This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 10 months ago34 comments5 people in discussion
Is there a reason for the page containing information about Russian history starting from Kievan Rus'? Wouldn't it be more proper to begin russian history from Principality of Moscow like you did with Belarus? 5.248.199.38 (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Which text of the respective articles do you mean? Certainly it should be clear that Kyivan Rus was not Russia. —MichaelZ. 21:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
And Belarus currently says “Duchy of Polotsk 987,” and Ukraine “Kievan Rus'
882.” These were all parts of their histories, and seen as symbolic predecessors, but none were formations of the respective states. Strangely, the Golden Horde and Grand Duchy of Lithuania are not mentioned. Indeed we should get a coordinated consensus to treat them equivalently and not pander to political POV. —MichaelZ. 14:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
If we are talking about Polotsk in 10th century, this can be seen as the beginning of Belarus statehood. So it should be no different for Russia, which statehood started from Principality of Moscow only in 13th century. Is there any reason to begin russian statehood from Kyivan Rus'? 5.248.199.38 (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
And yet traditional Russian accounts of their nation's history always did begin with Kyivan Rus. Where Putin's rewriting of the history books have left this I'm not sure. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
You know, North Macedonia also accounts that it is descendent from ancient Macedonia. But it doesn't make sense. It would make more sense to begin russian history from Principality of Moscow, isn't it? 5.248.199.38 (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Three states trace their national traditions to Kyivan Rus that was on parts of their territory. But they cannot trace continuous statehood to it, nor claim it as their nations’ state (if anything, though, the throne of Kyiv was inherited by Volyn and then the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia, not Suzdal and Muscovy). Their states’ legal identities began later. Russia was not Kyivan Rus.
So I find it questionable to list Kyivan Rus under “Formation” as an “establishment event” or whatever. We don’t list the Roman Empire in the infobox of France, Italy, or Spain, Ancient Athens or Byzantium for Greece, nor the establishment of the United Kingdom for the United States. —MichaelZ. 14:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't say Russia got national traditions from Kievan Rus'. Overall, endless autocratic regime and asian traditions is something Kyivan Rus' never had. But if we are talking about Rus', at the time of its existence it was the name of ethnic group of people around Kyiv and their domains(Polotsk, Novgorod, Galicia etc.). At this point Rus' can seen as the first statehood of Ukraine, like Polotsk for Belarus, but certainly not for Russia. So I think you'll probably need to cancel this formation quote. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I mean after Kyivan Rus fragmented the principality of Kyiv continued to exist, but the new state of Muscovy had nothing to do with it. —MichaelZ. 22:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Not all parts of Kyivan Principality were considered as Rus', you know. Country of Rus' is merely the land of ruses/polanians, that were gathering tribute from other conquered tribes. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 06:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
No, I do not know. Tribute paid to Polanians in the ninth century or whenever has nothing to do with the title of Prince of Kyiv from the mid thirteenth. —MichaelZ. 06:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Huh? Are you talking about mongol period? The title of prince of Kyiv was still meaning the ruler of Rus'. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
The question is incorrect and meaningless. It's almost trolling. Originally the Principality of Moscow was just a subdivision of the Grand Principality of Rostov/Vladimir/Suzdal. No new statehood emerged in Moscow. It was simply the power of the Grand Princes of Vladimir (Prince Andrey Bogolyubsky in 1169 captured Kiev and became Grand Prince). Then you have to ask about the beginning of Russian statehood from the Grand Principality of Vladimir. Also, there is no change in the question of the beginning of Russian statehood and the consensus is the same. Proto-states or states existed before the year 862 (see Rurik's state, Primary chronicle and pre-862 rule of Scandinavians and "northern confederation of tribes", Rus' Khaganate, Paphlagonian expedition of the Rusʹ, Siege of Constantinople (860), Caspian expeditions of the Rusʹ, Slawiya, Kuyaba, Arthania, Saqaliba, Volga trade route and others). But traditionally the creation of the Russian state is the calling of the Varangians (Rurik dynasty) in the year 862 (see also Veliky Novgorod/Holmgård and Staraya Ladoga). Then "the capital of Kievan Rus’ moved in 882 from Novgorod to Kiev after Rurik’s successor, Oleg, captured this southern city". [1] There is a point of view that the first capital of Kievan Rus was Novgorod and the second capital was Kiev. But there is also another point of view. "According to the traditional account presented in The Russian Primary Chronicle, it (Kievan Rus) was founded by the Viking Oleg, ruler of Novgorod from about 879. In 882 he seized Smolensk and Kiev, and the latter city, owing to its strategic location on the Dnieper River, became the capital of Kievan Rus." [2] "Founded" in Kiev or "became the capital"/"moved to Kiev"? There are different traditions. Cite sources. Even the different Britannica articles have different information. All this has no relation to Putin's propaganda and does not exclude other traditions, but the scientific consensus for Russian history is unchanged. First, carefully read reliable sources. Nothing has changed in the last decades. But the indication of the year 879 is definitely a mistake. ruASG+1 14:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
The first source above is a textbook company that copies stuff from online sources, including Wikipedia. The second source above does not support that Russia is Kyivan Rus: in fact it introduces statehood with “The Russian republic was established immediately after the Russian Revolution of 1917 and became a union republic in 1922.”[3] —MichaelZ. 14:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
You didn't say anything new. All reliable sources are in principle cited in various Wikipedia articles in Russian, English and other languages. You, as a native English speaker, have the ability to read all the sources and write a good article. There is a "history" section in Britannica and it does not start with 1917 or 1991. Britannica does not say exactly about "statehood". At least 3 dates of the beginning of statehood are true. The "traditional" date is 862, the date of the "de jure" modern statehood is November 7, 1917 and the date of the "real" statehood and "independent" statehood is December 26, 1991. At the same time right now the Russian Empire is under state immunity as the Russian Federation is under state immunity and the Russian Empire is officially recognized as its predecessor. This applies to the debt of the Russian Empire, for example. It is impossible to mention only one date for the beginning of statehood. This is very funny, but it is not something new in world history. By the way, I have read an article about Russia in Britannica and it is sometimes incorrect, outdated and sometimes focuses on details, but does not tell the whole situation in economy or politics, i.e. it is also cherrypicking. It is possible to find reliable sources to disprove Britannica, but that work is not for me. ruASG+1 16:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Brittanica seems quite careful in its language while describing states that existed partly on territory now in Russia. It refers to each of the Russian republic, the USSR, and the RF as a “new state.”
Reliable sources do not say that the Russian Federation is the continuator of a state that started in 862, 882, or any time like that. In fact, today there’s a fair bit of writing about the Kremlin’s misuse of such a myth. 1263 is a date of its possible predecessor’s beginning as a state entity, however it wasn’t fully independent until it stopped paying tribute to the Crimean Khanate, I believe in 1701. —MichaelZ. 18:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
None of this is a problem. See Iceland, for example. The Russian Empire was obviously a continuation of the Rurik's state founded in 862. The Russian Federation is obviously the continuation of the Russian Empire and the Russian Republic (and the USSR as agreed). The turning points in 1917 and in 1991 may be much more controversial than the year 1263. In this logic, any dates from the history of the Rostov land, Rostov-Suzdal principality, the Grand Duchy of Vladimir fit better. The city of Rostov was mentioned in 862. In 911 Rostov was named among the five largest cities, subordinated to Kiev's Prince Oleg. First Novgorod princes sent to Rostov their viceroys, and after 882 Kievan princes sent viceroys to Rostov. The first Rostov prince was Yaroslav the Wise. The belonging of Rostov and Suzdal to the possessions of Monomakh was confirmed by the Lubech council of princes. In 990 Vladimir Svyatoslavich built a small fortification on the bank of the river Klyazma. In this place Vladimir Monomakh in 1108 began large-scale construction of the city of Vladimir. In 1125 Yury Dolgoruky moved the capital of his possessions to Suzdal and created the Suzdal principality. In 1155, Andrey Bogolyubsky left Southern Rus' and moved to Vladimir, which he chose as his residence. In 1157 the capital of the principality was moved from Suzdal to Vladimir. Prince Andrey Bogolyubsky in 1169 captured Kiev and became Grand Prince. You can choose any date other than the year 1263. Do not overestimate the role of the principality of Moscow in that period. The year 1263 is rather meaningless because the principality of Moscow was simply a subdivision within a country. The principality of Moscow emerged as a udel'noye kyazhestvo ("part principality", i.e. subdivision) headed by udel'nyj kyaz' ("prince of a part", "feudal prince", "unit princes"). The meaning of the word "appanage" does not fit because of Rota system, as I understand it. The Great Russian Encyclopedia explains the term as follows. [4]
"Udelnye Princes are heads of vassal and kinship state formations (parts, units) within the principalities of North-Eastern Rus' (14th-15th centuries). The princes originated from the Rurikovich and Gediminovich dynasties, were blood relatives in the male line of the great or "capital" princes. In the system of grand principality of Vladimir in 14th century (till 1389) unit princes existed in practically all principalities - Moscow, Tver, Nizhniy Novgorod, Yaroslavl, Rostov, Starodub and, most likely, Belozersk. Unit princes had vassal obligations in relation to "capital" princes. The position, possessions of unit princes, their mutual relations with rulers of great or "capital" principalities and accordingly the senior members of Rurikovich's princely branches were defined by testamentary orders of "capital" princes. In principle, the unit princes had no right for independent relations with the khans of the Horde. The exceptions were the cases of open struggle of unit princes against representatives of the ruling (senior) line for supreme power in the principality or for transformation of an unit principality into an independent principality. In the relations of unit princes with the ruling princes, vassal obligations were in the first place: they were obliged to be together with the head of a great or "capital" principality everywhere and in everything (including against any enemy), to guard his interests and not to conspire against him, not to conclude treaties with anyone, except other unit princes of the same great or independent principality, not to claim the lands of the great or "capital" prince, under his command to participate personally in military operations at the head of their troops or to send their military leaders under the command of Great Princes' military leaders. In turn, the heads of the great or "capital" principalities assumed obligations, taking into account their common (clan) and individual interests, to include the local princes in the concluded treaties, to maintain them in brotherhood, love, honor and without offense and to patronize them, their ancestors and his estates. The escheat parts remained in the same principality and were at the command of the great or "capital" prince. Transformations of the units into independent state formations were very rare: for example, the Molozhsk principality was separated from the Yaroslavl principality, the Pronsk principality was separated from the Ryazan principality. In the 1490s the unit princes ceased to be junior partners of the rulers in international treaties. Grand Prince of Moscow Ivan III Vasilievich in his testament of 1503 strictly limited the rights of his younger sons and generally their prerogatives, which had at least some state significance (the ban on minting money, limiting the judicial functions of unit princes). Three of the four unit princes did not receive permission to marry and died childless."
Saying “obviously” doesn’t replace reliable sources nor make things true. —MichaelZ. 17:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
This not trolling by any mean. Spanish Empire is not Peru's statehood for example, why would Kyivan Rus' be russian statehood? Then russian history should start from the time when Muscovy became independent from Vladimir-Suzdal. "Beginning of Kyivan Rus' in 862 in Novgorod" is mostly promoted by russian nationalists and russian propaganda. The attention can be focused on Askold and Dir coming to Kyiv instead. The name of Rus' associates with ukrainian middle Dnipro territory, and what Russia has to do with it? What "sources" should I cite? 5.248.199.38 (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Russian-speaking people can read the Journal of the Ministry of Educaton published in 1852 (page 237), the documents for the monument to the Millennium of Russia, the section on the history of Russia in the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedia or the history of Russia in the modern encyclopedia Krugosvet. The year 862 as the first event in the history of Russia is widely accepted as a scientific consenus in Russia and Russian history. You can find dozens of sources. Putin did not invent it. Historians and officials in Belarus and Ukraine can also consider the year 862 as the beginning of their statehoods. This is not a problem. Perhaps the problem is the monopolization of this "line of statehood" for religious reasons. Of course, from a modern point of view, there is no reason to monopolize "statehood". Even modern Russia, the USSR, the Russian Republic and the Russian Empire are 4 largely different states. They are other states, but not foreign states. And the "tradition of statehood" and the "same state" are different things. But all is OK with this "line of statehood", by which we mean the existence of not a foreign states, but our state on our territory populated by our people. Is the Rostov principality or the Grand Principality of Vladimir a foreign state in relation to the Russian Empire? And in relation to modern Russia? Who built the Cathedral of St. Sophia, Novgorod in relation to modern Russia? A foreign country? A foreign nation? Foreign people? This is impossible both in the scientific world and among ordinary people. Other people and nationalist traditions of separate countries can think as they wish. One tradition does not interfere with the other, except in cases of monopolization of historical events. ruASG+1 13:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Putin did not invent it, but Muscovite tsars did. They claimed, turning upside down the meaning of 862 quote with Rurik, that Rus' actually came from their territory, and Rurik is a descendant of the Roman Emperors, therefore Muscovy is a continuation of the Roman Empire. None of this is more than pseudo-scientific nonsense, and if someone writes works with such propagandistic information, then they do not take into account at least the fact that the name Rus' referred to the tribe of Polanians and their ethnic territory in the Middle Dnipro region. So what "consensus", what are you talking about?
"Who built the Cathedral of St. Sophia, Novgorod in relation to modern Russia? A foreign country? A foreign nation? Foreign people?" yes, a foreign country, a foreign nation and a foreign people. Remind me, when Muscovy conquered and destroyed the Novgorod Republic, then exterminating the entire population of the city for disobedience to the muscovite prince? It is astonishing you are even asking such questions. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Moscow, third Rome is a religious concept associated with the defense of Orthodoxy after the decline of Byzantium. It is related to the Christianization of Kievan Rus' and the "Catholic" "occupation" of Rus', rather than some false ethnicity of Rurik which I am hearing about for the first time in my life. I noted above that ideologizing and monopolizing for religious reasons is bad enough from a modern point of view. And there were crusades against the Baltic and against Northern Rus' to teach the right faith. There were religious wars all over Europe and far beyond. Nothing unusual. By the way, the official language of the Great Principality of Lithuania was Old Belorussian. Very good. It still does not change the "line of statehood" in the Great Principality of Vladimir in any way. We cannot just rewrite history retroactively and erase from history those princes who ruled simultaneously in Novgorod, Rostov, Kiev, Suzdal' and Vladimir-on-Klyaz'ma. First, the Novgorod dialect greatly contributed to the development of the Russian language and yes, Novgorod was the target of the wars of the prince of Moscow. There was a whole series of Vladimir-Novgorod wars and Moscow-Novgorod wars. Civil wars and wars between princes were regular events and common practice even before Rurik. Nothing unusual. There is still no relation to the "line of statehood" of modern Russia. ruASG+1 17:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
It's not "defense", simply an attempt to extend history of young state based on the falsification of history. Only Kyiv and near territory was Christianized. Northern regions were not Christianized. Those, who were coming from Kyiv to territory near future Moscow to spread Christianity were mostly killed by local finno ugric people. Novgorod Republic has nothing to do with modern day Russia. Russian language is basically an Church Slavonic with multiple turkic influence.
Novgorod language was even closer to Old Polish rather than Old Ruthenian/Ukrainian language. Any way, coming back to the suggestion, Kyivan Rus' as first statehood of Russia makes little sense, so it should be correct to start from Muscovy instead, not Kyivan Rus'. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
What is funny? I remind you, the topic is about removing Kyivan Rus' from "russian statehood". If there's no reason to keep it, it should be removed, so, your answer? 109.237.92.26 (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
By the way, the question of names is quite separate. Rus' is first of all a Scandinavian people. Indeed, as a geographical term Rus' in the narrow sense and common speech a thousand years ago really means the Middle Dnieper. There is a capital and perhaps the largest concentration of Scandinavians. And in a broader sense, Rus' is all the territories where the predominantly eastern Slavs lived under the rule of the Rurik dynasty and which were part of the Rota system and recognized themselves as part of a single country or confederation. Okay. Let's say Russia and Belarus stole the name Rus' from Ukraine. We can rename Russia as Rostovia, Moskovy, Vladimiria or Monomakhia. And the people of Ukraine can rename it as Kievan Rus or Ruthenia. No problem. I support it. What will change with the "line of statehood" of "Rostovia"? Nothing. What will change with the "line of statehood" of Ukraine? Nothing. The princes of Novgorod, Rostov, Kiev, Suzdal' and Vladimir-on-Klyaz'ma are the same people from the same dynasty and who are part of the same Rota system and who rule the Orthodox Slavic peoples speaking East Slavic language(s). The statehood of "Rostovia" still begins in 862 at the calling of the Varangians. And the calling of the Varangians is still a common legendary event for Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, if the people and historians want to recognize it as part of their history. ruASG+1 16:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Balderdash (Russian imperial historians invented the name Kyivan Rus). You wouldn’t write confusing essays if reliable sources said that the statehood of the Russian Federation began in the ninth century. —MichaelZ. 18:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I know, but it seems that term Kievan Rus' began to be used in a different sense. There are plenty of sources. You can find sources on Google, which no one would consider pro-Putin. I am not the author of the idea of this discussion. Sources from the 1990s are hard to find and after 2000 theoretically many sources can be called pro-Putin. So I did the most interesting part of the work and gave links to 19th century sources above. They are pro-imperial, but not pro-Putin. =)) ruASG+1 19:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
You moved to normanist antinormanist topic. Origin of the name can be either Scandinavian, Slavic or something else. The Rus' will still be people in Middle Dnipro, did they took that name from someone or it was always their name doesn't matter that much. "There is perhaps the largest concentration of Scandinavians" no, why would it be? If we take the information from chronicle, Novgorod was the main place for Varangian settlement, even though most likely it was not. It didn't make Novgorod Rus', Varangians in Novgorod were paying tribute to Kyiv just like any other slav. "And in a broader sense, Rus' is all the territories where the predominantly eastern slavs" umm, no. Rus' in wider sense is all the territories that were under Kyiv influence or were paying tribute to the city. This includes finno ugric tribes as well, and could have include people of other origin if Kyivan Rus' conquered more territory. Rurik dynasty is term created by muscovite tsars, there was no such term in Kyivan Rus.
Well, if you actually think about, renaming russia into Muscovy would be correct, since the name "Russia" was mainly imposed by propaganda, and modern "muscovite tsars" are using this name for the same reason.
There was no such state as "Rostovia" in 862. The topic was generally about Kyivan Rus', as we can see there's no reason to mark Kyivan Rus' as first statehood of Russia. I believe this should probably be excluded. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Don't do cherrypicking. The Rota system existed even if the term "Rurik dynasty" did not exist. The princes of Rostov, Suzdal, Vladimir and many other princes were part of this system. Kiev was the collective property of the Rurikids. Princes like Yuri Dolgorukiy, Vsevolod the Big Nest, Yaroslav II of Vladimir and Alexander Nevsky were both princes of Kiev and Vladimir. I understand the rest. When Kievan Rus' conquered more territory and everyone pays tribute, it's a good thing. Everything else is bad. It's OK. ruASG+1 20:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Kyiv was not property of anyone. Viceroys from Kyiv were ruling in the conquered regions, anyone of them could became Kyivan Prince legally by this system. You understand, ok. Are you an administrator here? I am still waiting an answer to my suggestion. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Including Belarus on the map of Russia as part of the Union State.
Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Considering that the EU is shown on the maps of other European states Wikipedia articles, and that the Union State of Russia and Belarus is a rather similar union, perhaps we should show it on the map? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Republics
Latest comment: 9 months ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Article states there are 22 republics. The article about republics in Russia says there are 21 recognized republics. Wikifan153 (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
It seems as if the 22d republic is the Republic of Crimea. Given that it isn't fully recognized as part of Russia and the article on republics of Russia does not count it, I think we should change it to 21. Wikifan153 (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
It's not the division that isn't recognised, but the actual territory. I note the current map is hashed but without explanation, we should have some sort of note to explain the numbers. CMD (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
You mean the division of the actual territory that isn’t recognized is recognized? That is not the case. No one has recognized it. —MichaelZ. 22:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
An odd reading. CMD (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
To bring it back to the OP, perhaps it’s better to say there are 21 republics (and N oblasts, &c.) within the internationally recognized borders of Russia. —MichaelZ. 01:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
That would be a tangent from the topic of the section, and not how it's done on similar pages. CMD (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
There is actually an old note, I've expanded it to include 2022. CMD (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Spelling standardisation needed
Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There are a few -iz(e) spellings which should be changed to -is(e). PurpleQuaver (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Ethnicity
Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
For the ethnicity portion of the infobox, would it not better to use the 2021 percentages in the "% of those who declared ethnicity" column here:
On 07:12, 28 July 2023, they made another removal of a map, thumb, with the rationale, "Rv, infobox already has a locator map. Not the place of country articles to host maps of each border section".
I don't think the position of the editor is reasonable. Most readers only check the infobox and the lead of articles in Wikipedia, where they should find ideally the most important information of the page. I have found myself frustrated by the lack of proper visual information in the infobox. Many times I seek information about a country to see where it is located and its neighbors, only to find a map that provides no information about what are the names of the neighbors of the country. Therefore, I find the infobox incomplete. Other editors have found my rationale reasonable and at least one have shared the same frustration (see discussion Talk:France#Removal of map).
Russia is the largest country in the world by area. As such, providing only one map in the infobox for information is not enough. For that reason, I added the map File:Map of Russia-en.svg, depicting the whole of Russia and its immediate neighbors. But I find that because of the size of the country, more maps focusing on certain regions of the country were needed in the infobox to provide a better visualization of the position of Russia among its neighbors.
I believe many readers come looking for the specifics of the international borders of Russia, probably much more than for other items in the infobox like its coordinates, its demonym, its Gini, or its HDI. Therefore there should be maps of the borders of Russia that are labeled with the names of the relevant countries.
It is standard to have a locator map of each country, which already does show the surrounding area. Infoboxes cannot have everything, they are 'at a glance' sources of information. Maps could show a million different things, so we show the location. If you want labelled maps of the world, there are many places to find them. Similarly there are other maps for other purposes. As to the title of this section, this was also not a 'removal" really, but a reversion of edits which include one map which is very blurry and appears to have a Microsoft Office star shape in the default palette. CMD (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
It is standard to have a locator map and there should be more maps in the infobox to provide important information at a glance. Considering that switcher templates make maps only one or two lines each, it is reasonable to have such useful information in place. A picture is worth a thousand words. Per MOS:NOFORCELINK, "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links". It is better to provide important info in the infobox instead of making people search other pages. And as I indicated, it is not just my opinion but other editors share my opinion to a large degree or even completely.
About the star, for your information I used an open source program, not proprietary software. You are grasping at straws.
Open source program that imitates the default Microsoft Office palette, my apologies. There is as I mentioned a million things that could be included in maps, but we can't fill the infobox with a line for each. The more items, the less impactful the existing ones. If you want a general change across all countries to have labelled bordering countries (and seas?) be a standard inclusion, I suggest you raise a centralised RfC. CMD (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Or the default Microsoft Office palette imitated open source programs' palettes. After all, open source can be used commercially.
There are a million things that could be included in articles as well, but we can't just add everything. The key words are "important info". Of course we need to decide what information is due in an infobox and a lead. We simply have a different opinion on what is acceptable, necessary, or useful to include. Thanks for the suggestion of the RfC, I was thinking about going through the dispute resolution ladder but certainly a centralized RfC may be the route. Meanwhile, other editors' opinion are welcome as well.
Seems like the same case as at Talk:France#Removal of map. I'll say what I said there: Support keeping both maps. It's intensely frustrating to come to a major geography article and find either a broader-geographical-context map or an internal-divisions map missing. Both are important encyclopedic information. And if this has anything to do with PNG format: SVG fetishism is tedious; there is no guideline or policy support for deleting images because they are in PNG format. PS: It is not necessarily important that both map types be in the infobox itself, as long as they are both near the top of the article so the reader can find them "above the fold" and without having to dig around for them. But putting them in the infobx ensures this. PPS: The general-geographic-region map is the more important one to have ealier; more readers are probably looking for "What is Russia next to?" than "What are the constituent parts of Russia?". — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 03:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Let's not spam the info box with random images. Moxy- 00:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
What is spam for you in this case is very important information for me and many readers who want to know what is Russia. Therefore, several maps should be in the infobox because it is the place most readers limit themselves to. But as usual, the deletionists against the inclusionists. Sincerely, Thinker78(talk) 02:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Will have to.disagree.....several images in the lead is clearly undue in most cases and may cause accessibility problems for many. No need to have the same maps 2 times in articles lIke topography weather Etc. Pls review MOS:IMAGELEAD. Moxy- 02:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
In most cases is not in all cases and depends the topic.
I read MOS:IMAGELEAD. Any specific guidance within you wanted me to be aware of?
"accessibility problems". I am all ears. I am sensible to that issue. Can you expand?
MOS:IMAGELEAD Images should be related to the text they are by. For example here you added administrative divisions and a weather map that are both already included in the article (in a more accessible format) and are not mentioned in the lead. Your edit summary seems to be related to Wikipedia:Lead fixation. As per our research of how readers navigate articles....the TOC will lead readers to these maps there are already in the proper sections as the TOC is widely used see data here. We also need to be careful not to fill the lead with to many images as most country articles already have three to five files in them... including flag, coat of arms Etc..... last thing we want for our country articles is a scrolling nightmare as seen at many city articles like New York City.... as we know most people will only scroll once and we're hoping that leads them to more WP:PROSE or the TOC in mobile view over just more images.... (see data link above for stats). We should try to retain our readers by leading them to more prose information or the TOC in mobile view for navigation. Moxy- 03:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
@Moxy, it is certainly controversial that you relate in an unclear manner my edit summary to lead fixation. Can you clarify the relevant part of said essay? Thanks. Thinker78(talk) 04:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
What effect? You are starting to make me feel uncomfortable. Thinker78(talk) 04:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Just to clarify regarding the lead fixation thing, I created the map of Guatemala and Russia, among others, out of a desire to provide other editors important visual information about the country. I noticed that in countries' articles there is no proper map with the names of the neighboring countries.
Oftentimes, there is even only a projection with the country showing small within the continent, which provides no clear idea of the country at hand. I was annoyed by such lack of information and decided to make maps to fill what I felt was a gaping hole in the infobox, illustrated by SMcCandlish feelings as well.
I do believe providing a map with the neighboring countries names is one of the most fundamental data of a country page, because likely readers come to this pages to have an idea where the country is at. In the case of Russia, as I stated elsewhere in the thread, it is a specially big country that needs more maps in the infobox for better info to readers.
According to the very page you shared (Research:Which parts of an article do readers read), 60% of readers in non-tablet mobile devices only check the lead, which backs what I stated that "Most readers only check the infobox and the lead of articles in Wikipedia".
You said the "last thing we want for our country articles is a scrolling nightmare". The New York City page you linked to has a gallery of many images in the infobox. A switcher template, which I use, doesn't display all the maps but provides for the reader to choose a caption in order to display it.
Also, the maps I added (which, again, appear only as a short caption and not as a full map unless desired) likely provide more sought after information than other items already in the infobox like the Gini, HDI (don't know what is it), Driving side, the Calling code, the Internet TLD (which I have no idea what it means).
No idea why you and the other editor balk at the maps of the borders that provide crucial info but are ok with such overly specific information in the infobox.
I agree the info box is already overloaded with useless data....but this is the data we put in after many many talks despite my misgivings. Last thing we need is more random stuff. Moxy- 04:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Do you really think that providing fundamental info in the form of maps about where the country exactly is is random stuff? Really. Amazing. Thinker78(talk) 05:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
But that's not all our adding is it Haiti? It's clear at this point the bulk of these edits do not currently have consensus for inclusion. Moxy- 05:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
In Haiti I added maps that other editors made, none of them were made by me. In there I did not limit maps for borders but the maps additions I included were limited to FOUR short lines of captions, less than 10% of the number of lines of the entire infobox.
Maybe in this thread there is no consensus because two editors including myself favor inclusion and two editors including yourself are opposed. But regarding those other countries, my edits stood for a while which meant there was implicit consensus for them until you reverted them. Read the WP:CONSENSUS policy. And as you said yourself, you wanting to exclude information from the infobox have not had the support from the community.
Best be honest Haiti: Revision history maps added then removed in under 48 hrs...then restored by you and removed again in 7 mins by another editor. Moxy- 12:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
@Moxy You are not that collegial in discussions are you? Can you try to be collegial instead of having this useless accusatory tone? Because you are basically accusing me of dishonesty. Kindly read the WP:CIVILITY policy.
Besides, I was talking about "other countries", not limited to Haiti. For example, in the page Guatemala, on 07:16, 27 May 2023 I added a map. It stood undisturbed for almost two months. Then I added maps and you reverted.
The article you referred to in this discussion was Haiti. Making a mass change across a number of articles to see where you won't get reverted is not a strong argument, and can become disruptive. If you want to cudgel someone about civility, do it on an admin noticeboard. CMD (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
This discussion is being derailed by lack of collegiality and false accusations. I call on the relevant editors to remain composed and address the edits in a professional and collegial way. It is ok to disagree, it is not ok to make false accusations. Sincerely, Thinker78(talk) 03:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2023
Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Russia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Latest comment: 8 months ago9 comments8 people in discussion
The EU considers Russia a terrorist nation, why isn't this mentioned? Preferably in the first sentence of the article. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
A 'state sponsor of terrorism' not a 'terrorist nation' but comes from this (additional: 1, 2, 3) Tweedle (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Which is something we already say towards the end of the Independent Russian Federation section. HiLo48 (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
This has been discussed at length before and doesn't need to be entertained any further. michael60634 / talk / contributions 23:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Actually several countries recognize Russia as a "terrorist state" itself, not just a "sponsor of terrorism". TylerBurden (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Terrorism in Russia has cited statements about various states’ and international organizations’ recognition of Russia as either terrorism sponsor or terrorist state. —MichaelZ. 13:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Russia is not a dictatorship! It is China, North Korea, maybe Cuba! 195.91.110.242 (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, well I can call Joe Biden a big dumb idiot, and say he's too old to be using Legos, and that his feet probably smell bad, and somehow, I have no fear I'll be poisoned or haphazardly fall out a window. GMGtalk 12:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Transcontinental is redundant
Latest comment: 8 months ago8 comments5 people in discussion
The first sentence of the article reads Russia (Russian: Россия, romanized: Rossiya, [rɐˈsʲijə]), or the Russian Federation, is a transcontinental country spanning Eastern Europe and Northern Asia. "Transcontinental" is redundant here, just as it would be redundant to write "Hungary is a unicontinental country in Europe". As redundant writing is sloppy writing, I removed "transcontinental", but Undashing restored it without addressing the reason I stated in my edit summary for removing it. This ten-dollar word should be removed. It adds nothing to the sentence and looks like nothing more than an attempt to show off our vocabulary. Largoplazo (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Not really accurate. Hungary is a nation in eastern-central Europe. Its own page reflects that. Each country's page mentions the continent, with Russia, it's spread out over two. So it is consistent with other articles. 203.7.124.55 (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
It's the opposite of consistent.
Russia: Russia ... is a transcontinental country spanning Eastern Europe and Northern Asia, identifies the location with reference to two continents, after throwing in a redundant, show-off term.
Hungary: Hungary ... is a landlocked country in Central Europe, identifies the location with reference to a continent with no redundant, show-off term.
"Transcontinental" has no more good reason to appear in the Russia sentence than "uncontinental" would have if it were added to the Hungary sentence. Largoplazo (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
It would still do that even if the term "transcontinental" is removed, because both Eastern Europe and Northern Asia are mentioned, that's two continents. I agree it does seem redundant. TylerBurden (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree, the adjective is just unnecessary when it’s immediately followed by its own definition along with specific details. The redundancy could actually confuse, as readers wonder whether it means something more or something different. Delete it. —MichaelZ. 17:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree for conciseness it should not appear in the first sentence. But I think the word transcontinental could be used maybe in the second sentence.
Instead of,
It is the largest country in the world by area, its vast landmass stretching over the easternmost part of Europe and the northernmost part of Asia.
an option could be,
It is the largest country in the world by area and, being transcontinental, it extends across eleven time zones and shares land boundaries with fourteen countries.
I think the word transcontinental can provide further information to the reader. Regards, Thinker78(talk) 19:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
What further information does it provide? In your example, "being transcontinental" is irrelevant to what follows. As it happens, by convention, we treat Europe and Asia as distinct continents, but if we just treated them as one, Eurasia, so that Russia wasn't considered transcontinental, it would still cross eleven time zones and it would still share land boundaries with fourteen countries. Further, there are transcontinental countries that cover as few as one time zone or border only a few other countries. The implied connection is false. Largoplazo (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
I guess you right. Regards, Thinker78(talk) 22:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2023
Latest comment: 8 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion
This edit request to Russia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add category
Category:Member states of the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations
This should have been added with a reference supporting it, currently there is nothing on the article even mentioning it, if a category is added it should be supported by the article's content per WP:CATV. Removed it for now. TylerBurden (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Understood, thanks. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 06:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Undone: This request has been undone. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 06:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Here is a source. this can be added to the part in the beginning where it says Russia's memberships in international organizations.
Latest comment: 8 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The number of federal subjects of each type has remained stable on this page. There was a period of stability at the specific types of subject e.g. Republics of Russia. There is now a discussion as to whether a calculated total including the view of the Kremlin on the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine should be included in the infobox and opening. See Talk:Republics of Russia. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Constitutional form of government or de facto system of government
Latest comment: 8 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
It appears that until very recently wikipedia followed the policy of describing only the de jure constitutional form of government in country boxes. So Russia was categorized simply as a semi-presidential republic, which it is according to its constitution. If we adopt the policy of describing Russia as a dictatorship in its infobox, than that should be done systematically in all of Wikipedia (which I don't oppose, but will create a series of complications, according to the defintion of dictatorship and democracy). Knoterification (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes any article that needs Improvement should be done and discussed at those articles. Moxy- 01:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Is that true, though? Where is this policy?
In the case of the Russian Federation, its 2014 constitution said it’s a “democratic federative law-governed state with a republican form of government,” and some stuff about its constitution and power, and even “the firmness of its democratic basis.” “Semi-presidential republic” sounds like it’s based on that, but it’s still an interpretation.
But {{infobox country}} is also used in Russian Empire, where its government is described as a “Unitary absolute monarchy” in most of its history when it had no constitution at all. Obviously we have to use the same routine of relying on reliable sources to fill in this field for many, many states throughout history.
I think we probably do this for modern states too. Encyclopedic knowledge is based on reliable sources, certainly not on the constitutions of dictatorships and other states where the rule of law has broken down and mentions of democracy are a farce. —MichaelZ. 02:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
National governments which self-identify as democracies
National governments which do not self-identify as democracies
Most countries say they are a democracy but aren't. Moxy- 12:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Lead: "ongoing invasion"
Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
What is the coy reference "ongoing invasion"? It should read: "the ongoing invasion of Ukraine" -- no unencyclopedic reductionism and without a concealed interior WP link. Grammar: "Ranks by per capita" is faulty English; the term "per" fully expresses the relationship. The added preposition "by" is simply painful. 71.255.77.207 (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
And “has been militarily involved” is a euphemism. Russia is violently violating the sovereignty of states in many or most of these cases. —MichaelZ. 17:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
It does seem that the English Wikipedia article "Russia" is tainted with euphemism. French and German Wikipedia wouldn't allow such wobbly discourse, but English Wikipedia editors permit it. 71.255.77.207 (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Authoritarianism to totalitarianism?
Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I wanted to made this edit and to include theses sources, but then I read that it is better to go to the discussion page to make a consensus, as it is obviously a contentious topic.
Thanks! FaChol (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
By Dahl's definition totalitarianism = dictatorship + forced ideology. So, I see dictatorship, I see censorship of dissenting opinions, but I do not see an ideology being forced upon unwilling Russian citizens. Do mind that propaganda that Russia is great, and that Putin is great do not amount to an ideology. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
One more important source regarding dictatorship
Latest comment: 4 months ago9 comments6 people in discussion
Almost all sources for this are from Western countries, and likely biased and propaganda. Undashing (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Please discuss and reach consensus for your removal of sourced info. I see no justification for it. Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
All material written in Western countries is likely biased and propaganda while everything ever written in Eastern countries is absolutely objective? Is that the premise you want us to buy into? Largoplazo (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Um yeah, West is very biased against Russia Undashing (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
It's very biased of you to make a blanket statement like that about the entire West. Largoplazo (talk) 09:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
@Undashing This isn't a forum for your opinions on the West, you have been made aware of WP:ARBEE on your talk page and this article is part of it. Stop removing referenced content without gaining consensus and misusing this talk page as a forum for your personal blanket statements, it's WP:DISRUPTIVE. TylerBurden (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps Ruwiki is more for you than Wikipedia which at least still attempts to be an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. TylerBurden (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, a more common sense and NPOV rule approach should be to just say that Russia is Federal semi presidential republic under an authoritarian goverment, by the way, "authoritarian ditactorship" doesn't make sense as a combination of words 82.58.182.210 (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
"Federal" - is Russia really?
Latest comment: 4 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Since we already go by one de facto description, namely that Russia is a dictatorship and not a democracy, shouldn't we also note how it's not really federal? In fact it has never been a federal state in its entire history. Moscow is prime, even more than Paris is for France (a country which is still the very definition of a unitary state).
I propose describing the system of Russia as de jure federal and de facto unitary. Or perhaps just that it's a unitary state outright.
Are there reliable sources that support this? Curbon7 (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
It depends on what "really federal" means, but since independence (and most especially since 2004) there has been a reduction in regional power and authority within the law, and a further distance still between that law and how rule functions in practice. This book from 2018 described the system as "politically centralized but administratively decentralized", noting "the practice of intergovernmental relations in Russia in the 2010s is similar to relations between national and regional governments in a unitary state". (I would be intrigued to read this book from 2020 by a law professor in Russia, which as chapter titles such as "Movement from Federalism to Unitarism".) CMD (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
That seems like a good enough source. HetmanWL (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2023
Latest comment: 4 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion
This edit request to Russia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Replace in the first sentence " or the Russian Federation" with ", officially the Russian Federation" Swissairproud001 (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Not done: What's wrong with the current wording? Liu1126 (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
In other country pages, the lede starts with e.g. "X, officially the Republic of X" etc. HetmanWL (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Both names are official. —MichaelZ. 17:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 December 2023
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Based on the sufficient source provided by User:Chipmunkdavis (above in the topic "Federal" - is Russia really?), replace the description of Russia's system in the infobox from "federal" to de jure federal de facto unitary HetmanWL (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
“Unsourced changes”
Latest comment: 3 months ago15 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, @Mellk. Your revert with the summary “unsourced changes”[5]: what is unsourced? There is little substantial change, and I believe all the factual statements are either newly sourced or already sourced. —MichaelZ. 20:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
So which source says Russians used "руська земля" (a modern Ukrainian name) in the 15th–17th centuries? Mellk (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
It says “often referred to by its inhabitants as Rus' or the Russian land.” I transcribed the OES from Kyivan Rus. Please correct the Russian spelling instead of nuking all improvements, including correcting misinterpretations from sources. —MichaelZ. 21:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I believe I had written руськая or русьская, my browser window crashed, and I got it wrong the second time. There were multiple improvements. Can you please try assuming good faith and taking a moment being constructive instead of always being obstructive with the revert button? —MichaelZ. 21:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
The source says "Russian land" yet you removed this. I didn't revert your first edit because I did not see issues with it, so your claim that I am "nuking all improvements" is false, as is the claim that all your changes were improvements. I also asked you which source uses the Ukrainian name, but sure, I am used to your aspersions at this point. Mellk (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
The way it’s now written “still” after 1387 implies that OES роусьскаѧ землѧ, rusĭskaę zemlę, “Rus’ Land” was “Russian Land.” It’s wrong.
It also refers to “The Finnish word for Swedes” implying modern Finnish which is not what the cited source says. It’s wrong. —MichaelZ. 21:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
The source says "Russian land" and makes no mention of "роусьскаѧ землѧ" (which, by the way, was not how it was spelled in the 15th to 17th centuries). From the looks of it, you are just disagreeing with the source now. Mellk (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I’m disagreeing with the misleading text in this article. —MichaelZ. 22:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
You quoted the source ("often referred to by its inhabitants as Rus' or the Russian land"), so tell me, how does the following accurately reflect the source: the country was often referred to by its inhabitants as Русь, Rus' or руська земля, ruska zemlya, 'Rus' land'. Mellk (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I found some of the sources.
A new form of the name Rus', Росия (Rosiya), was borrowed from the Greek term and first attested in 1387, – the source, Obolensky, Dimitri (1994),[6]Byzantium and the Slavs, doesn’t seem to say anything of the sort on page 17, and I can’t find “Rosiya,” “Rosiia,” nor “1387” using search inside. Failed verification.
. . . before coming into official use by the 15th century, though the country was still often referred to by its inhabitants as Rus' or the Russian land until the end of the 17th century. I found the 2001 1st edition of Langer (2021), Historical Dictionary of Medieval Russia (s.v. “RUSSIA (ROSSIIA),” p 186): “it appears in the late 15th century but the more accepted term was Rus’. Other terms were the Russian Land . . . Peter the Great renamed Rus’ the Russian Empire.”
And Hellberg-Hirn (1998), Soil and Soul, p 54: “In Russian historical sources, from the end of the 15th century onwards, the word Rossiia (Russia) is occasionally used to refer to the country. But the country was more frequently called Rus, the Russian land, Russkaia zemlia, or the Muscovite state, Moskovskoe gosudarstvo, up to the end of the 17th century.”
Not “by the 15th century.” Not “still,” implying something about earlier use of the other terms.
The current version doesn’t accurately reflect the sources, and I would change it accordingly. —MichaelZ. 04:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I will add that this is not the first time you've made unsourced changes to the etymology section.[7]Mellk (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Whut? My edit you linked to agrees with the current version of the article. The text I changed was wrong. What is your point? —MichaelZ. 22:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
You added "indirectly" which is unsupported by the source. When you say the text was wrong, did you simply disagree with it? Mellk (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I made the article better by changing the text so it wasn’t wrong, without contradicting the source whose statement is vague. You’re defending your constant reverts by championing BBC Features correspondent Amy McPherson as a reliable source on etymology. Please cut it out. —MichaelZ. 22:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
If the source is not reliable, you don't add what you think is correct and not cite a different source. And this is coming from a sysop. Mellk (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Lead: Invaded Georgia and illegally annexed Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson
Latest comment: 3 months ago53 comments10 people in discussion
"militarily involved" and "conflicts with neighboring countries" is euphemisms for the largest invasion of a European country since World War II and the annexations are internationally recognized as illegal this should be corrected in the lead. Monochromemelo1 (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
It already says "internationally unrecognised annexations" and "invasion". This is already a plenty strong treatment to supply in the lead, the purpose of which is to give a range of general background information on Russia, not to concentrate on condemning it in the strongest terms possible for its current actions. Largoplazo (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Nazi Germany is remembered not for its annexations but for its aggressive wars. Nuremberg trials . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Which, in the lead of Germany, are covered in half a sentence without superlatives. Largoplazo (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Germany is different from Nazi Germany and history describes recent and ongoing events more broadly. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
And the totalitarian russian dictatorship is not yet on the level of Nazi Germany. It’s simply a far-right dictatorship, and it isn’t the only one…. There are actually a bunch of far-left and far-right totalitarian propaganda-type states on the world, and currently none of them is to the level of those of the past. It just isn’t possible anymore. And besides, russians aren’t at fault, the far-right government is! And yet I bet some russians are patriotic. Nazi Germany is Germany, and Germany feels guilt, yet the lede isn’t going in depth. Encyclopédisme (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
A little beside the point, I suppose, but since you said it, I want to respond. I'm very concerned about the notion that "It just isn't possible anymore" to be to the level of Nazi Germany. That attitude, generally held, is a sure way to allow someone or somewhere to descend to that level, while we all deny it. I'm sure that in the 1930s, people would have thought that the Holocaust could not happen in the 20th century in western Europe. I happen to believe that something comparable to the Holocaust IS happening in the USA. I'm sure many people reading this would vehemently disagree (if I said what I'm referring to), and a lot of people would regard me as a wicked person--a monster--for even thinking that. If we're never allowed to compare anything to Nazi Germany's Holocaust, it follows that we're not allowed to learn from it. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
The problem is international order, and nuclear weapons. It isn’t possible anymore. Plus Putin is still autocratizing his federation… so he’s far from finished yet. At least there hasn’t been something like it for a some time now. This is why I don’t like the comparison with Hitler’s invasion of Austria. Realistically, no one, not even Putin, wants that type of war again, simply because it isn’t possible anymore. Everyone is well fortified within they’re positions. Now I suggest we stop, and talk about the lede instead, because we’re making original research pure right now. Encyclopédisme (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Let's approach this from the direction we should have. Can you imagine any history book on Russia published after 2022 and not mentioning 2022 invasion? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
No I can’t. I just feel like it’s a little too much to post what was proposed in the lede. However I’m open to new suggestions! Going a little more in depth would be good. What I meant (I went a little far, a admit) is that it’s not world war 2, yet. Everything you mentioned is perfectly summarized in the article. Only the lede is a little short. Because that’s not all that happened in Russia since the 90s. Assuming the Russian federation lasts, we can’t compare it to nazi germany. Anyway, that was my point. Cheers, and happy new year. Encyclopédisme (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
I vote that the very least the lead should mention 2014 Crimea invasion and annexation and the start of R-U war and the 2022 full-scale invasion. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
I think we need to be a bit cautious of WP:RECENTISM - this is an article about a country with a thousand year history, a couple of sentences for Putin in a four-paragraph lead, as at present, seems about right. But the current wording is euphemistic - Russia was not "militarily involved in" the annexation of Crimea - Russia annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine, which the current wording entirely fails to communicate. I don't think we need to pontificate on exactly how condemnatory our language needs to be; just make sure we are actually stating the most important generally agreed facts. TSP (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
+ 1. I agree with the above comment. Encyclopédisme (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree its not a direct comparison its just the current lead is very euphemistic about Russia's invasions and occupations of post soviet states like Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine in both 2014 and 2022, i think it should also mention Russia's role in the War in Donbas 👍 Monochromemelo1 (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes these are recent, but they are also notable and warrant explicit, euphemism-free mention in the lead:
The Russo-Ukrainian War, largest European war since WWII, largest war in Russia’s 33-year history, first war of aggression in which nuclear threats were used, in which Russia violated the Genocide Convention by inciting genocide and possibly committing genocide.
Military and political interference with and dominance of neighbouring states including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine throughout the RF’s 33-year history, a continuation of Moscow’s imperialist conquests and maintenance of spheres of influence since the beginning of the history of Russia’s predecessors.
Keep in mind this is an article about a 33-year-old state. Events during its independent existence warrant more weight in the lead than events covered by main articles about its predecessors, the RSFSR (and its sovereign state, the USSR), Russian empire, and Muscovy. —MichaelZ. 22:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Wow. This is going a bit far (Although I already saw you prior to this). In a preamble I need to say that I am opposed to anything like WikiVoice. The current lead is euphemistic, but this is just too much. America’s politics can be qualified imperialism, but yet that’s not mentioned in that article. And Russia’s politics are definitely imperialism, but mentioning it would make it a news article, and really, really unbalanced. The thing is, no matter how much I agree and how much newspapers agree, I am opposed to WikiVoice, it’s wrong, let’s stay indifferent and do this like we do for any other article, the republic of Cuba isn’t mentioned as being a dictatorship in lede. I am for the proposition made by TSP, and not for the above. It just seems a little unfair to put all of that in the lede of a country which will continue to exist, and continue to terrorize its neighbors. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
In addition to this, the Russian Federation is the modern state of Russia, therefore, just like France has more history than the fifth republic in its intro, or Germany than the Federal Republic, Russia, in this article, is not just the Russian federation, but the state of Russia. The lede needs to mention Muscovy, the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and the current Russian Federation and its crimes and wars. Encyclopédisme (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
What would your proposal specifically be like? Let's process with the changes. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Russia annexed and invaded those territories, breaking international law, they weren’t "militarily involved". Encyclopédisme (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Looks everybody agrees on that so I made the change. We can discuss further changes however. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I think the subject of the sentence should be the encompassing event, the Russo-Ukrainian War, in the context of which the invasion of Crimea, its annexation, the 2014 de-facto occupation of part of eastern Ukraine, and the escalating 2022 invasion and claimed annexations in contested territory were committed. —MichaelZ. 23:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Not all of the conflicts in the post-Soviet states that Russia was involved in were invasions. For Ukraine, yes, but if we are talking about all of the conflicts broadly, then "militarily involved" or something along those lines would have to do. Mellk (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
But the current phrase only mentions Crimea and Ukraine. So "militarily involved" has no place there. Encyclopédisme (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I don’t understand. It’s a vague phrase that needs improvement, but it is correct because it says “in a number of conflicts in neighbouring states, which have included . . . .”
Russia has conducted military operations in Moldova, Georgia, and Azerbaijan, through the territory and airspace of Belarus, and in Ukraine (with kinetic effects in Poland, Moldova, Romania, and Croatia). It also has troops stationed in Armenia, and I believe directly controls Armenian border crossings. It has used military force or military presence to violate or affect the sovereignty of each of these states, including, for example, applying pressure on Ukraine for concrete goals between 1991 and 2014. I’m less familiar with Central Asia, but probably there too. —MichaelZ. 17:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Firstly, my two points above are the reasons these things are notable and should be mentioned in the lead, not a proposed text.
The Soviet Union had 12 or 15 successor states, depending on whether you count the occupied Baltics, and was not the “state of Russia.” The RSFSR was not a continuator state of the empire, because the Bolsheviks refused to accept any continuation of rights and obligations, and the USSR was not the RSFSR but a union of several countries, only one of which being Russia. I certainly did not say the lead shouldn’t mention previous states on the RF’s territory. —MichaelZ. 23:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
We can use short summaries from after-2022 academic books as an inspiration for that. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@Mzajac: De Jure, no. De facto, yes. The Soviet Union came directly out of the Russian Empire and it’s capital was a Russian city, and a previous capital, Moscow. In, preamble, I hate national myth just as much as WikiVoice, no matter Ukrainian or Russian. I’m not saying your wrong, I’m saying the Soviet Union was predominantly Russian (I have no idea if Russian historians said some bullshit about this, and now it’s controversial, like many other things, but it is true, in a way). It’s most important region was Russia (not just because of the size) and most (not all, obviously) of its politicians were russian. Encyclopédisme (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Plus, in that case, Russia, within the Soviet Union, was a successor to the Russian Empire, and that to Moscovy (The city-state of Moscow, which through its conquests became the Tsardom of Russia, then Russian Empire, which had a revolution in 1917, which made it a communist state, in which russia was made one state among others, which were granted their independence, and that socialist state fell apart three decades ago, granting its states full independence, including Russia, which is now terrorizing its neighbors on the ground of retrograd passéiste imperialist arguments, even though these nations had their independence already in one time or another before, and have their own sovereign cultures). Encyclopédisme (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Let’s not pursue this line of thought in depth because it concerns principles, and not directly relevant to proposed text. But please keep in mind that Ukraine, etc. were colonies of Moscow régimes much like Canada and India were colonies of the UK, or like much of Romania was a colony of Hungary, except Western historiography has had a harder time coming to terms with it in the late twentieth century, and even up to today.[8] —MichaelZ. 23:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Can you imagine any history book on Russia published after 2022 and not mentioning 2022 invasion? In the first paragraph or two? Yes, absolutely. Unless the book's publication was triggered by the invasion, unless it was written as a sort of "how did we get here?" treatment, I would be surprised to find it given special attention in the lead. Largoplazo (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
The wide-ranging introduction of Galeotti’s A Short History of Russia (2021)[9] seems to mention the annexation of Crimea before any other event in Russia’s post-Soviet history. —MichaelZ. 23:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
The introduction to Figes’s The Story of Russia (2022, a history centred on historical memory)[10] starts with the 2016 unveiling of the Moscow statue of Volodymyr the great, a parable of Putin’s historical memory war with Ukraine, mentioning the annexation of Crimea early on and getting into the meat of it on the second page.
Both of these books show that the perennial “Ukrainian question” is a key part of Russian history, historical memory, and identity, and the current war innately intertwined with it. —MichaelZ. 00:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Mellk, regarding your revert [11], what your proposal for the lead would be? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@Mellk, are you going to participate in finding new consensus? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Why did you remove illegal from the annexations? Russia's first invasion was in 2014 when they illegally Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and entered and armed their proxies in War in Donbas all Russian annexations are internationally unrecognized and contrary to international law and violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. Monochromemelo1 (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
And the proposed phrasing would be? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Get rid of the redundant "militarily". How else do you think readers might understand "invaded" and "occupied" if "military" isn't stated explicitly? Educationally? Artistically? Recreationally? Largoplazo (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
yeah the phrasing is a little wonky help with refusion is apricated Monochromemelo1 (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
didnt mean refusion i meant revision lol Monochromemelo1 (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Russia has invaded and occupied a number of post-soviet states including Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine. In 2014 Russia illegally annexed Crimea while supporting Russian proxies during the war in Donbas, and in 2022 Russia led a full scale invasion of Ukraine, annexing four regions of the country, which remain internationally unrecognized: How about that? Encyclopédisme (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
It does not seem an improvement on the current text. The adding of chosen specifics shifts the impression from the much broader political/military adventurism during the 21st century, as well as flattening different situations. CMD (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Ok. But we need to specifically mention Crimea and Ukraine. Point. End. Finish. They are important enough. Largely. Russia has not been "militarily involved" in these conflicts we need to specifically mention due to the importance they have attained, and will keep for the rest of history, Russia was the only participant in its annexation of Crimea, and invasion of Ukraine, both of which are internationally unrecognized. The past text was euphemistic. While it is part of a general pattern of keeping a grip over its zone of influence, these conflicts above are important enough to be specifically mentioned (which they are) and to have their own phrase. As a sort of specific exemple. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Could you clarify what is the past text you refer to? Crimea and Ukraine have been specifically mentioned in the lead for at least the past 50 revisions. CMD (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
In their own sentence, separated from the "militarily involved". As in, annexed and invaded. We can separate the single sentence into 2 is what I mean. The new second sentence being specifically about Ukraine and Crimea. But the first part, now an individual phrase, simply limiting itself to state the broader scheme of military conflicts which Russia was involved since the 2000s. What I am saying is that the conflict with Ukraine is notable enough to be mentioned as a specific exemple. Encyclopédisme (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
As is for proposals. Really if we’re already done here, then why discuss anymore. You seemed to have indicated that the phrase should be just about the broader scheme. If you meant to say that, then the above comments are the reasons I would disagree. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
The edits made were reverted, so no, the current version is not what was proposed (the "past version". Didn’t last long. Read the discussion please) Did you read the discussion? This is about Ukraine and Crimea having their own sentence, since Russia was not just militarily involved, it annexed and invaded. These conflicts are important enough to be mentioned separately from the general scheme of military involvement in post soviet states. Encyclopédisme (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I think we may be letting the perfect be the enemy of the good here. We're now a week into this conversation and the article still does not clearly say in the lead that Russia annexed Crimea or invaded Ukraine. Whether the annexation was internationally recognised, whether it was illegal, and whether they appear in separate sentences, are less important points than actually saying that Russia did these things (being "militarily involved in" in them doesn't clearly mean carrying them out - indeed, it could even mean being involved in opposing them). TSP (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
The lead does states that annexations took place and that an invasion is happening. I find it hard to read it in a way that suggests it was another state carrying out these. Would changing "the internationally unrecognised" to "its internationally unrecognised" help? CMD (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
It says they are taking place, but not with any clarity who is doing them. "Russia has been militarily involved in a number of conflicts in neighbouring states, which have included the internationally unrecognised annexations of Crimea..." could mean a whole host of things - if I didn't already know, I would probably guess this meant Russia having a minor military involvement in an action by another nation (given the context of "conflicts in neighbouring states"). "Its" would be an improvement, but still feels an extremely indirect way to refer to the subject of the article carrying out the largest military invasion of the last 75 years. TSP (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Russia has done minor military involvements as well, electronic warfare, and other activity within a spectrum of boundary pushing, so it does cover what you guess. I have made the Crimea its tweak and slightly changed the language to be more active. CMD (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Here we talk about wars that appear in the List_of_wars_involving_Russia#Russian_Federation_(1991–present). They are very different. If we want to mention all of them together, then indeed, "was militarily involved" or "took part" may be a correct phrasing. But if we want to differentiate these conflicts, then we need to single out the Russo-Georgian War and Russo-Ukrainian War as two most notable examples of aggression initiated by Russia against other countries. I suggest we should do both (i.e. mention all conflicts and specifically Russo-Georgian War and Russo-Ukrainian War) by rephrasing this part of the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
“Unsourced/undiscussed”
Latest comment: 3 months ago6 comments3 people in discussion
@Chipmunkdavis I hope you experience the same pleasure as I do in your ironically humourous reversion of my change as “Unsourced/undiscussed”[12] to your unsourced, undiscussed version. —MichaelZ. 03:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Main problem with the current text in the lead: it’s all about a major war but, like the Russian government, it refuses to name the war or link to the article on it. —MichaelZ. 03:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Not sure I understand your first message, but you are welcome to join the discussion above. CMD (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I assume so, if you feel my tweaks were undiscussed. CMD (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I guess Mzajac was trying to say it was the Russo-Ukrainian War that already continue for ten years, rather than only the ongoing invasion. Also, the phrase was more about the wars, rather than about annexations, although there is nothing wrong with mentioning annexations. The phrasing can be improved, but probably not exactly in the manner suggested by Mzajac. My very best wishes (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
War crimes should be mentioned in the lead
Latest comment: 3 months ago17 comments7 people in discussion
There is strong evidence that Russia has committed war crimes - not just in the recent war against Ukraine, but in the war against Chechnya and possibly against Georgia as well, in addition to war crimes overseas in Syria and Africa. This should be briefly covered in the lead.VRtalk 03:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Can you clarify? VRtalk 01:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I think all world powers have committed war crimes. Are you saying all of them should have said info in their leads? Regards, Thinker78(talk) 03:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
If a significant number of reliable sources mention that a country has committed war crimes, then this should absolutely be mentioned in the lead. In the case of Russia this is true, and you can see the sources at Russian war crimes.VRtalk 03:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Per MOS:LEAD, Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. Regards, Thinker78(talk) 05:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
A significant number of reliable sources mention that borscht is a well-known traditional soup in Russia. So borscht should absolutely be mentioned in the lead.
Have I successfully illustrated that more factors than coverage in reliable sources are involved in deciding whether something belongs in the lead? Largoplazo (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
So what in your view are those other factors? VRtalk 06:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
That’s too specific. The context of all of these atrocity crimes, including crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide, against Russia’s own subjects, neighbouring states, and newly subjugated nations, is an authoritarian state using oppression, foreign occupation, and wars of aggression. The lead should say that Russia has throughout its history and to this day been an expansive colonial power. —MichaelZ. 05:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Isn't this article about the post-1991 state? The USSR for example has its own article.VRtalk 00:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
This is certainly notable. Much of the world failed to predict or adequately respond to every stage of the largest European war since WWII: the invasion and occupation of Crimea, Russia’s war against Ukraine in the Donbas, the huge escalation of 2022 (and Ukraine’s resistance), multiple “annexations” of occupied and unreachable Ukrainian territory, the continuing statements of the intention to occupy more of Ukraine.
Directly related to this and significant enough to include among the superlatives in the lead is that Russia is the first and only state to conduct a war of conquest using nuclear threats. —MichaelZ. 01:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
The first human settlement on Russia dates back to the Oldowan period in the early Lower Paleolithic. About 2 million years ago. No, it is not just about the post-1991 state. Regards, Thinker78(talk) 02:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
No, very few countries have committed significant and systematic war crimes in recent years. Therefore, I think the suggested phrase should be included, but in the body of the page, not in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Generally agree with putting this information in the article but not in the lede, though I would quibble with 'very few'. The lede is not the place for this, per @Largoplazo's line of rather humorous and discerning argument. Uness232 (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The section about area in the infobox makes no sense
Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion
The light green part is administered by Russia and claimed by Ukraine. It is not claimed by Russia. A portion of Donbas region which is under control of Ukraine is claimed by Russia. This is what is given in the infobox.
Area
• Total
17,098,246 km2 (6,601,670 sq mi) (within internationally recognised borders) 17,234,028 km2 (6,654,095 sq mi) (including claimed territories) (1st)
I think it should be changed to the following:
Area
• Total
17,098,246 km2 (6,601,670 sq mi) (within internationally recognised borders) 17,234,028 km2 (6,654,095 sq mi) (including disputed territories claimed by Ukraine) (1st)
Keep in mind this latter figure also includes disputed territories claimed by Japan.
204.197.177.22 (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
What part of internationally recognised Russia is claimed by Ukraine? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
The information in the infobox contradicts the definitions of control and claim. For example, Russia controls Crimea which is claimed by Ukraine, Ukraine controls Kramatorsk which is claimed by Russia. 216.165.212.4 (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
This should be only one number that corresponds to the internationally recognized borders, i.e. without the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory. Kuril Islands can be a different matter. My very best wishes (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
But the light green area must be excluded from the map, at least in the Ukrainian region. One of the reasons: this territory is incorrect/misleading however drawn. This is an area of active warfare and it is constantly changing. My very best wishes (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2024
Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
This edit request to Russia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the start, there is a transliteration of the word 'russia' in russian into english, my edit request is to change the transliteration from 'rossiya' to 'rassiya,' since 'rassiya' is closer to the russian pronounciation, i would like to edit that. Ouiouioui12 (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
What you're speaking of is a phonetic transcription to record the sounds of speech. This is a transliteration (or, because we're targeting the Roman alphabet, "romanization"), meant to represent the letters of another script according to some convention (of which there are many for Russian: see Romanization of Russian). Transliteration is independent of sound. To indicate pronunciation, we use the International Phonetic Alphabet and/or pronunciation respelling. As you can see, we do provide that, [rɐˈsʲijə]. Largoplazo (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
00:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Not done: See sources linked. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Done ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 18:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Undone: This request has been undone. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 06:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
