Talk:Russia/Archive 5

Problems

I have removed several problems with the article:

This table contradicts other sources about the size of the Soviet economy by saying that it was $500 billion at the time of the Soviet collapse. The CIA factbook and other sources say the size of the Soviet economy in 1990 was $2.65 trillion or at least $2 trillion at the time of its collapse, of which Russia accounted for something like 60%.

"a 150% increase in real rates" -

It doesn't say this in the source.

"The UN estimates that about 12.1% of Russians live on less than 2$(PPP) per day according to their most recent available data between 1990 - 2005, most of whom are pensioners and low skilled workers in depressive regions." -

I am from Russia. 12.1% - 2$ it is not realy!!!!sory for my english ;) (на 2$ в месяц в России жить физически не возможн, эти данные не верны, иначе 12.1% граждан живут хуже чем в бокадном Ленинграде... спасибо за внимание)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.226.163.202 (talk • contribs)

It's $2 per day, not per month (два доллара в день, а не в месяц).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:53, February 3, 2009 (UTC)

This data is outdated. It's based on data between 1990-2005, when the average wage was several times lower than it is now.

"As the Soviet Union, Russia was traditionally very strong in basketball. At the moment they have various players in the NBA, notably Andrei Kirilenko, although they are not considered as much of a basketball force as some of their Eastern European counterparts such as Serbia or Lithuania. However in 2007, Russia defeated world champions Spain to win Eurobasket 07.

After the post-soviet rot of football in Russia, it has recently undergone a huge revival. Not only is the Russian system producing more and more talented Russian players (evident in Russia's fantastic form on the international stage), but the Russian league, with a new injection of funds from the government and various companies, is now the wealthiest in Eastern Europe and has attracted much foreign talent as well as Russian talent. Russian clubs have had great success in European competition recently: CSKA Moscow won the UEFA cup in 2005 and Zenit St. Petersburg repeated this feat in 2008." -

Besides a couple of facts like winning Eurobasket in 2007 and the UEFA cup in 2005 and 2008, this is original research and opinion.--Berkunt (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh not this again. That chart is based on nominal GDP, you're talking about PPP GDP. Two very different measures. Look at the source of the image, and in the future remember that according to WP:V wikipedia requires verifiability not truth (meaning you can't remove reliably sourced information based on what you personally believe). Krawndawg (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No, if you read the sources I provided they do not say the Soviet Union's GDP is based on purchasing power parity methods. When you have sources contradicting each other then you can't put one set of information that is directly contradicted by another (several, in fact) source. This nominal GDP table is misleading anyway because it implies that Russia's economy is 2.5 times larger than it was during Soviet times when in fact it has only recently recovered to the Soviet level according to this source (and others I have read) - ("After a decade of growth, Russia is still only back to the level it reached just before the fall of the Soviet Union" (Feb 28th 2008) [1])--Berkunt (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're talking about purchasing power. They might use the term "international dollars" instead of purchasing power, but it's definitely not in US dollars or "official exchange rate" as the CIA factbook puts it. Look at this list and compare it with this one and you'll start to see what I'm talking about. The Russian economy in PPP surpassed 2 trillion in 2007 (hence it surpassed the Soviet economy in PPP), in nominal its still only 1.3 trillion. You can check the IMF website and see the entire history of Russia's GDP growth in both nominal and PPP (though I think they base their nominal figures on current US exchange rate, so the nominal GDP in 1992 would be even lower than 500 billion). If there are any contradictions, it's the fault of the other figure and the fact that it doesn't say what method of measurement it uses. That should be fixed, rather than removing a reliably sourced chart (The BBC knows more than you or I). I don't see anything contradictory in the actual article anyways. Could you point out what's being contradicted? Krawndawg (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I also just checked that CIA factbook link and it doesn't give any GDP figures for the USSR. It gives GNP figures, but that's completely different.Krawndawg (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, my second point was that it should be a purchasing power parity graph anyway because money wasn't as important in the Soviet Union as in countries with market economies because the government controlled all means of production and received all revenue from enterprises, that is why it is better to put a purchasing power parity graph rather than a nominal GDP graph. That is why all sources that compare the size of the Soviet and US economies ay that the Soviet economy was about 50% of the size of the US economy, or $2.6 trillion. If they used "nominal" figures it would be more like 10-20% of the US economy but nobody says this because it is more valuable to compare output rather than exchange rate, especially since money wasn't as important in the Soviet Union as in countries with market economies. For instance, we don't write on the Soviet Union article that the size of its economy was only $500 billion, do we? Neither does the CIA. The nominal GDP table from the BBC is misleading because it relies on the exchange rate rather than the output of goods and thus implies that Russia's economy is 2.5 times larger than it was during Soviet times when in fact it has only recently recovered to the Soviet level in real terms. It is better to compare their economies in real terms, ie the actual value of goods produced compared to each other, rather than based on exchange rate.--Berkunt (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but that's entirely based on the assumption that the reader is only interested in comparing Russia to other countries. Nominal GDP is important in its own right, so unless you have a PPP chart to replace that one, why remove it altogether? It's still useful information about Russia's economy and shows the recession/crisis/boom throughout the years, which is the most important part in my opinion. I don't think it's misleading because a PPP chart would still show the same general trend, just with different numbers. Krawndawg (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As Doopdoop agreed with me, a real GDP chart is needed, not because it is useful in comparing Russia to other countries but to compare it to its past, a nominal chart is misleading because it says that the Russian economy is 2.5 times larger than at the dissolution of the Soviet Union when in real terms the Russian economy has just recently recovered from the trauma of the 1990s.--Berkunt (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Doopdoop has no idea what he's talking about as is clearly evident in all of his posts. He's just on the bandwagon of "lets remove anything positive about Russia from the article for any random reason we can think of". But anyhow, do you have such a graph that shows PPP? I was thinking about making one myself using the same format but haven't gotten around to it yet. I won't bother if you can supply one however. Krawndawg (talk) 05:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hows that? I just want to add that when you say the economy recently recovered from what it was at the collapse of the Soviet Union, I'm pretty sure that includes every country in the USSR at the time, and Russia was only about a bit over half of the total Soviet economy (which makes sense if you do the math according to IMF Russia figures, 1.16 trillion x2 etc..) The chart isn't going to be able to reflect that recovery. And also, when people say it's just recovering from the 90s, that's referring to lost growth. Again, that can't really be reflected in a gdp chart, unless you can find some figures that would reflect this.Krawndawg (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Much better, but could you please make it start at 0 rather than 700 billion? Now if you don't click on the chart to enlarge it, it looks like the GDP (PPP) has grown fourfold, which is misleading. Colchicum (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just look at the numbers, 1.1 trillion to 2.1 trillion isn't fourfold. The chart would have to be gigantic if I start from 0. looks kind of silly.. Krawndawg (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the last one is better and doesn't look silly at all. Unfortunately in order to look at the numbers one would need to enlarge the chart. That's what I mean. Colchicum (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The chart will be large enough in the article to see the numbers without clicking it. It will look like it does in the Putin article.

I saw those IMF figures before but I did not want to put them in because the figures show that the economy basically fully recovered all the GDP it lost in two years - the economy was in recession up until 1998, then by 2000 it shows it back up to the Soviet level. This seems misleading or incorrect because the economy was a mess in 2000 and the standard of living was well below the Soviet level.--Miyokan (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The numbers aren't incorrect, but I agree it can be somewhat misleading/confusing. The economy didn't recover what it lost in two years because you have to take into account for not just the recession, but the gains it should have been making. At an average 5-7% growth per year from '92-'00, the economy in '00 should have been about 1.7-1.8 trillion. It would look something like this. (We assume the economy wouldn't have grown so rapidly in the Putin years, which with oil prices as they are, very well could be a false assumption). As for standards of living, the difference between 1991 and 2000 is that although the economy was the same size, instead of the countries wealth being distributed to the citizens via socialism, it was being horded by a few individuals for self gain. Just another example of why GDP isn't the best measure of living standards (see also Qatar and Saudi Arabia). Krawndawg (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

PUTIN

Vladimir Putin has only extended the powers of the presidency. He has made no motions toward a freer russia. Even now after he has officially vacated office he has his puppet dmitry in charge and he remains prime minister. If any one knows anything about a single act putin has pushed for drop me a message at AragornSOArathorn.

-AragornSOAragorn —Preceding unsigned comment added by AragornSOArathorn (talk • contribs) 22:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"We're not electing a new President. We're just helping the old one to choose a new nickname and avatar." (c=bashorg.ru) --Illythr (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Give McCain a chance. World will love him.194.85.148.66 (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Dmitry

hahahaha152.1.149.9 (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure the preceding comment was about the new Russian president.68.148.123.76 (talk) 05:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sure (because i live in Russia) that Putin is not member of United Russia(UR).He has special status-he is head of the party,but not member.Head and member is Boris Gryslov,he is also speaker of the pfrlament.I know that it is funny,but it is true.

Member BSC100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by BSC100 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the question be whether Putin did something Unconstitutional or not? Because if Putin didn't do anything unconstitutional, he didn't really extend presidential powers, merely used more assets that the Constitution gave to the Presidency then his predecessor? 68.167.1.235 (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Dmitry Medvedev

"Президент РФ Дмитрий Медведев"

• http://news.google.co.uk/news?ned=ru_ru&hl=ru&ned=ru_ru&scoring=d&q=%22%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82+%D0%A0%D0%A4+%D0%94%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9+%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B2+&btnG=%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA

194.66.226.95 (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot's edits

I have restored the status quo because there were problems with the information he added.

"At least up until 2004 however, 'military officials repeatedly complain[ed] that they were able to draft less than 11 per cent of those who are supposed to be conscripts'. his was partially due to the widely publicised excesses of dedovshchina, the harsh system of senior conscripts controlling the barracks."

Mr. DeYoung's hearsay is unconfirmed and, at the year 20101, outdated.

The reason you gave for reducing the contract term, which you listed as because of "the need for contract troops to operate the latest equipment" is not the only reason. There are several reasons why the contract term is being reduced, for instance because it is in line with the "lighter and more mobile" Russian armed forces post-Soviet doctrine, health/education problems with draftees, dedovschina, etc, that is why there is "several problems associated with it" is listed. In any case, it is appropriate to go into such detail on the Russian armed forces article, but on this article the armed forces section only has a paragraph devoted to it and there is a many aspects to cover, going into detail about one only serves to inflate an already bloated article.--Berkunt (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Establishment date

Strange no Independence clause is in there by the date. Something about ancient times is said, but no independence date, no info on that Russia became independent from the Soviet Union.

Probably it can be disputed what the issue if officially, whether Russia officially existed within, or in parallel with, Soviet Union -- you know, Soviet laws had little to do with reality, and I would not be surprised if there is a piece of paper saying that every Soviet republic, including Russia, was independent, free, and democratic within Soviet Union. However, de-facto independence was proclaimed during the Russian White House defense on August 19-21, 1991 (I think 19 is the right day, not sure). There is another "official" independence date, but those are papers -- the reality is August 19, independence from Soviet Union.

BTW, Ukraine article does state independence. Why not Russia?

Gelbukh (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

From talk page of pianist.ru. It is in Russian, please use Google translation if needed:

Duh, Russia ISN'T Soviet Union. 213.80.170.74 (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Mrannumous666 (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Россия (Russia)

• По России:

Правопреемственность: Российская республика, провозглашенная в феврале 1917 года стала правопреемницей Российской империи. РСФСР, установленная в октябре (по ст. стилю) 1917 года — правопреемница Российской республики. Далее 4 республики (РСФСР, БССР, УССР, ЗСФСР) объединились в СССР (при этом РСФСР продолжала существовать как государство в составе СССР, см. любую конституцию РСФСР 1918, 1925, 1938, 1978 года). В 1991 году Ельцин был избран Президентом РСФСР (одновременно ещё был Президент СССР - Горбачев). В декабре главами РСФСР, БССР, УССР подписано беловежское соглашение, Горбач уходит в отставку. Президент РСФСР не уничтожает РСФСР (по разным соображениям, также во избежание потери власти), а просто переименовывает её в РФ. Действуют все законы РСФСР (то же самое государство) и СССР (до указов о приостановлении конкретного закона), также обязательства Советского Союза перед другими государствами (РСФСР стала его государством-правопреемником). Поэтому дата основания современной России — 7 октября 1917 года.

Шоковая терапия, прихватизация и прочее по сути дела являются лишь продолжением перестроечной политики, хотя и сбивают несведущих граждан с толку. Еще их запутывает конституция РФ 1993 года, воспринимаемая как первая конституция России, однако она уже пятая по счёту. --Pianist 01:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Эта одна из точек зрения - вероятно вполне законная. С другой стороны Россия стала правоприемницей и наследницей многого от СССР. Например, у РСФСР было свое место в ООН, свое представительство, свой голос, это место не имело постоянного представительства в СБ и права вето. После распада СССР РФ получила не место РСФСР, а место СССР. РФ полностью взяла на себе внеший долг, обязательства по междунородным договорам, стату ядерной державы и проч. С третьей стороны РСФСР как предмет международного права после 1921 года не существовал (ну или почти не существовал). РФ руководствуется не договорами РСФСР, а договорами СССР. Или новыми договорами. С четвертой стороны юридически принятие действующей (Собчаковской) конституции в 1993 году было полным нарушением предыдущей конституции. В этом смысле государство существует с 1993 года. С пятой, по вашей точке зрения, поскольку в РСФСР теоретически действовали все законы Российской Империи кроме официально отменных. То современная РФ существует со значительно более ранних времен (Московского княжества?, Ивана III?).

Таким образом, говорить, что РФ существует с 1917 года - это откровенный WP:OR или ОРИСС. Если Вы найдете авторитетный источники это подтверждающие (не передовицу газеты Правда, а, скажем, Британику) - то можно. То что сейчас тоже надо поправить, но мне кажется, что сказать, что стала полностью суверенным государство в 1991г. - сказать можно).Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

По ООН - мягко выражаясь не совсем правдивая информация. РСФСР не вступала в ООН (в отличие от БССР и УССР), поэтому не знаю откуда вы это взяли. Кстати это не моя альтернативная точка зрения, как вы пытались намекнуть, это факты меджународного права. После ликвидации государства следует созыв учредительного собрания, принятие новой конституции; если вы не помните 1993 год, то напомню что конституцию приняли из-за событий возле Белого дома, а не потому что хотели принять конституцию нового государства. Поэтому прошу вас убрать ваш откат обратно. --Pianist 03:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Откатывал последний раз не я, а Berkunt. Я как раз пытаюсь учесть вашу точку зрения. У Вас есть сомнения, что Россия получила независимость от СССР в 1991? If possible lets use English, we are English wikipediaAlex Bakharev (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Прошу прощения, но если я буду писать по-английски, то сильно исказится смысл того, что я хотел сказать.
Независимость от СССР Россия получила, но это дата независимости, а не дата основания. Как говорится, это две большие разницы. Независимой Россия также была с 1917 по 1922 год. Кстати по комментарию, к откату участника Berkunt. По его мнению Российская империя была также переименована. Также он пропустил Российскую республику. Вот в том и сложности, что у множества людей начинается разрыв шаблонов, когда начинаешь писать задокументированные факты. По переименованию могу привести ссылку на официальный документ. Надеюсь вы понимаете, что переименование и прекращение существования государства - не одно и то же. --Pianist 04:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Alex Bakharev, вам не кажется странным, что в шаблоне указана дата основания (862), а вы даете сноску на дату независимости. Нужно и про 7 ноября 1917 года написать, что юридически РФ основана тогда. --Pianist 06:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Утром - ссылка на надежные источники, вечером - дата. Можно и наоборот, но источники - вперед. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Закон в студию! Закон РСФСР от 25 декабря 1991 года № 2094-1 «Об изменении наименования государства Российская Советская Федеративная Социалистическая Республика». Вот ещё фотография закона с подписью Бориса Ельцина в виде бонуса --Pianist 07:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Это Ваша интерпретация (WP:SYNTH). Покажите ссылку где сказано, что РФ существует с Октября 1917 года. Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Как сложно разговаривать. РСФСР - это и есть РФ (что подтверждает закон, что я привел). РСФСР образована 7 ноября 1917 (БСЭ). --Pianist 23:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your original research. Still I would wait for the input from other editors Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

When you have no arguments, you start saying about "original researches". I wrote Reliable sources to you. (Вот началось - кончаются аргументы - надо начинать орать про оригинальные исследования. Ссылки я указал, вы начинаете доводить до абсурда правила Википедии) --Pianist 01:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We are not doing original research. We are looking for the mainstream views in published sources. Please find any reliable source that claim that modern RF starts in 1917. WP:SYNTH is not allowed, sorry Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Вот как все херово в Википедии - добавить факты нельзя - долго доказываешь и подтверждаешь ссылками, а в итоге всё будет откачено волюнтаристским решением админа (либо вообще додиков, что про Россию знают меньше, чем например русские про Гондурас). Сейчас в статье информация по дате независимости ложная, а даты образования вообще нет. Россия приняла декларацию независимости 12 июня 1990 года (а сейчас указан 1991 год), юридически Россия основана 7 ноября 1917 года (по новому стилю), однако вики-демократам эта дата не по-душе, ладно - триколор в жопу, ветер в спину - можете тогда указывать в качестве даты основания хоть август 1991, хоть октябрь 1993. Лет через сто может найдется умный человек и вернет правильную версию. Причем отсюда за этот период тупо скопируют в другие языковые разделы википедии. --Pianist 06:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• The Supreme Soviet of RSFSR could proclaim whatever they want, the republic was not de-facto indendent until the August 1991. Otherwise we would have to admit that Estonia was an independent democratic state in 1940-1991. Still I have entered both dates to address your concerns Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Вот сейчас более-менее, но тема основания не раскрыта (1917), по данным, указанным в статье, получается что даже Израиль юридически старше России, однако это не так.--Pianist 09:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added the info you requested (with a valid reference BTW) Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to search documents for you (try google, if you want them), but Russia (Russian Federation) and USSR is the same country as I was told yet in school. It has survived dramatical changes, but de juri and de facto it's so. Так что, друзья мои, учите матчасть. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.94.16.147 (talk) 06:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Про незвависимоть: Россия (как государство, будь то СССР, Российская империя, РФ) никогда не была ни от кого зависима (в отличие от США, ксатати), Россия было ОСНОВАНА. А это 2 большие разницы! Про 1991 год: Россия - правоприемник СССР, а как правоприемник может быть зависим? имхо. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeninFoRever (talk • contribs) 23:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia's anti-russian bias

Is seen from its citing purely american standpoint of what is the size of the territory of Russia.The actual area of Russia is 17,098,242 km2,see wikpedias russian version,that's 22848 square kilometers more than shown in wikipedia's english version.

Frank Russian (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Are the Serbs really anti-russian? -- j.budissin (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Really-really anti-russian gang is at Federal State Statistics Service of Russia. --Tigga en (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

They have changed wiki russian aticle for 17,075,400 km recently.Wiki redactors must have woken up at last. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.99.66.166 (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

russian healthcare

Just wanted to comment that the sub chapter "Russian healthcare" would be (imho) good to move to a separate article "Healthcare in Russia" and add the categories "Healthcare by country" and "Health economics" to that article (as this is the case with a number of other countries. --Jhelleranta (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Если ты читал источник не внимательно, вот цитата: "В медицинской сфере дискриминация привела к тому, что неработающие граждане без регистрации по месту жительства не могут оформить медицинский полис. Те же, кто медицинский полис имеет, не могут получить медицинскую помощь на территории, не совпадающей с их регистрацией." И прописка, это лишь одна из причин, по которой всеобщее право на бесплатную медицину остаётся только на бумаге. Другая распространённая, это то, что значительная часть страны рпботает "нелегально" получает зарплату в конвертах и, как следствие, также не имеет полиса. Я не знаю откуда ты сам, но я например, живу в росси. И с тех самых пор, как закончил университет в 2002г. ни разу не имел этого полиса по разным причинам, равно как и большинство моих друзей. Что до выщитывания процентов, то вообще не понятно к чему это. Там ясно написано, что конституция гарантирует всем. На деле, разница между повседневностью и конституцией в россии огромна. И даже если и один этого не имеет, это уже не всем. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.81.237 (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the article is discussing various types of discrimination by "propiska", not just discussing just health care. Health care is just one of the areas briefly touched upon. Secondly, your quote is meaningless without numbers of how many people this affects. The article listed potentially 3 million victims of propiska discrimination ("Количество потенциальных жертв подобной дискриминации составляет минимум 3 миллиона человек.") - that is less than 2% of Russia's population. This by itself shows that access to health care is hardly a big problem. But I'll add some points.

Furthermore, it states half of the 3 million figure are people working in Moscow, ("Около половины от этого числа людей работают в Москве, остальные, как правило, трудятся в других крупных городах страны") so it is hardly a nationwide problem. Furthermore, this 3 million figure counts all the various aspects of discrimination via propiska that the article covered (the article covered the right to work, to health care, to buy state housing, registration of motor vehicles, to obtain a loan and suffrage - "Среди прав, которые незаконно поставлены в зависимость от наличия регистрации, - право на труд, на медицинскую помощь, на покупку квартир по программе "Доступное жилье", на регистрацию автомобилей, на получение кредита и даже активное избирательное право."), not just health care. So the figure for people affected by solely health care, not counting all these other aspects which are included in this 3 million figure, would be even smaller, and the article doesn't provide this information anyway, which is the only information we are interested in.--Miyokan (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The statement is you can't get free health care without proper "propiska". So i don't know the way how this figure could be even smaller than amount of people without proper "propiska". Another statement you can't get free health care if you work illegally. And lot of russians do. And anyway, as i told you above, that article says "Russia's constitution guarantees free, universal health care for all citizens." Even if one doesn't in fact have this right, it's not all 91.122.81.237 (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, there might be some cases of this, but it shouldn't be added to the article per WP:UNDUE as it affects so little people (less than 2% of the population - even less when you discount all the other discriminations that are included in that figure). It also basically just affects Moscow. This information belongs in the propiska article.--Miyokan (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Third time: not less! Because it's not you either can't register motor vehicle or can't get free health care, but all together at same time. + add here the amount of people, working illegally. And anyway, it doesn't matter. 98% 99% or 97% it's not all. So this part of the article gives false impression. And it's not a view of minority, which WP:UNDUE covers. It's view of official states ombudsman, assigned to this role by russian president —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.81.237 (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop violating concensus, you have been reverted by another editor now. You have also broken the three-revert rule. There is nothing false about "Russia's constitution guarantees free, universal health care for all citizens", that is just fact. That possibly 1% of people do not get it because they break the law does not discount this statement.--Miyokan (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus reached. And a fact that i were reverted by another editor, does not mean that my edits are wrong. Stop manipulate numbers and facts (3 of 140 is more than 2% FYI). This peoples can't get this right not because they've broke the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.81.237 (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they have broken the law because propiska is a permit, it is a legal document, if these illegal Moscow workers followed the rules of propiska like 99% of the population does then they wouldn't have any problem.--Miyokan (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That reference, which i've provided, does not say even a word about people broke a law. Peoples, which can't get theirs free health care are not outlaws. And don't forget, that russian constitution guaranties freedom of movement and settlement. So how could there be a permit on settlement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.84.125 (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat it again because you just ignored what I said. Yes, they have broken the law because propiska is a law, if these illegal Moscow workers followed the propiska law like 99% of the population does then they wouldn't have any problem. The Russian constitution argument, that is WP:OR and debateable, the Constitutional court has not ruled that propiska is unconstitutional. If you think propiska is unconstitutional then feel free to take it to the Constitutional court. Anyway, access to health care is hardly a problem as we have established that 98/99% of the population are not affected by this.--Miyokan (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

References does not say that those people have broke the law! It's just your imagination. Its not unlawful to live without propiska. It's not even unlawful to be a homeless. And anyway, even if such, constitution guaranties free health care to all which includes even outlaws because they are citizens as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.84.125 (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact is the reason why these people are facing these "restrictions" is because they are not following the proper rules of propiska. Even ignoring this, you still neglect that this doesn't affect the 99% of Russians who do follow the rules.--Miyokan (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, reference does not say that "they are not following the proper rules of propiska" or anything like that. It's just your imagination. Its not unlawful to live without propiska. It's not even unlawful to be a homeless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.92.76 (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting sources. "Те же, кто медицинский полис имеет, не могут получить медицинскую помощь на территории, не совпадающей с их регистрацией.") - Translation - "Those who have a medical policy cannot receive medical care in the territory not concurrent with their registration (propiska)". ie If people followed the rule and sought medical care in the territory concurrent with their registration like they are supposed to like 99% of Russians, then they would have no problem. All of this is irrelevant anyway because, as you yet again ignored, it this doesn't affect 99% of Russians as the article said.--Miyokan (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually complete phrase is "В медицинской сфере дискриминация привела к тому, что неработающие граждане без регистрации по месту жительства не могут оформить медицинский полис. Те же, кто медицинский полис имеет, не могут получить медицинскую помощь на территории, не совпадающей с их регистрацией." (In medical aspect discrimination lead to the fact that unemployed citizens without propiska can't get policy for free health care. Those who have a medical policy cannot receive medical care in the territory not concurrent with their propiska) And i'm not going to comment your statements about "following rules" and "99%" again and again. I've done that already.

Statement, that i've added to article is properly sourced by reliable source. So stop deleting it. I'm over with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.92.76 (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP: If you'd study the health-care systems in other countries with so called "free" health-care, you'll find them all to have some sorts of restrictions and rules. That's just the nature of these types of social systems. Technicalities, such as your assertion that health care isn't free to *everyone* because illegal workers don't get it, does not at all warrant mention in this article (especially when you word it the way you do so to make it seem like a widespread issue that effects a significant portion of the population.) The main point is that every citizen in Russia is guaranteed free health care as long as they follow the rules (common sense, goes without saying), the same as in every European country. Krawndawg (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Again. Those people mentioned in report of official russian ombudsmen do not brake rules or laws! And what is happening in other countries is not relevant to this article at all. I haven't mentioned illegal workers in this article. There is discrimination in russia in area of health care. And this statement has reliable sources ( official russian ombudsmen report and others ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.13.68 (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, after a post at WP:NPOV/N, I am responding.

1) @IP: you have edit warred a lot, across several IPs, and have scarcely avoiding violating WP:3RR on a few occasions. This makes getting in contact with you hard. Please register an account.

2) @Miyokan et al.: I see no problem including a note that the universal health care has problems; in fact, it provides information to the read that is important. I've translated the source into English, and the IP is not misrepresenting it at all. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Read what Krawndawg said, Spartan. Anon is again ignoring facts so I'll repeat again - "Те же, кто медицинский полис имеет, не могут получить медицинскую помощь на территории, не совпадающей с их регистрацией.") - Translation - "Those who have a medical policy cannot receive medical care in the territory not concurrent with their registration (propiska)". ie If people followed the rule and sought medical care in the territory concurrent with their registration like they are supposed to like 99% of Russians, then they would have no problem.

It is impossible to argue with Anon, he ignores our points and facts repeats the same thing ad nauseum. Every universal health care in the world has some sorts of restriction rules, which is the nature of these types of social systems. And if you indeed read the source (google translate?) then you would have read that 99% of Russians are not affected by these rules.--Miyokan (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fourth time: they do not brake rules. I don't know where you got it. All those "ie If" is just your original research. Russian ombudsmen clearly calls it as discrimination in his report. I repeat: discrimination. The article is biased, and gives wrong impression. Sounds like "russia got such a great free universal health care system, and all problems is just came from nowhere" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.94.39 (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the repeated deletion of this text by three registered users (Miyokan, Krawdawng and Cuban kossak) is against the core WP:NPOV policy. You do not own this article. A user, who acts in a good faith, wants to include the another side of the coin - based on a source. Let him do it. What kind of cooperation is that? This suppose to be a collaborative project.Biophys (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We can not give undue weight to health care not being provided to people who live in places in violation of Russian law.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 17:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like all this dispute is double bull. Healthcare problem is hardly related to propiska at all (trust me - I'm one of 3 million, although the number should be doubled for Moscow alone), not even to money. It's about scarcity of medical resources and their concentration in a few institutions (yes, primarily Muscovite). Got xxx-tis? Go to Moscow to Dr.Y. (it's cheaper than going to similarly qualified Dr.Z somewhere in Irkutsk). NVO (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get that, about law violation? And official russian ombudsmen report of cause have undue weight. Only your fantasies about law violation is heavyweight. 89.110.23.40 (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If people can not legally register but still chose to reside where they can not legally register they are violating Russian law. Since most people are able to legally register where they reside, it is undue weight to put a sentence about who can't in second sentence of the Russian health section. An official Russian ombudsmen report does not change this. People who are not able to legally register where they choose to reside are a small part of the Russian population.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 18:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As i told above: Its not unlawful to live without propiska. It's not even unlawful to be a homeless. So what law are they violating? Report does not say anything about any law violations committed by those people. 89.110.23.40 (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, i've missed that report can't change your mind. But unfortunately for you, we should add statements not based on what you think of it, but on reliable sources 89.110.23.40 (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you think Registration is for, for fun. Of course it is made by law. Don't repeat your questions, points when they have been negated. See User:Jnc/Astronomer vs Amateur.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 18:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If by "negated" you mean simply ignoring questions like "So what law are they violating?" ok than. Seems like we finished. And i believe that you understand laws a way better than official russian ombudsmen. 89.110.23.40 (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This user only wants to tell that "But in practice, free health care is restricted due, for example, to propiska regime". This is obviously true, and what "undue weight"? This way you can call anything you do not like "undue weight". If propiska by itself represents a lawful practice is debatable and a separate question. Biophys (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is the user is trying to say that "Russians are being prevented from enjoying free health care from propiskas." This is misrepresenting the facts. It should be "People who live illegally at their location in Russia are not being provided with health care."--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 18:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I cited the deleted text precisely: "But in practice, free health care is restricted due, for example, to propiska regime".Biophys (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"Citizens who live illegally in their own country" sounds nice. =) Can i ask, what your imaginable russian law suppose to do with those criminals? Depart them? Where? To the moon? Or should they just be immediately shot? 89.110.23.40 (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, Natl1 apparently considers Russian citizens to be illegal aliens if only they visit Moscow instead of staying in their Syktyvkar. This sounds like Stalinism to me.Biophys (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this should go on propiska as the matter at hand deals with supposed no freedom of movement and the consequences of its enforcement. Nothing to do with how health care is provided to most Russians.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like anonymous IP is back after his 3 day block for block evasion and breaking the 3RR and the semi-protection of the article expired.[2] Anon seems to ignore everything we say and facts that I point out and thinks that brute edit warring and repeating the same defeated argument ad nauseam, instead of gaining WP:CONCENSUS for his new controversial edit which there obviously isn't, will keep this information in. He seems to want to make a WP:POINT that Russia has a bad health care system ("The article is biased, and gives wrong impression. Sounds like "russia got such a great free universal health care system, and all problems is just came from nowhere"). He is blaming it on propiska/registration (freedom of movement which affects access to health care if not correctly followed), which has nothing to do with quality of health care services and doesn't affect 99% of Russians.

Source: "Те же, кто медицинский полис имеет, не могут получить медицинскую помощь на территории, не совпадающей с их регистрацией.") - Translation - "Those who have a medical policy cannot receive medical care in the territory not concurrent with their registration (propiska)". ie If people followed the rule and sought medical care in the territory concurrent with their registration like they are supposed to like 99% of Russians, then they would have no problem. Propiska/registration, is a permit, it is a legal document, as Natl1 said, it is not for fun.

This is WP:UNDUE as it doesn't affect 99% of Russians ("Количество потенциальных жертв подобной дискриминации составляет минимум 3 миллиона человек." Translation - article said propiska potentially affects at least 3 million Russians - that's only around 2% of the population, potentially at that, and this figure counts all the various aspects of discrimination via propiska that the article covered, [the article covered the right to work, to health care, to buy state housing, registration of motor vehicles, to obtain a loan and suffrage, health care was just one of many - "Среди прав, которые незаконно поставлены в зависимость от наличия регистрации, - право на труд, на медицинскую помощь, на покупку квартир по программе "Доступное жилье", на регистрацию автомобилей, на получение кредита и даже активное избирательное право."]) and the 1-2% of the population that it does affect are not following the propiska rules. (WP:UNDUE-Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.) - the fact that it doesn't affect 99% of Russians falls under this criteria by itself, but you can add to that who follow the law, and that all the health-care systems in other countries with so called "free" health-care have some sorts of restrictions and rules, makes it certainly undue). Furthermore, it states half of the 3 million figure are people working in Moscow, ("Около половины от этого числа людей работают в Москве, остальные, как правило, трудятся в других крупных городах страны"), so it is hardly a nationwide problem. It is a freedom of movement problem, isolated mostly to Moscow that doesn't affect 98-99% of the pop.--Miyokan (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution Just in case if you were not aware of that ;) 89.110.9.132 (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. But then you should register as a regular user and ask for mediation.Biophys (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Brute edit warring and repeating the same defeated argument ad nauseam, as other users noted, to get what you want when so many are opposed will not get you anywhere, I and other users will be here tommorow, and the day after that, and the week after that, and the year after that. The onus is on the user who adds the information to keep it in ("If your ideas are not immediately accepted, think of a reasonable change that might integrate your ideas with others and make an edit, or discuss those ideas.") and you still have no WP:CONSENSUS for your change, which was immediately met with opposition from several editors, so seek consensus on talk here or through mediation as you have no hope of keeping it in without it, and continuing to add this disputed information with no concensus will only get you blocked.--Miyokan (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to join. 91.122.90.169 (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

One could also create article Health care in Russia (now this is a redirect) and describe everything there. There is a lot of things to be said, including the infant mortality rate, conditions in maternity yards, etc.Biophys (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that would solve this specific problem. It would still put the propiska problem under the wrong heading.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 17:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not about propiska. This is about denial of health care on the grounds that a person has a wrong record in his/her internal passport. A person who allegedly undergoes this discrimination can not easily change this record. This is not a USA driver's license. To put this in perspective, consider that a Mexican illegal alien in the US has an access to emergency health care in the US. However a Russian citizen can be denied health care at the territory of Russia, being considered as a kind of an "illegal" alien, based on this "propiska" system. At least, that is an argument of the IP, if I understand him/her correctly.Biophys (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Biased/Inaccurate History

This article claims Kievan Rus' as the beginning of its historical recount. Kievan Rus', since it's establishment in 5th century, was the capital of the country now called Ukraine, and shares its culture, language and history. The Moscow State established itself as a notable power centuries later than Kievan Rus',in 15th century and 471 miles away. The ethnic composition, the spoken language, and culture of Moscow State (what is now Russia) was completely distinct from that of Kievan Rus'.

The language used by the Slavic Rus' is not "shared" by Ukraine; in fact, modern Ukrainian shares a lot with Polish, which is not surprising considering Poland ruled Ukraine for hundreds of years. The Ancient Rus' never called themselves "Ukrainian" nor did they call their state "Kievan Rus'", which is a modern invention. The inhabitants of Ancient Rus' were not Ukrainians, nor Russians or Belarussians, none of which had yet emerged as separate ethnic groups. The Rus' were quite simply the Rus, and the predecessors of all three groups. Put another way, Russians, Belarussians and Ukrainians are descendants of the Rus', and, thus, were at one point the same group of people. So in fact, all three countries have the same legitimate claim to claiming Ancient Rus' in historical recounts norvgord in near st peters burg and was the main rus city during the medevil period kiev , being torn apart by various fations ceased to the capital so the later period rus lived in russia but the early settlers lived in ukraine poland was founded by the holy roman empire.--71.112.145.102 (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Novgorod, I would assume, was Ukrainian as well. --Humanophage (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Human/civil rights

I'm a bit surprised, there is not a section about civil/human rights. I think it is far from perfect. Well, maybe just certain people want it to be clean and to to mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceridan (talk • contribs) 17:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The USA article doesn't have it to, and the CIA invented it. Kostan1 (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What rights?! seriously, the list will be long enough for a dozen spinoff articles. NVO (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No link to 2008 South Ossetia war?

Georgia's page links there. Is this not notable information concerning Russia at this moment in time? Emesee (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should be included. Ostap 22:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

While the effect of the war is very visible and immediate in case of Georgia, it is not yet so for Russia. Wait a few weeks, until the effect on Russia becomes more clear, then add it to highlight that effect. Right now, a short notice of an ongoing conflict is sufficient. --Illythr (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, people in Russia are not affected by this conflict and most people in Russia are not preoccupied with it. WP:NOT#NEWS. Russia has been in far larger wars in its history, we don't list every war/conflict Russia was involved in during Muscovy, Tsarist or Imperial Russia sections.--Miyokan (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There may be a big effect whether they are conscious of it or not. This may be a matter of perspective, however. One author sums it up as "The invasion restores a sense of Russian nationalism and power to its populace without the stink of Stalinism, and is indeed cloaked as a sort of humanitarian intervention on behalf of beleaguered Ossetians." However, if it comes down to simply not including it because of "wp,news (not)" then OK, that's great. Emesee (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Now this probably sounds really evil, but the 3:1 victory of the Russian national football team over the Netherlands this year may have had just the effect on Russians this author describes, albeit for a short time (until the semifinals). The idea is to wait until the dust settles and see what the long-term geopolitical and social (if any) consequences of this war will be, find the (numerous, reliable, independent) sources pinpointing those, and add them in. --Illythr (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for minor grammatical change

I would like to suggest the following minor changes, deleting the words I have marked with a strike-through and adding the words I have marked in bold.

"Following the Soviet practice, it is mandatory for all male citizens aged 18–27 to be drafted for two years' Armed Forces service, though various problems associated with this is explain why the armed forces have reduced the conscription term from 18 months to 12 since 2008, and are planning to increase the proportion of contract servicemen to compose 70% of the armed forces by 2010."

I do not feel these change the meaning of the sentence in any way but I do feel they improve the readability of this section. Kapello (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Done.--Miyokan (talk) 05:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Kievan Rus'

The Kievan Rus' was not Russian. IT WAS UKRAINIAN and the Russians stoll this from us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.88.255 (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? Are you gonna say that Ukraine founded earlier than Kiev Russia? Modern Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian ethnic groups were absent in the 9th century. EAST SLAVIC tribes lived there ("radimichi", "krivichi", "vyatichi" et cetera). They used the Old Russian language. Ukrainians and the Ukrainian language appeared in about 14th century (like Russians and Belorussians also). Open any encyclopedia or course of history and you'll see this info. LexArt (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine and Ukrainians have created by Poles in the 15 century, when they needed slaves to free labor. Thus, they created the Ukrainian nation and Ukrainian language, which is a mixture of Polish and Russian languages (Ukrainian culture, too).--213.80.170.74 (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Racism in Russia: New section needed

I propose we add a new section to the article about racism in Russia. It is a huge issue, with growing number of neonazis, skinheads and nationalists. Russia has a large population of minorities, and with growing racism, there have been increased reports of violence and killings of minorities in Russia. In 2005 there have been over 300 known killings, this number has been already surpassed. There are already articles on this on Wikipedia, I think they should be referenced here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.124.159.215 (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's great idea to create new section. It always was, and still is a big issue in Russia.--Edilhan777 (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Show me a single other country article which has racism as a separate section on it; does United States, Australia, Germany, Estonia, Georgia (country), etc? Racism is a problem which all countries encounter (including those I have singled out), and needs to be dealt with in separate articles. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 05:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Racism in Oceania, Racism in the United States, Racism by country, etc. Methinks it should be added 124.177.43.182 (talk) 09:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• We already have Racism in Russia article Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Typos and clarity

I don't know if new edits should be put on top (like this one) or at the bottom. Anyway, I've found a minor typo in the Russian Federation topic in the History section. The first sentence starts with "During and after the disintegration of the USSR when-wide ranging reforms ...". I think it should read "During and after the disintegration of the USSR when wide-ranging reforms ...".

Sorry to bother, but I have noticed two errors in the article, as well as two parts that I believe need more clarity.

The first error that I found was under the Topography section, where a sentence reads, "Other major lakes include Lake Ladoga and Lake Onega, two largest lakes in Europe." This surely cannot be a complete sentence. Perhaps it should read, "Other major lakes include Lake Ladoga and Lake Onega, the two largest lakes in Europe."

The other error is in the first sentence of the Russian Federation section. The part in question reads, "... of the USSR when-wide ranging reforms..." The hyphen here should most likely be between wide and ranging, instead of when and wide.

Under the Subdivisions section, I believe that the explanation of the federal subjects is rather confusing. It may have just been the fact that I was also in a math lecture when I was reading this, but it may want to be checked. Also, it would be nice if under the Geography section that the percentage of the world's area that Russia controls was listed. Especially under Topography, many numbers are listed, and although these numbers are good to have, it'd be nice to have something to compare it to. This is especially important for the part where it says that Russia controls 10% of the world's arable land. If Russia were only 1% of the world's area, then this would be impressive, and if Russia were 80% of the world's area, then this number would obviously bear less significance. As it stands, Russia controls 11.5% of the world's land, which means that it having 10% of the arable land is actually a bit less than expected.

Once again, sorry to bother, but I hope someone with the awesome ability to edit locked articles can improve these parts. Haberdasheryisnotacrime (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess russians do not know geography. when they say that russia borders Georgia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia they don't understand Abkhazia and South Ossetia are just the regions of Georgia. but russia will border soon North Ossetia, Ingushetia, Chechnya, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia, Adigeya and Dagestan and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.172.178 (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Bordering countries

Because of only Russia recognises South Ossetia and Abkhazia, should they be added to the list of countries Russia borders? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.141.113 (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Every"

The nation can boast a long tradition of excellence in every aspect of the arts and sciences.

— Maybe so, but is this information or a boast? "Every" is an absolute term in English, meaning there are no exceptions — absolutely every respect is included.

I looked for a parallel in the article on the United States, and found the U.S. described as a leader in scientific research and technological innovation. This seems a bit less fulsome. "A leader" is not the only leader, and doesn't necessarily mean a leader in every aspect of research and innovation.

I have great respect for Russia and its culture, which I find fascinating. But the above statement strikes me as a bit POV. Sca (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Current Russia shouldn't take the credit for the works of SU and Russian Empire

According to this article Russian conservatories have turned out generations of world-renowned soloists well none of the great performers mentioned took lesson on Russian Federation conservatories but conservatories in the Russian Empire and USSR. Still this article labels them as having had lessons at Russian conservatories. Horowitz went to the Kiev conservatory, well that is not in Russia now is it? So why was this edit: [3] undone? Seems like some editors think Wikipedia is a tool to glorify Russia rather then to inform people about it. -- Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

There are no historical or contemporary distinctions in the adjective "Russian"; all it means is "pertaining to Russia." It doesn't matter whether it pertained to Russia hundreds of years ago or today.--71.112.145.102 (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Politics section

It is well known that political opponents have been tortured and murdered in many different ways such including being poisoned. Even media people who have opposed the government have been poisoned. These things have also happened during the elections. Could this be added to the article somewhere? Aaroncrick (talk) 04:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did my previous comment get deleted? It's just a suggestion. It's not as if I've added it to the article. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Your previous comment was deleted because it was not a suggestion, but yourself using the talkpage as a WP:FORUM. And it won't get covered on this particular article, for the same that Australia doesn't cover the fact that the Europeans near on exterminated the Aboriginal population; often by burying them in the sand up to their heads, and kicking their heads like it was a football. And I have renamed the section also, to again take away your WP:FORUM like comments. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 07:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright point taken. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Russian History

Good day moderators and Editors of Russia article I'm witting this topic because of a brief problem me and different partners at Tec of monterrey campus Guadalajara are having at this moment. In the section of Brief history about russia this fragment was use by different students in a work about Russia it was taken from the suppose source web page of the information. At this moment it is prohibited for Students at Tec of monterrey to use any kind of information taken form wikipidia. I want to know if is possible not to erase but to paraphrase this fragment in the article:

Byzantine Empire in 988, beginning the synthesis of Byzantine and Slavic cultures that defined Russian culture for the next millennium. Moscow gradually reunified the surrounding Russian principalities and came to dominate the cultural and political legacy of Kievan Rus'. By the 18th century, the nation had greatly expanded through conquest, annexation and exploration to become the Russian Empire, which was the third largest empire in history, stretching from Poland eastward to the Pacific Ocean and Alaska.

Just by the simple fact of moderators paraphrasing this info will prevent 50 students of receiving a DA or Academic Dishonesty. Which is a punishment we receive for using prohibited websites or information not cited in mla format in our written works. In this case the problem was the presence of this article in wikipedia without the knowledge of students.

Thanks moderator if is possible to paraprahse this info or to open the file to editing and help us in this academic problem.

Eduardo Prado Ruiz 5th semester High school Instituto Tecnologico de Estudios Superiores Monterrey Campu Guadalajara.

Hi. Can you present the original source you took the text from? If so, you can simply list that author as the source, which I assume, is perfectly legal for your examinators. The source used in Wikipedia for this information is the US Library of Congress, which, as you can see, is already rather paraphrased. So you can take the ULC as your source as well - it's obvious that it is the original source.

You also should be aware that since you left your name on this page, it, along with your proposal here, will turn up within a few days in most search engines. --Illythr (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Russian Presidential

Russian already changed their constitution to Presidential since November 20, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin Ho Jiang Lim (talk • contribs) 05:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy of claim?

It says in the article: "Russia has the world's largest forest reserves[11] and is known as "the lungs of Europe",[19] second only to the Amazon Rainforest in the amount of carbon dioxide it absorbs. It provides a huge amount of oxygen for not just Europe, but the world"

That seems untrue - isn't the majority of the forest a climax ecosystem? In that case, it should be fairly neutral, both with regard to CO₂ and oxygen. Same is the case with the Amazon rainforest. The source is "The Guardian", I wouldn't count on their ability to figure that out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.51.151.66 (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Some substantiation:

"Even without the massive burning, the popular conception of the Amazon as a giant oxygen factory for the rest of the planet is misguided, scientists say. Left unmolested, the forest does generate enormous amounts of oxygen through photosynthesis, but it consumes most of it itself in the decomposition of organic matter"

This is speciffically about the Amazon, but as it is mentioned in the article, I think it is relevant.

Link: http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/08/world/fg-amazon8

There may be a small surplus of oxygen, but nowhere the amount suggested in the Wikipedia article.

Redirection

Should 'Poccnr' really be redirected to 'Russia'? Same goes with 'Mockba' to 'Moscow', and 'Pyccknn' to 'Russian language'. Can you undo redirection links somehow? 76.111.67.200 (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have deleted the redirects, they are hardly usable and maintaining each redirect require some effort (like vandalism monitoring) Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks. 76.111.67.200 (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I think you've forgotten the redirect for the Russian language, 'pyccknn'. («pусский») 76.111.67.200 (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Map

The map, that shows the regions of Russia has a mistake. Archangelsk is south from Murmansk, not east, as it is displayed. It has it is own region next to Karelia (which is given on the map). I doubt what is the biggest settlement on the Novaya Zemlya island is, but it is not Archangelsk. Stan (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The only problem with the map is that it tries to shorten the names of the federal subjects for the sake of saving space, but creates more confusion in the process. "Arkhangelsk" on the map refers not to the city of Arkhangelsk, but to Arkhangelsk Oblast. Novaya Zemlya is in jurisdiction of Arkhangelsk Oblast, which is why it is so marked (you'll see that the main territory of the oblast is located where it is supposed to be—south of Murmansk Oblast).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:49, December 18, 2008 (UTC)

Government and politics section

The section as currently presented lays out the formal arrangements of government - as a democracy - without mentioning that there are a considerable number of authoritarian features that inhibit free democratic freedom of expression and legislative scrutiny of government. Would people mind if I added something like 'While the formal functioning of government is democratic, Russia has a centuries-long history of authoritarian rule, only broken briefly under Yeltsin in the early 1990s, and the Kremlin maintains effective control of events without much effective opposition from adversary parties.' We can easily have a debate on the wording, but I do not feel at the moment that the section accurately reflects the actual situation. Thoughts welcome. Buckshot06(prof) 18:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:5228-769639.jpg

The image File:5228-769639.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Domain .su

Domain .su is used now,it's not reserved. I living in Russia, i know. It's price 600 ruble. see here: http://www.nic.ru/?ipartner=349 and here: http://www.nic.ru/dns/service/su.html

ps. sorry for my english =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeninFoRever (talk • contribs) 23:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate source

Source #74: http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact90/world12.txt It is used to verify that the Soviet Union had the 2nd largest economy in the world. However, this source was for 1990, and obviously shows that the Soviet Union did not have the second largest economy. The source already present needs to be removed, and we need to either search for a source that verifies the original claim or remove the claim. PrometheusAndSisyphus (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

GDP in sidebar is incorrect form

for those numbers to be correct they need to change form to either 2,089 billion to 2.09 trillion and 1,289 billion or 1.29 trillion to be correct in US dollars. ~~weregilt~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.147.43 (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Greyhood (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Population

Population update!:

According to CIA in July 2008 Russias population was 140.7 million. By now I would guess its about 140 million with 700k less. Certainly it is not 142 million.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.161.173 (talk • contribs)

The CIA factbook uses estimates based on an old linear model from when Russia's population was declining by 500-600k per year. That decline has slowed significantly in recent years. You can find official population statistics on their state statistics service website here (or in English). LokiiT (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Anthem translation: English vs. Russian idiom

If the intention is to have a free translation (using English idiom), "National Anthem" is ok, but for a literal translation "State Hymn" is the obvious result. "State Anthem" mixes English and Russian idiom and imo is unsatisfactory. 118.90.105.225 (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You have a point there, and I'd suggest changing it to "national anthem". However, there may be some reason we're unaware of for choosing "state anthem", so it's worth waiting a day or two for responses from regular editors of this article. If no one seems to object, I'd change it. garik (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is not a good place to discuss the anthem. Please start with Talk:National Anthem of Russia. A move needs to be proposed, the results of which would affect the choice of the term to be used in this article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:44, February 13, 2009 (UTC)

Well, I asked this in part due to the differing title and link's translation. I'd like to see the link changed to National Anthem, if that is where the article is at. At the moment, the link's translation and the actual article are different. 118.90.105.225 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Im am here to study for my Europe test i wold like to find seas, oceans, and continents of Europe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.177.114.251 (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid no one can help you with the continents of Europe. For all other inquiries, please post at a reference desk appropriate to your question.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:15, February 24, 2009 (UTC)

Russia

Great page! I am doing a report on Russia and I found this very helpful.

thanks.

kingpenguins.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingpenguins2007 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You can help in Wiktionary - to Wiki editors

The English Wiktionary's list of Russian cities is rather small and needs expansion. Only the largest cities are represented.

You can join and help to enhance the list of entries. Start with your favourite city if they don't exist yet (a regional centre or a famous city). Here are 2 examples of an entry in English and Russian (both in the English Wiktionary):

• Krasnodar
• Краснодар
• Belgorod
• Белгород Anatoli (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a forum

I would like to remind people that, per Wikipedia:Talk page, as well as the announcement at the top of this page itself, an article talk page is not a forum. Therefore, this is not an appropriate place to discuss how much you love or hate Russia. I personally would like to see this template placed on the top of this page of people continue to use this page as a forum. --Ericdn (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the template. A good chunk of this talk page isnt about how to go about editing the article to make it better, but if people think that Russia is a superpower. Ono (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the template. There are at least a few discussions here that, at best, combine talk about the article with too much talk about personal opinions. There are plenty of other places on the internet to debate about Russia until you're blue in the fingers, but this is not one of them. --Ericdn (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A small error has been noticed in the History Summary... but I can't edit it...

The "History" summary states that the Huns and Vulgars overran the Cimmeran Bosporan Kingdom at some point between the 3rd and 6th centuries BC.

"In prehistoric times, the vast steppes of Southern Russia were home to disunited tribes of nomadic pastoralists. In classical antiquity, the Pontic Steppe was known as Scythia.[28] Remnants of these steppe civilizations were discovered in the course of the 20th century in such places as Ipatovo,[28] Sintashta,[29] Arkaim,[30] and Pazyryk.[31] In the latter part of the eighth century BC, Greek traders brought classical civilization to the trade emporiums in Tanais and Phanagoria.[32] Between the third and sixth centuries BC, the Bosporan Kingdom, a Hellenistic polity which succeeded the Greek colonies,[33] was overwhelmed by successive waves of nomadic invasions,[34] led by warlike tribes, such as the Huns and Turkic Avars. A Turkic people, the Khazars, ruled the lower Volga basin steppes between the Caspian and Black Seas until the 8th century.[35]"

This is a typing error, it should be AD, not BC (as the kingdom was a client state to Rome during the 2nd century AD) - the order of the centuries also indicates that the author meant to write AD (as the 3rd century BC is AFTER the 6th century). The section SHOULD read:

"In prehistoric times, the vast steppes of Southern Russia were home to disunited tribes of nomadic pastoralists. In classical antiquity, the Pontic Steppe was known as Scythia.[28] Remnants of these steppe civilizations were discovered in the course of the 20th century in such places as Ipatovo,[28] Sintashta,[29] Arkaim,[30] and Pazyryk.[31] In the latter part of the eighth century BC, Greek traders brought classical civilization to the trade emporiums in Tanais and Phanagoria.[32] Between the third and sixth centuries AD, the Bosporan Kingdom, a Hellenistic polity which succeeded the Greek colonies,[33] was overwhelmed by successive waves of nomadic invasions,[34] led by warlike tribes, such as the Huns and Turkic Avars. A Turkic people, the Khazars, ruled the lower Volga basin steppes between the Caspian and Black Seas until the 8th century.[35]"

For some reason, i cannot correct this minor mistake, as there are no "edit" tabs to click on... any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ro308 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

continent

Russia is on Europe and Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.39.145 (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Military expenditures and GDP

According to the links in your page now the Russian Federation has the 5th largest Military expenditures in the World and at Market prices it is the 8th World economy (CIA Factbook) even if still 7th at PPP (6th according to one chart)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.154.91.49 (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Presidential or Semi-Presidential?

Just noticed that this article calls Russia a semi-presidential system while article Politics of Russia refers to it in the opening as a presidential federal republic. There is an obvious difference between these two terms with very different implications in terms of political studies - could somebody fix this please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.241.83 (talk) 07:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

ivan the terrible was founder of Russia/ how fun...--213.80.170.74 (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a presidential republic. Insuranze (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

HAPPY VICTORY DAY!!!

Also, when are the new holidays of Russia being added? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Largest stockpile of nuclear weapons

I personally believe that the FAS is quite possibly the most reliable source on the subject, along with the CIA world factbook. And both say that Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. Should it be changed to "a large amount", per this edit? Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 04:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

WMD stockpile

"Whose stockpile is the largest" is disputed. It is not generally accepted info, but depends on who you ask and on the way of counting.

• According to Alexander Khramchikhin, an analyst at the Institute of Political and Military Analysis, Russia has 3,100 nuclear warheads while the U.S. has 5,700.RIA Novosti
• The American stockpile is believed to be about 2,300 warheads, and the Russians' even lower.Associated Press
• "The estimate for the size and composition of the total Russian inventory comes with considerable uncertainty but is based on Cold War levels, subsequent dismantlement rates, and official Russian statements. Perhaps as many as a quarter (~3,000) of the weapons listed may be awaiting dismantlement."FAS

Why not just say "Russia has a large stockpile" instead of "largest"? That would solve the issue, would not be disputed info, and we would not lose any important info. Offliner (talk) 04:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Some vandalism

I corrected an incorrect GDP< but there are some more errors like Currency Euro (RUB) . Maybe there are more, and I don't have time to fix it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julekmen (talk • contribs) 13:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

There's an awful lot of petty vandalism by unregistered users at the moment. Is there a case for semi-protection? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Russia Was Founded by Rurik???

In nooooooooooooooo way Russia was founded by Rurik. Russia was not recognized as Russia until Peter I assumed title as Emperor! And modern Russia started only after Soviet Uhion broke up, please remove this bull. I am, and many others are tired of these baseless claims. Neither Belarus, Ukraine, nor Baltic countries do not claim that they were founded during the Middle Ages. What is next? You will say that Russia was founded by Khazars in the 7th century, or by some crazy nomad that you will come up with? And what is the deal with Bosporan Kingdom it has no relation to Russia. 12.28.215.200 (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Russia founded by Rurik at 861, see Russian history, see at Russian "letopis'" (The books written wery old time) in Russian historical museum, at red sqare! Ukraine, Belorussia, Baltic countries, has his independed at 1918 year, becose in Russia was civil war. see in google =)

ps sorry for my English))))

зы Даже говорить сэтм бесплоезно. Кто знает тот поймет))) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.228.53 (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have read the Povest Vremennyx Let several times in Russian and English, and have written many articles on it. It says NOTHING of Russia. If anything thier emphasis was on Novgorod and Kiev. And google is not a credible source, go to the library. Please remove it you are only embarrasing youselves.12.28.215.200 (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls. garik (talk) 11:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

chego xvosty prizhali, skazat nechego? 138.88.197.66 (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Lithuania and Poland do claim to have been founded in the Middle Ages, which they actually were, just like Russia. Kievan Rus' is for Russia what the Holy Roman Empire is for Germany. Oh wait, Germany hasn't started until 1871. Or 1918. Or 1933. Or 1945. Or 1948. Or 1990. --Humanophage (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, sure, and Byzantine Empire is for Turkey as Babylon for Iraq. Except for its most north-western part (Novgorod and Pskov) during the time of Rus the rest of Russia was quite underdevelopped and backwards, until principalities emerged around Suzdal which was much later (well into the second century). Of course I disregarded Volga Bulgar. Maybe this is the real precurser?Ivan2007 (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Turkey was founded by the Turks, and Iraq by the Arabs. Rus' was founded by Russians. When peoples united under anyone's rule, thay founded their state.--213.80.170.74 (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Iraq was founded by Britain and Rus was founded by Vikings, not Russians. Rus is not Rossiya. And prior to Rossiya there was the Tsardom of Moscovy. And only after that Peter the First announced the formation of Russian Empire with the capital at Saint-Petersburg. The fact that the Russian priests called the Tsar of Moscovy the ruler of the whole Rus does not really justify that fact. It was Russians that raized the city of Kyiv way before the invasion of Mongols to establish themselves as the sole rulers of the Rus. Why do not you check the history, my dear friend, before stating a nonesense. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Russians appropriated the name has nothing to do with the reality. Rus was founded by varangians whose name was Rus (read Rus' (people)). Eastern Europe at the time was a bunch of tirbes (see Category:Slavic ethnic groups) that had very little to do with each other, and certainly were not Russians. To call Novgorod the first Russan sovereignty would be a far cry for we know that it was very much a democracy as opposed to Russian tradition which is very centralized and autocratic. In any case Novgorod Republic was destroyed by Russia later. So Russia destroyed Russia to continue Russia :-/? And please dont say that it was a joining of one Russian State with another, it was an anihilation of a foreign country and establishing on its place the rule of the other, and there is nothing wrong with that, happens all the time, but the stories have to be straight. Please read something other than speculative historians of the Russian Empire era. Ivan2007 (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont know who called Varangians as ruses, or rusias (likely,they were called "Vikings"), but people of Kievan Rus called themselves Russians and their language Russian. (See any ancient chronicle of Kiev). With regard to the Moscow and Novgorod State, how do you call two territories inhabited by one people speaking the same language with one culture, traditions and religion? Moscow and Novgorod - both were Russians States. Even the Ukrainians called themselves Russians until the mid 19 th century (read Gogol and Taras Shevchenko:)) P.S/there is no any Russian authoritarian traditions - only Ukrainian bydlo-nationalism.--213.80.170.74 (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember calling anybody here 'russian swine'. Siting the Primary Chronicle: Slavs and Rus are one, from varangians came Rus and became Slavs" (assimilated). Read other historical accounts. Rhus was an area in Sweden where Rurik came from, and that is a theory that got most support in the world. But I have a question: if Russia was founded by Rurik, what the state that he founded, where was the capital? surely not Russia or Moscow. Have some respect for your own history guys and stop coming up with bogus claims. US does not try to claim the Columbus founded it Ivan2007 (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Rurik was a legendary figure, he existed most likely, but we know very little about him. He ruled in Novgorod, but its not of importance - he founded the Rurikid dynasty which ruled Russia for 700 years (1000 if we count Romanovs who were relatives of the late Rurikids), that's what's important. Rurik's direct successor, Oleg of Russia, united Kiev and Novgorod and founded the Kievan Rus in 882. Kievan Rus is Old Russia - it's language was Old Russian, religion was Orthodoxy, its epic mythology was preserved best in Russian north. You may take 882 as the year of Russian foundation, but there is little difference between 882 and 862, and the latter date is considered a traditional date of Russia foundation since early XIXth century at least. Most Russian historical textbooks start around that time (actually from 859, the start of Primary Chronicle). There is no need in speculating more on this subject, the fact that Russia was founded in 862 is enwritten on parchment, imprinted on paper and even engraved in bronze. Greyhood (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Your Oleg of Russia comment, totally denied your expertise on the subject :-) And there is no such thing as Old Russian, Old Church Slavonic is the right answer, and it was much closer to modern Bulgarian and Ukrainian than to Russian. Make sure your facts are straight before writing ridiculous stuff. 138.88.237.162 (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Old Russian(Old East Slavic) was a different language from Old Church Slavonic. Modern Russian had developed on the basis of Old Russian with a strong influence of Church Slavonic (especially when it comes to literary language). If you don't know these simple facts just don't embarass yourself writing here at all. And read at least the first two sentences of the article about Oleg of Novgorod, not only the title. Greyhood (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• You just said it yourself Old East Slavic. Old Russian is a much later term that was developed in Russian Empire to justify the claims of to Kievan Rus, just like now the terms Old Belorussian and Old Ukrainian are being developed as a part of national identity of these two countries. Reading two first sentences in Oleg of Novgorod - no mention of Russia, only Rus - not Russia, Novgorod - not Russia, Kiev - not Russia. 138.88.237.162 (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• • OMG should I explain to you that the term Russian (русский) is an ajective derived from Rus' (Русь) and this word had definitely appeared in the time of Kievan Rus', and the now so called 'East Slavs' actually called themselves Russians (русичи or русские or later русины) and their language they called Russian, not East Slavic? Now we, naturally, call it Old Russian or use the politically correct term Old East Slavic. In the Russian-language linguistics literature the term Old East Slavic (древневосточнославянский) is hundreds times more rare and also more modern than the term Old Russian (древнерусский). In English language literature the term Old East Slavic is also tens times more rare than Old Russian. Should I continue and educate you that Russia (Россия) is just the Greek form of the word Rus' (Русь), the term Rus had been continuously used within the modern Russian territory during the last 1000 years or more, while the term Russia was taken from Greeks in the 15th century and became really popular only in the 18th century? In modern Russia the name Rus' is widely used as high language alternative name for Russia, and Russia's statehood is rightfully perceived as direct and virtually uninterrupted continuation of the statehood of Rus'. Ukrainian and Belorussian identities were non-existent in the Kievan Rus' time, so the terms Old Belorussian and Old Ukrainian are just politically correct revisionist terms and their application to the period before the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is highly disputed and hardly can be justified logically. Greyhood (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)