Talk:Russia/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

past pro-Russian protests

@Flemmish Nietzsche, what the source [1] says, exactly? Can't find it. Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not really about what the source says, more so, as I said in the edit summary, that the wording of "where most of the inhabitants wanted to stay in Ukraine" is quite misleading — this source (1) shows a referendum, and using the wording from the 2014 Donbas status referendums article, A poll released by the Kyiv Institute of Sociology, with data gathered from 8–16 April, 41.1% of people in Donetsk were for decentralisation of Ukraine with powers transferred to regions, while letting it remain a unified state, 38.4% for changing Ukraine into federation, 27.5% were in favour of secession from Ukraine to join the Russian Federation, and only 10.6% supported current unitary structure without changes. We say that "most of the inhabitants wanted to stay in Ukraine", yet in reality this can be misleading to imply that those who wanted to stay in some form of Ukrainian state were happy with the current government, which is in fact not true, according to the poll. That 10.6% who supported the current government structure is not exactly "most of the inhabitants". I think it would be better to leave that clause out altogether and just leave it how I changed it to, "to start a war in the Donbas region in the east of Ukraine where there had been past pro-Russian protests." Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not really about what the source says
We are relying what the source says. Your poll actually confirms Plokhy. If your source doesn't say "past pro-Russian protests" then it should be removed. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Well we have a whole article about the "pro-Russian protests" — are you saying we need a source to verify that the protests happened, or that they were pro-Russian? Either way, I changed the source to a Reuters article. (1) When I said "It's not really about what the source says", I meant that my edit that you partially reverted on this article was to change the poor wording of that clause, "where most of the inhabitants wanted to stay in Ukraine". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Poor wording can be improved but removal is not an improvement. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it definitely is, as we don't have to follow the exact wording of the source or even include every detail it includes. The goal is to write in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and not to closely WP:PARAPHRASE. If the article would be more neutral (WP:NPOV) without using that wording at all, it certainly would be an improvement to remove it.

If source A (the source we have already and the one that wording is being copied from) and source B (the Kyiv Institute of Sociology poll and the pro-Russian separatism) say different things, then we should go with the one that is more objective — a poll from the actual people living there is much more objective than some wording in a journal or book. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

we don't have to follow the exact wording
But you can't conclude that the content should be deleted from this. WP:NPOV tells us to relay all the important POVs, not to delete these. The Kyiv Institute of Sociology poll actually confirms Plokhy thesis. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Could you explain how you came to that conclusion that it confirms his thesis? My point is that to the uninformed reader, the wording may seem to imply that the inhabitants of the Donbas wanted the status quo in terms of autonomy and governance, when in reality most wanted neither that nor to be annexed into Russia. Either way we word it, it is going to have some undue weight issues, so for that I think it should be excluded altogether.

I changed the wording to "in the east of Ukraine where there had been previous pro-Russian protests but where many inhabitants still did not want to be annexed into Russia", which should be slightly better if you are stubborn on not deleting that wording altogether. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Could you explain how you came to that conclusion that it confirms his thesis?
It says 27.5% were in favour of secession from Ukraine so it confirms Plokhy

My point is that to the uninformed reader, the wording may seem to imply that the inhabitants of the Donbas wanted the status quo in terms of autonomy and governance
No, it just says that most wanted to stay in Ukraine.

it is going to have some undue weight issues, so for that I think it should be excluded altogether
No, it's not Undue since you provided the poll confirming it.

I changed the wording to "in the east of Ukraine where there had been previous pro-Russian protests but where many inhabitants still did not want to be annexed into Russia", which should be slightly better if you are stubborn on not deleting that wording altogether.
This is wrong as "not to be annexed into Russia" is different to "stay with Ukraine". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree in that 72.5% does constitute "most of the inhabitants" — however, there is still implications from the statement which would be better off kept out of the article. We don't have to follow every source we cite to the exact letter. Of course "not be annexed into Russia" is different than "stay with Ukraine" but both are simultaneously true even if they are different. The latter is more neutral and is supported by the poll as well.

No, it just says that most wanted to stay in Ukraine. Yes, it does "just say that" but it is with the placement of the wording that brings about the implications from it. Less is definitely more here. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

If there are disagreements then we should prefer to be as close to what the source says as possible. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Now, protests happened, and also Americans went to the Moon, but we aren't adding all of this to imply the context we want, until there are such a sources. And that context should be described correctly. And your new source doesn't describe the war in Donbas to be able to describe the context you added. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Greetings @Flemmish Nietzsche, regarding your "We didn't have consensus" undo [2] . Yes, you initiated the change [3] , and there is no consensus for it. Per WP:EDITCONSENSUS we should get back to the previous version of the article. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Well you seem to have objected to my wording of "but did not want to be annexed into Russia", even though it was supported by the poll source, so I changed, in that same revision you mentioned above, the wording back to something closer to what you seem to have wanted. What do you not like, as you have called the revision on another talk page in which I was involved in as "unsourced and distorted text", about that edit that makes it so problematic? Have we not achieved consensus? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

"there had been previous pro-Russian protests" is unsourced, no source provided giving such context.

"but where many inhabitants still wanted to be part of Ukraine" is vague as we have the source clearly stating "most".

We are not distorting and misrepresenting the sources in favor of NPOV as we see it. No, NPOV does not matters more then representing the sources correctly. And it's not "NPOV" to change "most" to "many". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

My main point wasn't about changing "most" to "many", rather the inclusion of the mention of the pro-Russian protests in that same sentence. I'll add a source to the claim of the protests that does in fact give context of the past protests when discussing the war.

References

Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 June 2024: Russia is sparsely-populated

From the lead:

"Russia is a highly urbanized country"

No doubt this is true in the same way as Belgium or Japan - urbanised isn't the same thing as densely-populated, of course - but there is no mention of Russia being the most sparsely-populated country in continental Europe in the lead, which I think is fairly important for the lead even if it's mentioned in Demographics later. People are free to disagree though. I therefore propose to change the above sentence to some variation of:

"Russia is a highly urbanised country, but it is the least densely-populated (or "most scarcely-populated") country in continental Europe (or "second after Iceland", or "177th (or whatever the number is) in the world"

Or at least a brief mention of Russia's population density elsewhere in the lead, other than the infobox

Thank you 2A02:C7E:3188:4C00:B4EC:75D:5052:6976 (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, I guess it's irrelevant but shouldn't the first sentence be "Russia, officially the Russian Federation" rather than "Russia, or the Russian Federation"? Other articles follow this e.g.

"France, officially the French Republic" or

"China, officially the People's Republic of China" 2A02:C7E:3188:4C00:B4EC:75D:5052:6976 (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The invisible note in the lead says "Both names are equally official - see: Talk:Russia/Archive 12#Equality of the names." '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Charliehdb (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Please add some offices into country infobox

It would be great if the Chair of the State Duma, the Chair of the Federation Council and the Chief Justice were also added. 78.177.160.99 (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It would be great if you could explain why they need to be included in the infobox. TylerBurden (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Why are there different rules for different countries?

Why is Taliban’s flag used for Afghanistan when it’s not internationally recognized? The area of annexed territories should also be included as it’s quite clear they’ll never be handed back to Ukraine. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)