Talk:Russia/Archive 1

Thank You for fair and unbiased representation

Looking over the article, I must compliment the contributors on a fair and unbiased representation of reality, without any signs of trendy rusofobia.

Coat-of-arms is too big

A monster of an image that swallows up the article. Change it.

Bird, tree, flower

These are not listed. Anyone know these? If so, modify the article.

There's no bird, tree, or flower. This is not a US state :) --Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 17:42, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Flag

The Russia article needs a new flag. I think the one from Vexilla Mundi looks good.

Various

I think that this page needs some more history. For instance, how did so many caucasian people come to live in northern asia?

A New Country

I heard that Russia and Ukraine, or maybe Belarus are joining to make one country. Is this true? Anyone know any details, sites?

No, it is not true. There is a Russian-Belarus Union, but at the moment it is more formal then real union, anyway it cannot be recognized as a country Maximaximax 17:51, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not really sure Just made article on the Union of Russia and Belarus. Nikola 00:13, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Geog Terms

I'm not entirely clear on what to do with the names of Russian subdivisions. We prefer to give English names, rather than local, but in this case I've seen many forms used interchangeably. As it stands now, in correspondence with the Subdivisions of Russia article, I've used "district" for okrug, "region" for kray (this in line with e.g. Czech Republic and Slovakia), but I've kept Oblast, which could conceivably be changed to "province", since this is also used in English texts. However, since many different opions appear to exist on what the entities are to be called ("region" is also used for oblast, "area" for okrug and "territory" for kray), that I'd like to put it to someone more knowledgeable about Russia and its language. -Scipius 16:57 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Map

Can we cut down the size of this map so the page doesn't spread into the right border? -- Zoe

Transliteration (I)

The official name is given as "Rossiyskaya Federatsiya", but some transliterations use "Rossijskaja Federacija" - which is correct?

Not sure (especially in light of Russian-pronunciation arcana discussed below) if this is relevant, but the term "transliteration" is deceptive: it's not just a compensation for a different alphabet; different languages using the same alphabets but different orthography will have different transliterations for the same word. E.g. the name transliterated as "Prokofiev" for English texts is transliterated as "Prokofjew" [added later] or "Prokovjew" for German texts. --Jerzy 01:27, 2003 Dec 7 (UTC)

"Rossiyskaya Federatsiya" is correct. (I mean most russians use this kind of transliteration)

"Rossiyskaya Federatsiya" is an English transliteration - it mostly uses the guidelines of the English language to transliterate Russian words. "Rossijskaja Federacija" is a generic romanization, which is an official (although not very common and popular) way to represent Russian words with Latin letters - this method is not connected to the English language. It is preferrable to use the first method when transliterating Russian words in the English part of Wikipedia.--Ezhiki 11:36, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

Russia - Independence date

I was wondering why the Russian Independence date was listed as in August when it is celebrated in Russia on June 12th...

Speaking from sheer ignorance, but having WP at hand, i find at

June 12

Russian Federation - Russia Day (Independence Day) 1990

...

1990 - The parliament of the Russian Federation formally declares its sovereignty (see Russia Day below)

August 24

1991 - Mikhail Gorbachev resigns as head of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

...

1991 - Ukraine declares itself independent from the Soviet Union.

...

Ukraine: National Holiday

So perhaps Aug 24 on the Russian chart is just a clerical error.

(Now [wink], about commemorating the October Revolution in November....) --Jerzy (20:27, 2003 Dec 6 , EST)

Transliteration (II)

As for transliteration, that's up for grabs. There are several systems that work. For an English speaker, I think using the y's and the ts instead of the J and the C makes more phonetic sense, since the sounds made correspond to an English speaker's y and a ts. I assume the J-system refers to the phonetic symbol that looks like a j, is pronounced [yo] and corresponds in English to a y-consonant sound. Of course, I'm an undergrad, not a linguist, so who knows.

In any case, the sound in Russian, though closer to a [y], is often between an English [j] and [y], though doesn't always appear. In "Rossiyskaya," there is not a strong [yo].

Intro Section

Misc.

I thot i could fit all this into the summary, but no:

• I uncoupled the discussion of size from time zones, since norterliness and relative E-W elongation of Russia mean the time zones relate very little to area.
• I clarified the bordering states, since Kaliningrad makes usual format unsuitable.
• More on Russias two Baltic coasts.
• IMO, the sentence

As the largest country in the former Soviet Union, Russia still has significant international influence, particularly within the Commonwealth of Independent States, which consists of all the former Soviet republics except the three Baltic States.

could be expanded into a section. (I've already added new language "except the three". Also, "largest" (area? Pop'n?) is only one of many factors, including nuclear arsenal, and should not be discussed alone.) I've inserted a sentence, to which should be added a link to the section ("International Influence"?) once there's enough material for a section. --Jerzy 19:53, 2003 Dec 6 (UTC)

Size Comparison

I'm pleased to realize that "(more than the USA and Australia put together)" was chosen, not bcz of someone's pessimism abt how many Yanks realize Canada is bigger than the US, but simply by some kind of math error: the two countries with highest rankings by area, that combine to less than Russia, are numbers 5 and 6, Brazil and Australia, if the cited List of countries by area araticle is accurate. (Extract follows:)

1 Russia 17,075,200

2 Canada 9,976,140

3 United States 9,629,091 (w/ dependencies 9,639,810)

4 People's Republic of China 9,596,960 (w/ Hong Kong & Macau) 9,598,077

5 Brazil 8,511,965

6 Australia 7,686,850 (w/ dependencies 7,687,453)

A more intuitively useful figure stat is "the five next-largest countries, including their respective dependencies, are each 42% to 55% smaller".

Coast

I have two problems with the second paragraph. First, The Black Sea is not an inland sea. Second, the Caspian sea isn't a sea. Andres 18:52, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's good to see articles getting this kind of close reading! Tnx.

I agree that the Black Sea, tho militarily it is an inland sea (a fact of considerable significance, e.g. its role in the quest for warm-water ports), is not one in every sense. Some alternate language like "the B & C Seas (neither of which provides absolute freedom of access to the world's oceans)" or "... both to some degree landlocked" is IMO called for.

One of the definitions of "sea" (esp'ly in lowercase) is "a body of salt water of second rank more or less landlocked". If the Caspian is fresh, it still doesn't matter, bcz the captial S makes the expression "B & C Seas" identical in meaning to the mildly redundant & IMO pendantic "B Sea & C Sea": the statement is true even if neither of those Seas is a sea. But IMO that is a small matter of style, and i will not be among any quibblers if someone changes it to "B Sea & C Sea". And i hope you'll keep it up! --Jerzy 13:42, 2003 Dec 15 (UTC)

I've just noticed that

• this issue arises in the Geography section as well,
• there is redundancy between the intro & Geog sec'ns, and
• the intro sec'n is very heavy with geog. info

IMO a good intro section would be the present language

The Russian Federation is the largest country by area in the world, covering over 17 million square kilometers (and, providing perpective, the five next-largest countries, even including their respective dependencies, are each 42% to 55% smaller). Despite Russian and international attention to the decline of Russia from the role of dominating one of the world's two superpowers, Russian influence within the Commonwealth of Independent States and international affairs worldwide remains quite notable.

with most of the rest of those 2 'graphs being merged into Geography. What do others think? --Jerzy 14:38, 2003 Dec 15 (UTC)

A quote from Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries: The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article). I think the stuff about location is essential, but it should be formulated a bit more concisely. The remaining stuff is optional but I still think that given the importance of the country, it could be kept.

My proposal is:

The Russian Federation is the largest country by area in the world, covering over 17 million square kilometers in both Europe and Asia and being about half smaller than each of the five next-largest countries.

Russia borders with Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia and North Korea, and also with Lithuania and Poland (which are neighbours to the exclave formed by the Kaliningrad Oblast. Its extensive coastline stretches from the Arctic Ocean to the North Pacific Ocean, and also faces the Black and Baltic Sea as well as the Caspian Sea which is a lake.

Despite Russia has ceased to be the bulk of the world's two superpowers, its influence within the Commonwealth of Independent States and in the international affairs worldwide remains quite notable.

The rest of geographical and other information is to be relegated to the corresponding sections, and I find no trouble if it is partially duplicated. Andres 17:13, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think the thrust of your proposal is excellent. (I'm not sure the enormous list for Russia doesn't make it an legitimate exception to the template, but i think sticking to it is certainly reasonable.) The substantive difference i suggest is to cut the intro country & coast lists to the bone, and move the elaboration to the partially redundant lists in sec'n Geography. I can make that clearer by editing a copy of your proposal to put my thots into context. (While i'm at it, i'll do some copy editing; if any of my changes seem mysterious to you, i'd be glad to try to explain the usage issues.)

The Russian Federation is the largest country by area in the world, covering over 17 million square kilometers in both Europe and Asia; each of the five next-largest countries is smaller by about half.

Russia borders on Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia and North Korea, Lithuania, and Poland. Its extensive high-seas coastline stretches from the Arctic Ocean to the North Pacific Ocean; it also faces several other countries across three more confined bodies of water, the Black Sea, the Baltic Sea, and the Caspian Sea. (More details on borders and coasts, and on these "Seas" appear in the Geography section below.)

Most of the area, population, and industrial production of the Soviet Union, then one the world's two superpowers, lay in Russia. Its breakup had the effect of drastically reducing the influence of Russia, but both within the Commonwealth of Independent States and in the international affairs worldwide, Russia's influence remains quite notable.

I initially included this, which i think would be better suited to the long list in the Geography sec'n:

Its access for trans-oceanic ships also includes the more confined Black and Baltic Seas, and it faces several other countries across the salt lake known as the Caspian Sea.

Do you think we are getting closer to something we'll both like? I'll offer a version of the relevant portion of Geography, with the info i cut from here, later. --Jerzy 20:55, 2003 Dec 16 (UTC)

You made good amendments. Please don't look at my usage, as English is not my first (nor second and nor third) language. I'm sure there is no need to state that there is more information in the body of the article. I made two more (minor) amendments. My proposal:

The Russian Federation is the largest country by area in the world, covering over 17 million square kilometers in both Europe and Asia; each of the five next-largest countries is smaller by about half.

Russia borders on Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia and North Korea, Poland, and Lithuania. Its extensive high-seas coastline stretches from the Arctic Ocean to the North Pacific Ocean; it also faces several other countries across three more confined bodies of water, the Black Sea, the Baltic Sea, and the Caspian Sea.

Most of the area, population, and industrial production of the Soviet Union, then one the world's two superpowers, lay in Russia. The breakup of the Soviet Union had the effect of drastically reducing the influence of Russia, but both within the Commonwealth of Independent States and in the international affairs worldwide, Russia's influence remains quite notable.

For the moment this was just a differently indented version of your amended proposal, but now it reflects the only two things left on my mind, described after the latests version:

The Russian Federation is the largest country by area in the world, covering over 17 million square kilometers in both Europe and Asia; each of the five next-largest countries is smaller by about half.

Russia borders on Azerbaijan, Belarus, China, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mongolia, North Korea, Norway, Poland, and Ukraine. Its extensive high-seas coastline stretches from the Arctic Ocean to the North Pacific Ocean; it also faces several other countries across three more confined bodies of water, the Black Sea, the Baltic Sea, and the Caspian Sea.

Most of the area, population, and industrial production of the Soviet Union, then one the world's two superpowers, lay in Russia. The breakup of the Soviet Union had the effect of drastically reducing the influence of Russia, but both within the Commonwealth of Independent States and in the international affairs worldwide, Russia's influence remains quite notable.

Other than the killing of an "and" that i missed before in proofreading, which is now hard to notice, the only thing i did was to put the bordering countries in alphabetic order. That is bcz i intend to put them in the natural sequence that we had before in the Geography section; each has its own purpose, and the duplication is not nearly as onerous as it would be if they were in the same order. What do you think?

My personal preference is the list of the countries in a more or less natural order (I am not sure about where the natural place of Poland and Lithuania lies). In all cases I know except People's Republic of China there is a natural order. But I will start no edit war if you post your last version. Andres 03:03, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, i think you agree with me that there is no real natural order, without going into the complex language we discussed under Geography. Perhaps you would prefer to put some complexity back into the Intro, to make the natural order more feasible?

My own view is that both the alpha and the natural orders have their uses, and that the nataural is (in this special case of Russia) the more complex and bulky one, that goes better in the Geography sec'n than in the intro.

Please consider that we are not setting precedents for how other countries should be done; Russia presents unique problems, and neither you, nor i hope i, has said "let's ignore what everyone else has done". IMO we have seriously considered whether we can do it the same old way, and Russia is not the same old country. I hope you may yet decide that you're entitled to innovate a little, cautiously, sensitively, and with a touch of regret at not finding a good way to comply with the template or the consensus practice. (Rather than just give in and consent to my breaking the rules because you don't think you can out-bargain me.)

I think it may be time for you to do a bigger rewrite again of the intro. I urge you to edit boldly, in English, despite the tricky usages you were running up against. It is to your credit that you are willing to try to cope with this quirky, "melting-pot" language, and i should say what i didn't think needed to be said before, that your meaning was always clear to me, and editing your text for usage was not something that i resented or disrespected you because of. Vielleicht Deutsch ist Ihre zweite or dritte Sprache; ich bin ganz stolz darauf, daβ ich mich manchmal darauf verstanden machen kann, trotz meiner Ami-heit. Auch schäme ich mich, daβ ich so selten die Mühe machen, auf deutsch zu schrieben; ich schäme mich vor Faulheit und Feiglichkeit. Sie schrieben besser und tapferer in Ihre vierte oder fünfte Sprache, als ich in meine zweite, und mir nach, sollen Sie stolz die Amis sich errinern machen, wie wertvoll die Sprachen sind, und sollen Sie keine Entschuldigung über die Sprachverbrauchsproblemen bitten! OK? I'll be pleased to edit you for usage, and count on you to tell me when i'm ruining what you wrote, so i can try again to express better what you intended. --Jerzy 05:43, 2003 Dec 17 (UTC)

A natural order would be either Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia and North Korea

or the same order except that Lithuania and Poland are in the end.

But I don't oppose the alphabetical order in case of Russia, as any natural order would generate false images in the uninformed reader's head (though there is a map mearby). Russia is indeed exceptional in that a complete enough description of its location can't be comprised to the format of an introductory section.

Nevertheless, let me try another proposal: Russia borders on Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia, North Korea, Poland, and Lithuania (the latter two via an exclave on the coast of the Baltic Sea).

As to the rest of the introduction, I am happy with it.

English has its own beauty and charm, as do other languages. Deutsch ist tatsächlich mir einst viel vertrauter gewesen als Englisch, aber gegenwärtig ist das ganz egal, da auch Deutsch nicht meine Muttersprache ist. I count on your assistance. Andres 09:34, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

(My suggestion for the Geography section is ready to discuss, if you care to; i failed in inserting it even tho i thought i had worked around our edit conflict; will try again in a few minutes.)

The 'graph immediately above got separated from its context and signature, or i forgot to sign it; i doubt anyone cares, & i won't track it down. --Jerzy 17:27, 2003 Dec 17 (UTC)

I knew this was worth our continued discussion, and i think you've brought this within a millimeter of perfection. I'm glad you put those both down, and please look at these two welding- and wedding-togethers of them:

Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland (the latter two via an exclave on the coast of the Baltic Sea), Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia and North Korea

or

Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia; Lithuania and Poland (via an exclave on the coast of the Baltic Sea); Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia and North Korea

IMO, the difference between them (assuming you agree that both put across the meaning) is a matter of taste. What's your taste in this? (My first thought was that your words

the latter two

were needed; my second, that the structure of joining them with "and" rather than a comma makes them redundant, but to be honest, i couldn't be sure, without the semi-colons, whether the parenthesized phrase applied to the two, or to Norway thru Poland.)
Is that great or what? You done good! (Me too.)
Hope you agree. [smile]

Latest "Coast" Version

Well, I strongly prefer the first version (it's taste, of course). And then I can't see the need of the word "and". So, my proposal is (dropping an 'and' and inserting a comma):

Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland (the latter two via an exclave on the coast of the Baltic Sea), Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia, and North Korea

The word "and" suggests some special connection. To reduce this impression, I inserted the comma before the remaining 'and'.

The "and" doesn't bother me, but as you suggest, their connection is not that special, and it isn't really needed. --Jerzy 09:40, 2003 Dec 18 (UTC)

I agree that we've done a piece of real work, but I guess it is ephemeral. A third party might come and then we might need to start from the beginning. Andres 18:17, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, IMO we each had something good in mind, that was different from the other's, and we each ruined the other's idea in the process of turning it into something that was better than either. I think we've worked hard enuf on this that we should keep it on our Watchlists, and think hard abt each change we see that affects this: we're micro-experts now, on this small problem, equipped to tell the difference between the nine changes that should be reverted with 6 or 12 words about why, and the one in ten that will actually do it some good. And tho two of us working this closely make a more efficient process than that longer one, i think we can hope for not having it get bad again.

My sense is that something really done well survives a long time here. IMO watching what happens with it is worthwhile just to learn whether i'm right or wrong about that.

IMO, part of why this is good is how it fits in with the Geography sub-section we've been discussing; i'd favor inserting them at the same time, a couple days hence. One or both of us may still come up with one more tiny improvement in that time (or next month), but i'd put my money on our being done. [smile] --Jerzy 09:40, 2003 Dec 18 (UTC)

I agree with you, Jerzy. Andres 22:24, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

As to my obsession with the alpha order, it could be discarded at this point, or i could put together a table, to be used as a separate page, with some other info included that has implications for what kind of border each segement ends up being (e.g., border with Belarus is much different from that with N. Korea). But that's much less important than this. --Jerzy 17:27, 2003 Dec 17 (UTC)

Anyway, this is a good idea. It is much to be said about borders, and this topic would made a section of the geography article, or whynot a separate article. Andres 18:17, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

There's another problem with the coast: the article gives it a length of 37000 km, but this number is meaningless in isolation. No coastline has a definite length, because the length depends on the scale at which you measure it (ie: the length of the imaginary measuring rod that you use), and the smaller the scale, the greater the length. To take one example, the length given for the Norwegian coastline by the central bureau of cartography in Norway (80000 km) and the CIA World Factbook (21000 km) are different by a factor of 4. In short, either a scale for the measurement must be added (to satisfy those who think the coast has a length) or the number should be removed entirely (to reflect the fact that it does not actually have a length). (Lars Marius Garshol; 2004-12-17)

History sec'n

Imperial Ambitions

This concerns two contributions to the History section of the Wikipedia article on Russia, at least one of which reflected the idea of Russia having "continued imperial ambitions".

I happen to share the view that what may be called "continued imperial ambitions" of Russia represent a significant problem for Russia and for others, and i hope to see that view properly represented in the article. However, the 4-word contribution is not an encyclopedic presentation of that view, but rather, standing as it did, a mere slogan. Wikipedia is not a place for slogans. (Nor is it a place for controversial points of view (we say "PoVs") to have the floor to themselves, which may become relevant here.) I've moved it here (rather than simply deleting it) in order that it not be lost from our attention. I personally lack the background to write the test for the article that enumerates how those ambitions seem to be manifested. (It should be obvious from my contribution time-stamped 13:42, 2003 Dec 15 (UTC) below this, how spotty my knowledge in this area is.)

Before discussing how to create a proper context for the PoV that is embodied in the phrase "and continued imperial ambitions", it may help to outline how this discussion arose.

On December 14 (UTC), User:165.247.33.215 modified a sentence at the end of the History section, by adding the portion of the following that appears in bold-face type:

hampered by economic an imperial difficulties.

An editor reverted the article to an earlier state (in effect removing the contribution), citing the fact that "the last edit did not make sense".

I noticed that what the other editor had reverted was the contribution "an imperial". (I made a guess at what the contributor had intended to say, namely that the word "an" stood for "and". That was probably correct.) I wrote the following contribution (whose indentation i have changed to suit its new context) to this Talk page, Talk:Russia. --Jerzy 08:52, 2003 Dec 17 (UTC)

I agree that the insertion, into the current language "hampered by economic difficulties", of "an imperial", was not a constructive contribution. I assume the intended wording was "and imperial", which is not utter nonsense but is IMO still too cryptic to be left in the article. I haven't made an effort to figure out whether it's already adquately discussed, or what is the proper location for it, but IMO it is worth considering the "an imperial" contrib to be a complaint (true or false) that not enough is said, at least in that 'graph, about

• Russian bases in Georgia and IIRC one of the Baltic states
• Chechnya and other nearby Muslim insurgencies against Russian rule
• Russian support for insurgencies (or de-facto secession) against Georgia (Abkhazia and S. Ossetia, IIRC) and Moldova (Trans-Dniester Republic?), and perhaps continuing resentment in Ukraine abt the dispostion disposition of the Crimea or its naval and/or commercial port facilities
• Tatarstan, if my vague idea that Russia is still resented there is founded
• centripetal tendencies elsewhere in the R. Federation (don't remember any constituent-republic names) that perhaps have less to do with ethnicity or religion and more to do with realism about Moscow's ability to reassert full central control, and its tendency to neglect them other than to complain about tax revenues not reaching Moscow.

IMO, "imperial" is a POV, & not necessarily a helpful, term for it, but i can understand someone choosing it to summarize these relevant "difficutlies" "difficulties". --Jerzy 13:42, 2003 Dec 15 (UTC)

I've since noticed that on December 15, User:165.247.43.27 contributed the bold-face portion of this:

hampered by economic difficulties and continued imperial ambitions.

I note that this editor, based on the content and the similarity of the IP numbers, is likely to be the same as the the previous one, or someone connected closely to them.

I've removed that contribution from the article, but moved it here for future attention.

In my opinion (IMO), the removed text, and similar future contributions, should come to this section of this Talk page until such time as advocates for their inclusion in the History section of Russia point out, or provide, explanatory material, heavy on verifiable objective facts but also including coherant chains of reasoning from the facts to the controversial assertions involved. When that effort succeeds, i and other editors will turn into advocates for inclusion of at least substantial portions of that, and of contrary points of view that likely will emerge, with their own objective facts and chains of reasoning.

There is reason to believe that at least one editor inclined toward a Russian-imperial-matters slogan is less than fluent in English. While i am not prepared to make specific commitments, i have some interest in the subject; i also have some insight into the difficulties of expressing complex matters in a foreign language, and am hopeful that these would make me useful to a non-native speaker of English in helping clarify and standardize their writing. I hope for opportunities to do so on behalf of both advocates and opponents of the slogan. --Jerzy 08:52, 2003 Dec 17 (UTC)

I started an article on Russia on et:, and therefore I went through the intro of this article. I commented on seas, because I found serious problems there. While I am currently not working on the et:Russia article, I put this article on my watchlist in order to see if anyone reacts to my comments. So I got aware of the edit "an imperial". I didn't realize the intention of that contributor, and I just registered that the edit did not made any sense in that particular form.

I think it's a fact that in Russian politics there are strong centripetal tendencies (especially under Putin), but describing them as "imperial" is an interpretation that can be questioned. And I think it's a fact that Russia is interested in having as much influence on other countries as possible. But again I am not sure this should be interpreted as imperialism.

I think that in the main article there is no need to address these issues. But of course, they have a legitimate place in the articles "Poltics of Russia]], and maybe History of Russia. And even those articles will grow too long and require further splitting and so on. I think the main article should be kept as clear and factual as possible. Andres 10:20, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Post Soviet Russia

I would like to suggest deleting the following paragraph:

"With the loss of Georgia (Rose Revolution), Ukraine (Orange Revolution), and other ex-Soviet states from Russia's sphere of influence, as well as ongoing economic problems and separatism (notably in Chechnya), some commentators have suggested that there is an increasing risk that Russia itself could break up."

This paragraph is primarily not about Russia even. I would also suggest that the two countries have not necessarily fallen out of Russia's sephere of influence. Finally, the prediction that Russia will break apart, even if qualified as the opinion of some commentators, is a bit controversial. --Johnsemlak 24 August 2005

---

Geography sec'n

See also talk sub-sec'n Size Comparison

Documentation re extent

I measured these coordinates off maps in New York Times Atlas of the World, 1983; i gather it is a light revision of the (Times of London's) Times Concise Atlas of the World, 1972. The distances were computed, from the estimated coordinates below, at Ed Williams's Great Circle Calculator.

SW corner of Kaliningrad oblast: 54.46° N, 19.73° E (on a 40-mile long spit, connected to Poland, on the Gulf of Danzig; from "Scandanavia", map 27)
--
Big Diomede Isl. in Bering Strait 65.89° N 168.94° W (from "Alaska", map 116)
-- 4123.49 stat miles, 6636.12 km from Kaliningrad
(All remaining coords from "USSR", map 51)
Ostrova Mednyy, off Kamchatka Peninsula: 54.7° N 166.3° E
-- 4674.51 stat miles, 7522.89 km from Kaliningrad
Ostrova Orup in Kurils: 45.9° N 150° E
-- 4931.65 miles, 7936.73 km from Kaliningrad
SE-most of the Kurils: 43.3° N 146.2° E
-- 4999.15 stat miles, 8045.35 km from Kaliningrad

I don't trust any of my measurements well enuf to make it worth estimating my error, and i least trust the last three, where the scale, projection, and lack of printed grid lines (at the edge of the map) all handicapped me. On the other hand, i was surprised and pleased with how much the distance figures differ: the real story is about 4100s mile vs abt 5000, which are the figures i'll use in the article.

I encourage someone to at least replicate my results, preferably getting the coordinates independently and using a non-Java-based site (to get different software). (Hopefully i was not so confusion prone that i made clerical errors, but also as to that, someone else can check me better than i can check myself.) IMO it would be really nice for someone with much better cartographic skills than i to come up with good coordinates. --Jerzy 22:23, 2003 Dec 15 (UTC)

---

Possible version of part that overlaps Intro

This will replace part of current Geography sec'n) and be designated as sub-section "Details of Borders and Coasts". The most recent changes proposed are show as boldface (new) or strikethru (deleted or replaced), except as to punctuation, for which see the automated "(cur)" comparison on this page's "Page history".

The most practical way to describe Russia is as a main part (a large contiguous portion with its off-shore islands) and an exclave (at the southeast corner of the Baltic Sea).

Nearly all of Russia is a contiguous piece. (The other piece is discussed in the next paragraph.) Its The main part's borders and coasts (starting in the far northwest and proceeding counter-clockwise) are:

• borders with the following countries: Norway and Finland,
• a short coast on the Baltic Sea, facing nine other countries on its shores from Finland to Estonia and including the port of St. Petersburg),
• borders with Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, and Ukraine,
• a coast on the Black Sea, facing six other countries on its shores from Ukraine to Georgia,
• borders with Georgia and Azerbaijan,
• a coast on the Caspian Sea, facing four other countries on its shores from Azerbaijan to Kazakhstan,
• borders with Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia, China again, and North Korea,
• an extensive coastline that provides access with all the maritime nations of the world, and stretches
  • from the North Pacific Ocean including
    • the Sea of Japan (where the west shore of Russia's Sakhalin lies),
    • the Sea of Okhotsk (where the east shore of Sakhalin and its Kurile Islands lie), and
    • the Bering Sea,
  • through the Bering Strait (where its minor island of Big Diomede is separated by only a few miles from Little Diomede, a part of the US state of Alaska),
  • to the Arctic Ocean, including
    • the Chukchi Sea (where the south and east shores of its Wrangel Island lie),
    • the East Siberian Sea (where its west shore, and the east shores of its New Siberian Islands lie),
    • the Laptev Sea (where their west shores lie),
    • the Kara Sea (where the east shore of its Novaya Zemlya lies),
    • the Barents Sea (where their west shore, and the south shores of its Franz-Josef Land lie, and where the port of Murmansk and important naval facilities lie, and where the White Sea reaches far inland).

The other, disconnected piece of Russia, the exclave, constituted by the Kaliningrad Oblast,

• shares borders with
  • Poland to its south and
  • Lithuania to its north and east, and
• has a northwest coast on the Baltic Sea.)

((Here add more abt commerce thru Baltic and Black, and about Caspian Sea and its anomolous nature.)) The Baltic and Black Sea coasts of Russia have less direct and more constrained access to the high seas than its Pacific and Arctic ones, but both are nevertheless important for that purpose. The Baltic gives immediate access with the nine other countries sharing its shores, and between the main part of Russia and its Kaliningrad Oblast exclave. Via the straits that lie within Denmark, and between it and Sweden, the Baltic connects to the North Sea and the oceans to its west and north. The Black Sea gives immediate access with the five other countries sharing its shores, and via the Dardanelles and Marmora straits adjacent to Istanbul, Turkey, to the Mediterranean Sea with its many countries and its access, via the Suez Canal and the Straits of Gibraltar, to the Atlantic and Indian Oceans.
The salt waters of the Caspian Sea, the world's largest lake, afford no access with the high seas.

Take a look at that and criticize. I may also have further thots, but not yet.

--Jerzy 11:03, 2003 Dec 18 (UTC)

I find here nothing to criticize except one ")" that I struck through. Excellent work! Andres 22:36, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There is a new issue here: how to distribute material between the geography section of this article and the article Geography of Russia. In any case, I think that a description of the borders and the coastline according to countries and seas should be in this article. Perhaps it should constitute a subsection.

I went & looked at Geography of Russia earlier today, and didn't like what i saw. I suspect the template says, or once said, "use Geography of X to just dump the geographic fields of the CIA Factbook into." Which doesn't seem like a great idea. I think our trying to solve that would be an unproductive distraction, so i think we agree about keeping the subject here.

I don't think that taking into consideration that we have are envisaging a deeper article about geography of Russia is a distraction. The Geography section of this article is rapidly growing too long, I guess it already is. (Though in the case of such a huge country it is allowed to be twice longer, I think). Of course, in the other article there is just a bit of raw material, but I think we are going to change this. Andres 09:53, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

(Check my guess at what you intended after "that we".) I agree with all of that, with a slight reservation about "we". I am likely to be more helpful on copyediting than on structure and content with that part, compared to here. (The opening of an important article like Russia should be IMO a very high priority; geography of Russia much less so.) But i will add it to my Watchlist right now. --Jerzy 11:03, 2003 Dec 18 (UTC)

That we envisage something need not mean that we'll do the work ourselves. But probably I'll do something some time. Andres 22:36, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, i like the idea of a subsection too. --Jerzy 03:53, 2003 Dec 17 (UTC)

There is a problem with the expression "a contiguos contiguous piece": Russia includes islands. It would be better to say: the main part and an exclave. I think this should be said in the very beginning of the subsection. The further presentation is IMO OK. Andres 03:23, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, i was wincing about precisely that word as i started describing islands. And i like your solution. Perhaps

...the main part (a large contiguous portion with its off-shore islands) and an exclave ...

unless that's putting too much complexity into the intro again.

No, I mean the location subsection. I suggested somethimg for the intro too.

per Jerzy, the above line is from Andres 09:53, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

OK, i probably confused myself; no matter. --Jerzy 11:03, 2003 Dec 18 (UTC)

I think the Intro is the hardest part here. I'm moving back to that next, to see exactly what comments or suggestions i have there. -- Jerzy 03:53, 2003 Dec 17 (UTC)

Transliteration of Russian names

I have been trying to get someone to tell me if there is a Wikipedia standard for transliterating Russian names, but since no-one is able to advise me I am going to follow what seems to me the most sensible rule. In the name Будённый, I am going render ё as /yo/ rather than /e/ or /ye/, since that's how it's pronounced, and I'm going to render -ый as /y/ since /ii/, although orthographically correct, looks very pedantic. Thus it becomes /Budyonny/. If anyone wants to argue with me they are welcome. Adam 05:57, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Russian transliteration; I don't even speak the language. However, I've seen a lot of Russian transliterations that end with "-iy". Is this a standard transliteration of "-ый"? —Bkell 08:35, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is no standard transliteration, that's the problem. Yes, /iy/ is another possibility. Both Budyonniy and Budyenniy get some Google hits. That means that Будённый can be rendered 12 different ways: Budenny, Budenni, Budennii, Budenniy, Budyenny, Budyenni, Budyennii, Budyenniy, Budyonny, Budyonni, Budyonnii and Budyonniy. Adam 08:45, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)~

Check out [1], it has a whole history of the issue, and links to various books. The variety of Google hits you're seeing is apparently just a hint of the contentiousness of the issue among scholars. Stan 15:19, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Where to put accents?

Cantus wants to put accents on transliteration, and not on the Cyrillic text.  I have never seen a Russian transliteration with accents before. — Monedula 21:07, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And I have NEVER seen acute accents on Russian Cyrillic text, besides text books. And this is not a text book. I believe putting accents on the transliteration is a fair compromise. --Cantus 21:14, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So you have never seen a Russian encyclopedia in paper. And what can be wrong with the textbooks? At least, in Russian the acute accent always indicates the place of stress. But with the Latin-based scripts, acute accents may mean many different things. — Monedula 21:50, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Numbers

I reverted the recent changes of some numbers by anon, because these things must be documented (e.g., like Andris did). Burden of proof is on changer, not on reader. I can put population 143,782,339. Prove that I am wrong! I say, CIA forgot to tally 3 more babies made by CIA spies in Russia. Not to say that to tally up to 1 person is silly, even for CIA. Mikkalai 15:27, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Template //XXX infobox// revert war

Would you please settle this fight elsewhere? --Gene s 07:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

At the bottom, there is a list of all the countries of Europe. Isn't Kazakhstan technically in Europe along with Asia?

Exclave in Switzerland

I removed the addition of information about an apparent exclave of Russia in Switzerland, because I couldn't find any verification of its existence, and in any case I think an exclave of 24 square metres (or was it supposed to be 24 square miles?) is not significant enough to be discussed in the section about the borders of the Russian state. Worldtraveller 11:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In fact, there are few international sources talking about that exclave (e.g.: [2], p. 19). There is more knowledge of course in Switzerland itself, no idea about the Russian awareness. The exclave measures only 24 square meters, but is under full jurisdiction of Russia. Since most space is occupied by the monument anyway, there is no practical land use for Russia and it is rather a curiosity. Under this viewpoint I agree that it might not fit into the border section. El Suizo, 11:25, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Most successful

"most successful" is a point of view. "Wealthiest" is a fact. Prove that I am wrong. Mikkalai 17:46, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree, wealthiest is objective and neutral. Worldtraveller 18:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Most successful" is not a point of view. It means the person in question succeeded more than anyone else at something. It doesn't mean it's a good thing. We tend to think success is always a positive thing, but it's only positive if it's success at something positive. Superking 20:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I this context, it is a point of view of those who measure success in money. Quite a few people have different opinions. Yes, there are successful robbers. But a "successful businessman" is a person who created a succesful business. I disagree that his business was successful. Mikkalai 21:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Russia became an independent country in '91? Perhaps separate rather than idependent.

Currently the intro says: "Once the pre-eminent republic of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Russia has been an independent country since the dissolution of the union in December 1991.

It seems to me that this should be changed to "Once ..., Russia has been an separate country since the dissolution of the union in December 1991." or to ".. has been a country on its own since...". The obvious analogy with the empire break-up comes to mind. When the empire that consists of a mother country and colonies breaks up, the colonies are the ones who become independent. Objections? Irpen 22:30, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

At first, these other countries were no colonies and Russia (with its own governament and laws for example) was also just a member of Soviet Union that had its own govenment and laws. But Russia was dependent from Soviet Union - it had no own army, police and many other things that we can tell it was independent. After 1991 when Soviet Union disappeared Russia became a country on its own and get its own army, etc. MaxiMaxiMax 05:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that other republics were colonies of Russia, which would have been an oversimplification even if one would have a view along these lines. I just drew an analogy. Russia was a core of the SU and, as article puts it, a "pre-eminent republic". Max in his response himself uses "country on its own" to describe a situation more precisely. Why not have this in the article? There is really no need to debate whether, say, the Middle Asian republics were true colonies or not, in order to agree on changing of "independent" on "separate" country, or a "country on its own". Irpen 19:11, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I just expressed my opinion. I cannot improve the article itself because of my lack of English, but if you are able to do it - welcome :) MaxiMaxiMax 04:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just my two cents: emerged still sound a little odd. Pre-eminent is also slightly strange; the word connotes "most virtuous", or "best"; today many would not consider this an appropriate characterization for the leader of a dominion gained by conquest or colonization. Why not put it plainly, while referring to the fate of the USSR?:

Formerly the dominant republic of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Russia remains an independent country, and an influential member of the Commonwealth of Independent States, since the Soviet Union's dissolution in December 1991.

—Michael Z. 2005-03-25 06:42 Z

Indeed dominant seems to be better than pre-eminent in the context. However, "emerged in its present form" seems to describe the situation better than "remains independent" because Russia was not independent. Russia was in some ways synonymous to the USSR, but still not exactly the same thing. One can't say that there was an independent Russia in 1917-91. There may be a better way to say this than "emerged", but I can't come up with anything off hand. Irpen 04:49, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, that part was badly worded. Sometimes it's easy to overlook the simplest version:

Formerly the dominant republic of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Russia is an independent country, and an influential member of the Commonwealth of Independent States, since the Soviet Union's dissolution in December 1991.

This sounds very well, I think. Juct changed in the article accordingly. Irpen 18:49, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Page move

Isn't it right to move the page to Russian Federation? Mikkalai 04:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that "Russia" is used more often than "Russian Federation". Additionally, Russian Constitution states that the names "Russia" and "Russian Federation" are equivalent. — Monedula 05:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Size of economy

The description of the size of economy could be toned down: although most of people know what GDP is, it could be mentioned that $1.5 tr. is a purchasing power parity adjustment. World Bank lists "pure" gross national product as $374.8 bn as of 2003 (rank 16 in 2003). Gaidash

Avars

This article mentions the Avars but WIkipedia has two articles about Avars: Caucasian and Eurasian. To which does this article refer? Jaberwocky6669 22:01, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Land area

Russia has covered more land area than the Soviet Union. In the 19th century, the Russian Empire covered pretty much everything the Soviet Union did, plus Finland, and part of Poland. At least that's how I remember it. — JIP | Talk 5 July 2005 19:29 (UTC)

Armenians

An anon (with no other contributions) recently changed their percentage in 2002 census fom 0.8% to 1.8%. I reverted, but I'd like someone to verify the numbers. mikka (t) 9 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)

Most sources say 0.79% Armenians in the 2002 census. I have not seen any mentioning 1.8%. --Lysy ^(talk) 19:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Economy

I find it amusing that of all foreign companies heavily investing in Russia only an alcoholic beverage company is mentioned. "Vodka, balalaika, matryoshka".... mikka (t) 16:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic groups in Russia

Under the Demographics section, is the order for the remaining ethnic groups based on population or is it just random? I suggest it changed to an alphabetical order or, if it is indeed in order of population, that it say so ("in order of population").

The list: Mordvins, Belarusians, Georgians, Avars, Kazakhs, Udmurts, Azerbaijanis, Maris, Germans, Evenks, Ingushes, Inuit, Kalmyks, Karelians, Koreans, Chinese, Ossetians, Dolgan Nenetses, Tuvans, Yakuts and still others

--Sir Edgar 08:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

And 10% seems really huge chunk for "others". Does anyone have access to some more specific data for the Demographics of Russia article ? --Lysy ^(talk) 09:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for arranging the list in alphabetical order (and stating it as such). I guess the order is irrelevant since they are all under 1% each.--Sir Edgar 09:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

As a sidenote: 1% still makes much above a million, which can be quite significant minority, especially if concentrated in a smaller region. --Lysy ^(talk) 10:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete this article

Another typical wikipedia anti-Russian propaganda - how is it possible that section Corruption in this article bigger then section Culture? If you hate Russians so much just forget about them - delete this article. Believe me, nobody in Russia is interested in your opinion, we know who you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.173.131 (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Currently Russia's role in geopolitics is most prominently a nation run by a corrupt dictator who has undermined the democratic processes of other nations, particularly the UK and US, by information warfare and other means. The prominence of a discussion of Russian corruption is thus completely appropriate in this article, as it reflects the main way Russia interacts with the world in the present time. 139.225.127.20 (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)