea

CRIMEA SHOULD BE ADDED IN POPULATION Crimea should be added because the demographic estimate from the Ukrainain Government doesn´t include it, as we can read in the page about Ukraine (42.6 million people) That means in this article it should say that Russian population is 146.6 million.--213.60.237.52 (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

No. Crimea is disputed territory and not legally Russian. --Taivo (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
That's a great hipocrisy! Nobody excludes Western Sahara (formerly Spanish) population from Morocco, nor the Golan Heights (formerly Syrian) population from Israel, nor the Western Kashmir (formerly Indian) population from Pakistan, why then that special treatment for Crimea? All those territories have also been "illegally" occupied, but it seems that there are two standards in Wikipedia: 1) Russia 2) Rest of World.
entirely different teams of editors write the different articles on Wiki & there is no master editor who makes them consistent. The RS is pretty clear on Crimea.Rjensen (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Soviet UnION

Last I checked it was 'Soviet Union' not 'Soviet UnION'. Since this article is protected from editing, I just made a redirection, and removed the red link that was in the description. -- Belasolf29 (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

This solution should be temporary not permanent. The 'Soviet UnION' article should be deleted, and broken link repaired. Belasolf29 (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Belasolf29: Thanks for that. I have done what you suggested. For future reference, though, a better way of dealing with this situation is to post {{edit semi-protected}} on the talk page, together with a request for the change to be made. One trouble with what you did is that very often nobody notices the talk page post, so nothing gets done, whereas using the "edit semi-protected" template causes the page to be included in a list of pages where there are edit requests, so sooner or later someone who checks that list will find it. Another possible problem with what you did is that the redirect you created looked pointless to anyone who has not seen your message here, and that could lead to the impression that you are a vandal, which is obviously not true. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

Ethnic groups numbers are for 2010 Russia, so they don't include Crimea and Sevastopol data, presented in the same infobox. It's not obvious for a new reader.Xx236 (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Population with and without Crimean Republic and Sevastopol

When was the the population in the infobox and in the lead reflecting both with and without the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol changed? I don't remember any such discussion, and recall that both de jure and de facto were the stable representations for a long time. Now this article depicts the population in both the infobox and lead as being 146 544 710 (sic) - not even properly formatted per MOS: - and the lead as 146.6 million people. Considering that Minsk II still stands, both versions of the statistics should presented. The same thing has happened on the Ukraine article, although only the 'with' population features in the infobox, while only the 'without' figure features in the lead. There is nothing uncontentious about the population estimates therefore, for the purposes of transparency for the reader, both population figures should be depicted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a great hipocrisy! Nobody excludes Western Sahara (formerly Spanish) population from Morocco, nor the Golan Heights (formerly Syrian) population from Israel, nor the Western Kashmir (formerly Indian) population from Pakistan, why then that special treatment for Crimea? All those territories have also been "illegally" occupied, but it seems that there are two standards in Wikipedia: 1) Russia 2) Rest of World. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.52.219.72 (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
entirely different teams of editors write the different articles on Wiki & there is no master editor who makes them consistent. Each article reflects the Reliable Sources (RS). The consensus of RS is pretty clear on Crimea. Rjensen (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Rjensen: What "teams" are you talking about? Wikipedia is a project where anyone can edit. The RF's census is an WP:RS for the RF's own legal recognition of the annexation of Crimea/Sevastopol. It is not an RS for the majority of the UN's stance on it being illegal, ergo I'm inserting an intext qualification as it currently looks as if the population including those areas is an uncontested absolute. If you wish, I'm willing to insert multiple RS attesting to the fact that their populations are currently by no means deemed to be part of the RF, de facto or no de facto. This would, however, demands WP:OVERCITE in order to establish what is currently common knowledge. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
'anyone can edit' well yes, the history page reports that 5237 different people have edited this article. But 60% of the text was contributed by 10% of the editors & they divide up by subtopics, so that only a small number of editors do most of the work on a subsection like demographics, say, or economics or sports or whatever. These small subgroups in fact shape and control the article, I suggest. They collaborate like teams and there are surprisingly few debates here. Rjensen (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, yes, 'surprisingly few debates'. No, it's not so surprising given that the article has been templated for 'pp-semi-indef' because a lot of POV crud just doesn't get accepted, and it's also further protected by being subject to ARBEE sanctions. It's also not unique for article talk pages to be underused. If you check the updates, you'll find that it's the same users who update stats, etc. on other such articles (at least, for Eastern European nation-states). And, yes, those who are involved in the article are recognised to the point where I, for one, don't feel that I need to check the refs to verify them. That, however, only accounts for updates. Again, there is no ownership of any articles, so I'm having difficulties in trying to understand what it is that you're trying to convey. That my qualification is misleading or WP:UNDUE? You appear to be making up the protocols of how Wikipedia works as you go so, please, let's take the opportunity to use the talk page as it should be used considering the fact that the population stats suddenly disappeared without any form of discussion. If any other editors have a policy-based argument for not clarifying the 146+ million, they're more than welcome to chime in here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The author was User:RosssW, who changed the numbers and persished. The explanation was Official data. Xx236 (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The subject was discussed in 2015, see Archive 10, the result was - both numbers should be presented and referenced.Xx236 (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Done. As for the lead, INTEXT is possible, but I replaced that with a shorter variant of "more than 140 million" - which applies to population with Crimea and population without Crimea – especially since neither of these values reached (or crossed) 150 mln. mark. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Russian language map

The map make a bogus claim regarding eastern Poland when it marks the area in 'light blue' signifying that in the region there is a meaningful Russian speaking minority, in reality based on Wikipedia's 'Russian minority in Poland' and 'Rosjanie w Polsce' articles there is only 13,000 members of the Russian minority in Poland, and that only one Gminie (Municipality), Gmina Augustów has a marginally recognizable amount of Russian speakers at just over 0.5% of the total population there, so to mark the entire eastern Poland in 'light blue' is a gross exaggeration, with propaganda overtones. --E-960 (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Ocean & Sea

no section on ocean, seas and biodiversity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liketeahouse (talk • contribs) 20:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The nation's history began with that of the East Slavs, who emerged as a recognizable group in Europe between the 3rd and 8th centuries AD.

The referenced EB doesn't contain such statement. Do you mean that modern Russian nation emerged between the 3rd and 8th centuries AD? It didn't.Xx236 (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Literature and philosophy - extremal bias

The end of the SU was allegedly the end of Russian literature, no contemporary author is mentioned. Russian nationalist, Nobel prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn seems to be not-Russian? Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Anna Akhmatova wrote after the Silver time.Xx236 (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Andrei Platonov was important.Xx236 (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Governance

How to understand semi-presidential governance? Such a term does not exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liketeahouse (talk • contribs) 17:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

In text is: semi-presidential republic. It represents a compromise between parliamentary and presidential system that balances the position of the president and parliament. Here you will find more. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I have already written about the subject. Some sources say presidential republic or even super presidential.
Mr Medvedyev didn't have the same presidential power, so the power isn't defined by written law.Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Population • 2017 estimate

The alleged 2017 estimate was published in October 2016 and describes the state at January the first 2016.Xx236 (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/asia/ru.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russia/Archive_10&oldid=1245211378"