Talk:Russia/Archive 6

Comment

someone english is bad...on the economy section it said "8million persons"....—Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.20.101 (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Pro-Russian?

Nobody likes Russia, apart from Russians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.108.190 (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC) I had no idea Russia was such a pinnacle of human civilization! My god, I've been brainwashed by these American imperialist dogs!

I can say about your country the same thing. --Katenkka (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, though, I think Wikipedia's usual anti-US bias, though somewhat understandable in today's world, has reared its head again here. To me at least, this article seems concocted to play down all criticism of Russia, past and present, and spin everything to sound as though any criticism is just the result of Western imperialism. I particularly liked this sentence:

"While many reforms made under Putin’s rule have been generally criticized by Western nations as un-democratic,[75] Putin's leadership over the return of order, stability and progress has won him widespread popularity in Russia,[76] as well as recognition abroad."

Darn those "Westerners", criticizing "reform"! At least the rest of the world gives him "recognition" for the "return" to "progress" that he "led".

Come on folks, I'm not saying Russia is the big evil boogeyman it was painted as during the Cold War, but every nation has problems and it's OK to talk about them openly and honestly, without trying to play them off. 24.174.30.146 (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Man, i'm from russia. And i had no idea that i'm living in such a paradise either. =) 89.110.23.40 (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There are no problems with the example that you have provided, Putin was the Head of State in a period of political stability, economic growth and a considerable improvement in public order, if only accounted for by the much increased numbers of policemen patrolling the streets. However, at the same time, there was a reduction in "democracy" in that electible candidates have largely become Kremlin's candidates (which still has not stopped an occasional Communist politician winning a mayoral election); and the was increased intrusion into privacy, freedom of speech and assembly -- which have drawn widespread criticism from the West, but only limited criticism from within Russia itself.

Yeah, this article is full of BS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTruthInMusic (talk • contribs) 13:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere does the article imply that Russia is problem-free and generally a paradise that everyone should move to.158.143.215.84 (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"Come on", "seriously", do you think that US is "a pinnacle of civilization"? Somehow nobody thinks this way outside US (I guess this will be too a huge surprise to you, especially if you get most of your information from US TV and US newspapers - just guessing based on your Texas IP-address 24.174.xx.xx...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.244.226 (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry everyone, Russia will spread the iron fist of democracy across Asia and Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.17.149 (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"wiki anti-US bias" ? really ? i'd rather say it's just the other way round —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.227.61 (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"The nation can boast a long tradition of excellence in every aspect of the arts and sciences" - While I will give the sons and daughters of russia due credit for their contributions to human civilization, a statement like this seems to me to be partial and overly nationalistic. The entire article I agree has serious, systemic issues, particularly the tone of praise for Putin ad his policies, which prevent it from being useful for any serious research.Celareon (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow! How good is Russia? I had no idea until Wikipedia informed me. I will now share with everyone, the greatness that is Russia.

This article lists all of Russia's problems, including the growing inflation, demographic crisis and what not. Also to the guy above me, sign your comments. --Krotx (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

Don't worry. I'll give it sixty years. When the oil and gas run dry, Russia will be in a Persistent Vegetative State. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.238.152.3 (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not CNN's and FN's bash Russia Club. Also, what parts of this article aren't based on facts? I think the above comments are a prime example of how certain people have been brainwashed by CNN/Fox "News", while critiquing Pravda. Ohhh, the irony, the IRONY! 68.167.1.235 (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The irony is that Russians had received a vaccine against state propaganda in late 80ies, when Soviet Union started to weaken. We've had all kinds of medias, and all kinds of political parties, and we've come to develop quite a critical view on any information we receive. We do not have stereotypes here no more - yet. But the comments above show how much stereotypes about Russia still exist in the mind of a Western audience.FeelSunny (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't found information about the amount of vodka each Russian citizen drink per day. Please clarify this in the article. 217.67.117.64 (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That statement may be your own personal opinion, but there's no guarantee at all that other people have the same opinion. If you feel that any statements that fail to show Russia in a bad light are unfairly biased, I'm afraid it's your problem, and not everyone else's. Your lack of POV shouldn't mean the rest of us should have to alter our perspectives to fit yours. --Ericdn (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"free health care is of very poor quality."

The article says: "But in practice, free health care is restricted due, for example, to propiska regime, and of very poor quality." - Poor quality when compared to what? This should be clarified. Offliner (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, article clarifies it itself ;) First: "While Russia has more physicians, hospitals, and health care workers than almost any other country in the world on a per capita basis" And then says about low life expectancy and high death rate. Which obviously means that health care in Russia is ineffective (comparing to other world, with less hospitals physicians etc...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.101.196 (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

life expectancy doesn't have a great deal of connection with health care quality per se. (WHO estimates maximum 15% impact). Inequality, poverty, the collapse of infrastructure and alcholism have done the damage to Russian health. In any case, the propiska regime does not have a significant impact on access to health care. I shall look at this section in more detail; my PhD research was on this, although that was 7 years ago and I've not looked at it much since then. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

POV Content

At the very top of the article it says that "Russia shares land borders with the following countries", among which Abkhazia and South Ossetia are listed.

I understand that Russia has recently recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states, but much of the rest of the world has not, and is refusing to recognize them.

I'd like to make a request to either have a heading on top of the page of disputing the neutrality of the article, or have this section reworded.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.244.33.124 (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Kosovo is listed as having a common border with the Republic of Macedonia, Albania and Montenegro. I think a common solution should be developed for all of them. --Illythr (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it is fair with a sort of disclaimer. This is about Russia, after all, so it does matter that the Russian government consider them independent, though personally I disagree w.r.t. Abkhazia and the border delimitation in S. Ossetia. Colchicum (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I would rather remove them all (Kosovo, S Oss, Abkhasia). --Illythr (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

i dont think they should be removed russia reconises them and the artical is about russia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.7.180.133 (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I second that opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.244.33.124 (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is ...

Someone reading this article would have *absolutely no idea* about how Russia is. There is nothing here about the lack of respect for law, nothing about the lack of democractic process, the destruction of the free press, the absolute concentration of political power into the Kremlin, etc. This article is a brainwash. I'm ashamed to see it on Wikipedia. Toby Douglass (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, but it's unreal to write an absolutely neutral article about so big and powerful country IMHO. For example, we can also correct the article USA, and write about a dry-rot of American Economy, about brainwashing in US mass media in the event in South Ossetia, about the aggressive Middle East politics of Bush Jr. Yeah? We can find a lot of confirmations of inhumanity of every political regime. But we will never find who's right.

Therefore we should edit all articles about big and powerful countries (like Russia, US, China, India, Brazil etc) very accurately and cautiously, IMHO. LexArt (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Toby, but WP:BE BOLD. Colchicum (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

please no nationalism but rus- russia rus- ukraine hmm the early rus capital was kiev but it was moved to norvgord in russia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.7.180.133 (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Colchicum, you're right. All the Wikipedians should be careful. LexArt (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Naming

Hello,

I have changed the phrase "also known as" to "properly known as". I'm not sure if that's the correct legal/anthropological phrase, so if it is wrong, please fix it. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted some of your edits for the following reasons:

1. "(continuous) statehood" - AFAIK, there was no interruptions in statehood since that time.
2. "properly known as" - the nearest reference cites the Russian constitution, which equates the two terms, thus none of them is more proper than the other.

   Hello, the Russian Constitution is not important in EnglishHorlo (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

3. "extends across (the whole of) northern Asia and 40% of Europe, spanning 11 time zones, and incorporating..." - The "whole of" part is factual information, why remove it? For example, Canada extends across the northern part of North America, but not the whole of it. The "-ing" thing is IMO better, because the otherwise monotonous listing of features is more boring to read.
4. "world's largest reserves of mineral and energy resources" - this comes directly from Encarta. Also, replacing "world's greatest" with "great" is a bad idea, since the former is a definitively quantitative measure, whereas the latter is ambiguous. I replaced "great" with "large" to remove any possible confusion. --Illythr (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

   Hello, no, "largest mineral reserves" comes from Encarta. "Greatest reserves of mineral and energy resources" comes from somewhere else. Largest does not mean greatest. I have changed these two things back. Horlo (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Horlo, I've undone your edit. Ukraine was not the successor state to the Soviet Union, Russia was. Your comment that "the Russian Constitution is not important in English" borders, I'm afraid, on the surreal. I suggest that you try to get consensus before making such changes, as they are based on slightly unusual interpretations of sources and international law.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, VsevolodKrolikov, could you please explain this comment: "Ukraine was not the successor state to the Soviet Union, Russia was."? How is that in any way connected to anything here?

Actually, now that we're at it, could you please also explain these: Your comment that "the Russian Constitution is not important in English" borders, I'm afraid, on the surreal. and "based on slightly unusual interpretations of sources and international law."? Are you joking? I assume that you are aware of WP:UE? Thanks, Horlo (talk) 08:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What are your WP:RS for "properly known as"? The Russian Constitution may be unimportant, but it is still better as a source than your personal opinion. Colchicum (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, you're right, I didn't do enough research - not "properly", how about "officially" - Encarta, here [[1]]; US government here [[2]]; Wikianswers here [[3]]; atlapedia here [[4]]. My bad. Can I change it? Horlo (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No. Read previous talks, this was discussed many times. And for the official name the constitution (unlike wikianswers and other pedias, read WP:RS) is a perfectly reliable source: both names are equal. Colchicum (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. It's a good idea to read policy before quoting it. I find nothing in WP:UE that says that constitutions have no standing in the name of a country if the constitution was not originally written in English, nor in fact, any statement that foreign language sources are unimportant. It simply says that English sources are preferable. In any case, the UN recognises both names as equal (And uses both in various documents). The CIA World factbook lists Russia and Russian Federation. I've no idea why you've got such a bee in your bonnet about this.

:::::Believe me, I have read the policy many times. You seem to be missing the point: don't be a lawyer, and Use English. The Russian Constitution is not English. In English, most people call the country Russia, but it is actually a federation of many different cultures and nations. When popular sources state something again and again and again (please see the source cited above), a document written by a foreign government in a foreign language is not "international law".

Now, as to why I have such a bee in my bonnet with respects to the correctness of an article, well, shouldn't we all? Horlo (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

As for successor state, perhaps your are confusing territory and culture with statehood. The state that is now Russia started on what is now Ukraine, but that in itself doesn't make Ukraine or any other state a successor state. Ukraine is independent of the successor state to Rus. That may sound bizarre, but the effective break-up of the Russian empire at the end of the USSR resulted in Russia, not any other country, taking on the international obligations of the Soviet Union. It is the successor state, not the successor culture, or the successor people.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least you acknowledge that the USSR was simply a continuation of the Russian Empire. Please, however, avoid statements like "the state that is now Russia started on what is now Ukraine", or I may just say "what is now Russia is just a copy of what was in Ukraine long ago", and such statements are not good for anybody, so let's just stop now.

After all of this, however, my question remains: how is that connected to this article? This is talking about Russia, not Ukraine. Let's leave Ukraine out of this. I want to make my opinion on the "successor state" issue as clear as I can: there are three nations which draw a direct connection to Kyivan Rus: Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. I think that it is important to show that. Russia is one of those states, and therefore I included the phrase "one of the". Please do not remove it. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And please do not put your changes back in without consensus, particularly with the misleading "per talk". The talk page, if anything, reveals editors do not agree with your changes. There are no other editors in agreement with you, and at present, three against. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it is based on overall consensus. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You may be aware that every editor has the right to express themselves. Consensus is not according to numbers, but discussion in good faith (at least you stopped using phrases like "borders on the surreal") and reliable sources. Please see the list I provided above as to why the official name in English is The Russian Federation. Horlo (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And here's the Russian Constitution in English.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Very interesting. Horlo (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that we have cleared that up, will you revert yourself or will someone else have to do it for you? --Illythr (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to make this very clear: you think that the Russian constitution is more important for the English language than Encarta [[5]], the US State Department [[6]], YELP [[7]], The Wikipedia Atlas [[8]], even what the Russian diplomatic corps uses in English [[9]]!. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to make this really very clear - Yelp is not WP:RS, any more than Yahoo Answers is, or any old maniac with access to the internet. Wikipedia and wikimedia are explicitly not WP:RS. However, the CIA World Factbook is, UN documents are, and the Russian Constitution also is, no matter your misreading of WP:UE. The Russian constitution explicitly states that the names are equally correct, in both the Russian and the English versions (thus fulfilling WP:UE). The issue here is which sources are correct, and to what extent are the sources suggesting a single name simply falling foul of a standardised country template in their documents. If sources conflict, then there has to be an editorial judgement formed by consensus. Not by one editor's grim determination to ignore others.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No, Yelp is just something that is really popular in searching a restaurant on your Blackberry. However, the CIA site [[10]] and the BBC site [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1102275.stm#facts are. I welcome editor's views on this matter. Horlo (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, my suspicion that the state department reference is simply the result of a template is supported not only by the CIA factbook citing both, but also by statements on US policy on names for foreign countries. The US typically will call a country by the name it chooses for itself. This is the principle invoked in refusing to call Burma Myanmar by the state department here - that the change has not been democratically approved. This Slate article confirms that position. Other sources of note, such as the NY Times, also defer to the country's choice of name, or let National Geographic lead the way - which in this case uses Russia. We can also refer to more august bodies such as FIFA, which uses Russia, or the IOC which uses the Russian Federation. UN Press releases use both, as in here.

So given that both are in use, and that explicitly stated policy on the part of the US government that the name of a country is its own business, so long as it is democratically approved (which the Russian constitution was, by referendum), it seems that the Russian constitution is precisely the source that we should defer to. The idea that a country's democratically confirmed view on its official name carries no weight in English, is, as I said at the beginning of all this, bordering on surreal. Now, you are the only editor with your viewpoint at the moment. The only consistent reliable source you have provided is Microsoft's encyclopaedia. The Russian government source you provided uses both Russia and Russian Federation, and is evidence for the point of view of everyone else. Your editing pattern is starting verge on tendentious. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, yes, congratulations on a democratic approval of a Constitution. The first is the hardest, and I really hope that there are many ammendments to come - a lesson in humility that the US has taught the world. The democratic constitution - a first in Russian History, I'm sure, and I honestly hope the first of many.

However, once again, you seem to be missing the point here. I will be very clear. THiS IS THE ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA. CIA and BBC and every other English response to the query "what is the official name of Russia in English" trump the Russian constitution.

I can't make my request more plain. Let's make this work. The Official name in English is The Official name in English. It is what it is. Let's go on. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

<sigh> CIA says both, the BBC does not say "official". All they say is that Russian Federation is longer than Russia. Now, for the last time, Wikipedia works by consensus of the majority of the editors. Your continual reverts without consensus, under misapplication of policies WP:UE and WP:RS the errors of which have been pointed out to you by more than one editor, constitute disruptive editing. I'll take things to the next stage of dispute resolution if I have to, as a point of principle. Do you really want to do that over something not so important? It wouldn't improve your standing amongst other editors, which is something you might want to be more concerned about.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, VsevolodKrolikov, please do invite everybody to this discussion. How about an RfC? I will initiate one shortly.

What is very troubling to me, however, is that you want to change the focus of this discussion: rather than improve this article, you seem to want to focus on me. Why do you say things like: "Do you really want to do that over something not so important? It wouldn't improve your standing amongst other editors, which is something you might want to be more concerned about" ?? Why not try "Good idea, now, let's work together to improve the history section"?

Finally, please don't try any hidden threats of "Wikipedia works on consensus" or "majority of the editors", because that's just not cool. If you have a valid argument, please make it. Otherwise, please do yourself a favour and stop saying things like "Wikipedia works by consensus of the majority of the editors".

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to additionally point out that the Constitution is the primary source, while any English-language publication relevant to this discussion would be a secondary source. While Wikipedia articles are supposed to be the summaries of the secondary sources, using primary sources is still allowed to directly cite the statements of fact. As long as the editors do not interpret, analyze, synthesize, explain, or evaluate those statements on their own (that would be original research), it is perfectly OK to cite primary sources. Citing primary sources can be very useful when secondary sources are either unclear or contradict one another. Now, the Constitution explicitly states that the terms "Russia" and "Russian Federation" have equal official status—this is a fact taken directly from the source, no intepretation of this fact is made in the article (it is simply a direct quotation), hence there is no original research involved, hence the citation is acceptable.

Hello, "the Constitution" is in Russian. This article is in English. THIS DISCUSSION IS ABOUT THE OFFICIAL ENGLISH NAME FOR A FOREIGN COUNTRY. This is not about the common name, it is about the Official Name. I find it strange that the official name above the picture is "Russian Federation", but some editors seem so opposed to this idea.. The Official name is what is on government documents. Horlo (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of the concept of "official English name for a country". Unlike Russia, which actually has a government-approved register of official names of countries of the world in Russian, even if there is something similar in English, it would be country-specific (separate for the United States, Canada, Australia, etc.) and not necessarily matching from country to country. This is precisely why in English we have to work with a "common name", not with an abstract "official name".

So, before I confuse you even further, let's re-visit (and feel free to mark any statements you disagree with):

1. The official names of the country in Russian are "Россия" and "Российская Федерация" (per Constitution).
2. Translated into English, the terms are "Russia" and "Russian Federation" (per translated Constitution published in reliable sources such as Garant)
3. "Russia" is the name under which the country is commonly known in English (per WP:UE)
4. Since "Russia" is the English common name, that's the title of this article (per WP:UE again)
5. English-speaking countries may have official names for other countries of the world (see my note about the registers above), which do not necessarily correspond to the official names in Russian translated into English

Now, the issues:

1. The title of the article ("Russia"), I hope, is not contested here. It is correct per WP:UE and should not be changed.
2. The statement in the lede of the article ("officially known as both Russia and the Russian Federation") is correct and sourced to the primary source
3. The crux of the problem is that this statement essentially means "officially known [in Russia]", while Horlo argues that the lede should only mention the names "officially known [in English]"
4. As shown above, one of the reason we even have WP:UE is because English is the de facto/official language of more than just one country, and those countries do not necessarily have the same "official name" for any other country in the world. This makes sticking to "official usage" basically meaningless, so we stick to "common use"
5. Corollary: the statement "officially known as Russia and the Russian Federation" can only be interpreted as "officially known [in Russia]" and not any other way. If one wants to point out the official name of Russia in some other English-speaking country, then one must indicate what country is meant. This could be useful information, but it definitely does not belong in the lead.

Seems like an awful lot of work to explain what should have been obvious from the very start, but I hope you can follow the logic and come to the same conclusion. If you believe any step is flawed, please point it out and we'll discuss it further.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:58, June 30, 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the Constitution is in Russian (and thus allegedly violates WP:UE) has absolutely no relevance here. WP:NONENG explicitly allows non-English sources when no English equivalent is available. In this case, however, such an equivalent (a translation published in a reliable source) is available, and even if it hadn't been, WP:NONENG would still allow us to supply the translation of our own. Once again, when it comes to citing (not interpreting! I can't emphasize this enough) statements of fact, translating a relevant portion of a primary source would have greater standing than quoting a secondary source.

Hello, I'm sorry if my argument was unclear - please allow me to re-state it: the fact that the Russian constitution is in Russian is not irrellevant. The fact that the Russian translation of the official name of the country disagrees with what the the World Bank [[11]], the World Healt Organization [[12]], the American Government [[13]] and even the government of the Russian Federation [[14]] calls it - the official name of the country is "The Russian Federation". This is the English Wikipedia, and English sources trump Russian sources. That's what WP:UE means when discussing official names. Horlo (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have already elaborated on the "official English names" concept above (showing that there is no such thing), but, just for kicks, let's look at what the pages you linked to actually say:

1. Worldbank's report ("Russia: from Crisis to Recovery") makes no mention of the "official name of the country" in any way, shape, or form. The link to the report uses "Russia", the report itself uses "Russia" throughout, and the category in which the report is placed is titled "Russian Federation". Seems to me they are using both names pretty much interchangeably without giving preference to either.
2. WHO consistently uses "Russian Federation" in its report, but does not give any indication they use it because it's an "official English name". Seems to me that out of the two perfectly equivalent names they simply picked one and used it everywhere for consistency. This doesn't mean anything as far as the issue we are discussing is concerned.
3. The US Department of State uses the names intechangeable without (and by now this should start sounding familiar) giving preference to one being more "official" than other. The country report is titled "Russian Federation"; the report itself mentioned "Russia" quite often (note the very first word of the report). If I were you, I would at least link to the profile, which says "Official name: Russian Federation". Note, however, that it does not say "Official English name" (which is the point you are trying to get across), it just says "official name". "Russian Federation" is the official name, there is no doubt about that. So is "Russia", which on that page is not mentioned. I understand you want to interpret this as the "official English name" but, in reality, it is impossible to guess the State Department's intent (or mistake!). We are not in position to second-guess our sources—if the source doesn't say "official English name", we should not be assuming that was meant.
4. The website of the Russian Embassy (which, by the way, is rather shoddy and has factual errors and obsolete information in the country profile) does not give any indication of the "official English name" (it would be rather foolish of them to give one, too). They use "Russia" and "Russian Federation" interchangeably.

Hopefully this is enough to drop the matter? Unless you can find a reliable source explicitly specifying the "official English name of Russia" (which, I believe is impossible to do, but hey, you can try), there is just no point of pushing this further. You are trying to pass something as a fact based on nothing but your own interpretation of the sources, which is a no-no. We, on the other hand, are passing something as a fact that is easily trackable back to the primary source containing this fact, which, you should agree, is something completely different.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:58, June 30, 2009 (UTC)

What's more, WP:UE is a guideline that aims to aide editors to select an appropriate title of an article; it has nothing to do with the process of selecting sources used in articles. The title of this article is "Russia", which in full compliance with WP:UE. There is nothing else left here to apply WP:UE to.

Horlo, if, after reading this explanation (which, I should note, I am providing in my administrative quality), you still have a problem with it, I would advise you to escalate this and seek additional input elsewhere. Since this regards interpretation of policy, WP:VPP would be a good place to start. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:34, June 26, 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the advice. I will be sure to follow it, and please be sure that you, as an administrator (I'm hoping that's what you meant by {(which, I should note, I am providing in my administrative quality)}), will be prominently noted. Horlo (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Horlo, it's been said before, but it really doesn't help if you break up previous editors' comments like that. Anyway, I shall note that you consider someone citing WP:consensus as threatening you. Before you make further allegations, I didn't invite anyone here, let alone Ezhik; he came here of his own accord. A page like Russia tends to be watched by a lot of people. If you feel the need for an RfC, go ahead. If, following that, the consensus formed that Russian Federation is the only official name, I would abide by that. My citing policy is nothing more than reminding you that one editor cannot ignore the sourced opinions of several others. I hope you understand the content nature of the dispute - everyone agrees that there is nothing wrong with "Russian Federation" being used as an official name. The dispute is whether Russia is also an official name, and whether there is such a thing as sources "trumping" one another according to language in wikipedia policy. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, VsevolodKrolikov, it's also been said before that every comment deserves a reply, and that it's difficult to follow posts that are far apart. That's why I wanted to answer each statement in turn. Believe me, I am not threatened by you - I do think, however, that statements like : "It wouldn't improve your standing amongst other editors, which is something you might want to be more concerned about", which CAN be considered hidden threats. That doesn't make anybody feel welcome nor does it help improve this encyclopedia. Perhaps we should all just be concerned with the truth, rather than what others think.

My citing policy is nothing if just a pursuit of said truth. Thanks, 10:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to confirm that I wasn't "invited"; I merely noted this thread on my watchlist. I would also disagree wit the statement that consensus should define the official name of the country. For that, we have sources. Consensus can be used to define the common English name of the country (i.e., one compliant with WP:UE), but, as I understand it, the common name is not the one Horlo has problems with.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:58, June 30, 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you were invited, nor have I ever suggested that you were invited. Perhaps some editors feel insecure about their position. So let's end this, and get back to the topic at hand: absolutely, the common name of the country is Russia. That's what everybody calls it. But even though the common name of an example country is the US, the USA, the States, or even America, the Official name is still the United States of America. That's the point. The common name is Russia, the Official name is The Russian Federation. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

With the citing of several different organisations, it is difficult to know whether Horlo is talking about common use or official use; there are other international organisations which use "Russia" in their "official" template; perhaps an acceptable compromise would be to have a separate section detailing the name in the official name template box for the website of every single organisation of note;-) The consitution has to be the arbiter of this. Is it really the case that Wikipedia ignores any constitution of a non-English speaking country, and validates all English-speaking ones? The irony of all this is, by Horlo's arguments we should never use Kyiv in English, as that's a translation from Ukrainian and not founded in English officialese.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, once again, you seem to be A) missing the point of this discussion - this is not about google searches and how many web pages can you find to support what you say, but rather reliable ENGLISH sources which state that the official name of the country is The Russian Federation. Like governments and encyclopedia. By the way, the fact that you use emoticons really adds to your case here; and B) you seem to add something about Ukraine every once in a while. Please understand that this is talking about Russia, not Ukraine.

A few days ago you accepted Ezhik's advice and thanked him for his administrative guidance. If you now disagree with him, (and me, and others) that the Russian Constitution is a valid and reliable source for the matter in hand then please take it to an RfC. As it stands you are alone in your position.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hello, once again it seems that you are trying to create a situation where it is me vs. Russian editors. This is not the case. Of course I thanked Ezhiki for their advice - as a WP admin, their advice is most welcome. That's why I have invited other editors from the Project Russia to this discussion [[15]]. I am not trying to sweep a discussion under a carpet, I am trying to find what is correct. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Figures

Dear authors! If it's difficult for you to find some official russian data you can find it at the Federal State Statistics Service of Russian Federation here [16] or download print clone of statistical yearbook "Russia in figures" 2008 [17]. You can give number of page of print clone, it's coorect, and it's like in print version. Good bye. Ksenia, bachelor of statistics from Russian Federation.91.122.154.236 (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

8 Corporations in the Fortune 500 2009

I think it is interesting pointing out that this year there are eight (8) Russian Corporation among the Fortune 500, including one among the Top 25 (Gazprom, 22), four times more than in 2002 (just 2 companies by then, none of them among the Top 25) Only China has also quadruplied the number of its companies in the Fortune 500 list. The headquarters of 7 of the World´s Fortune 500 companies are in Moscow, 8th most important city in the World by number of Top Corporations.--79.154.90.154 (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that says it's of note, then it should be included (We can't make anything - including comparisons - out of the bare facts ourselves without contravening WP:OR). You might possibly find stuff either in the financial press, or in more academic material or newspapers analysing the levels of income disparity in BRIC countries (i.e. "Look at how rich Moscow is, but yet the small press-friendly grubby hamlet of Novopizdetsk people are scraping a living on 50 dollars a month...").VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2009/countries/Russia.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.154.90.154 (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That link doesn't offer any analysis. On the general page about Russia, the significance of those figures needs to be there to justify their inclusion. As wikipedia editors, we can't state that significance ourselves, as that would be original research.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed restoration of Russia (1990-1993) as separate article

I think, that this restoration will be same, as existence of article Spanish transition to democracy. Why not Russian transition from Soviet republic? I think, it's good variant. Seryo93 (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Russia Was Founded by Ivan The Terrible???

Why not Boris Yeltsin??--213.80.170.74 (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Because Boris Yeltsin lost Russia and there was no lost and found department available. In all honesty, Russia, as a political entity, came into existence in the ninth century, and anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know history. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

And what? Germany or Italy, as a political entity, came into existence in the 19 century, but was founded much earlier.--213.80.170.74 (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking about Russian Federation - it appeared in 1991, and if you are talking about Russia - it was formed long before Ivan IV.--213.80.170.74 (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• I disagree. There are souces that state otherwise. The Russian Yuri Bogoliubskiy would not sack Kyiv if it would be the capital of Russia. It just does not make sense. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• If you are talking about Russian Federation - it appeared in 1991

  I disagree with that - Russian Federation created in 1917 (as RSFSR). In 1991 it's only renamed. See law about that renaming. 92.100.56.34 (talk) 08:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• It's a good point that the RF is explicitly a renaming of the RSFSR, but the 1918 constitution effectively renames "Russia" as the RSFSR. "Россия объявляется Республикой Советов рабочих, солдатских и крестьянских депутатов." (Russia is declared to be a republic of the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies.) This implies that RSFSR is a continuation of the previous form of Russia.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Largest satellite launcher

You can add that Russia is the largest rocket launcher in the World surpassing the U.S. according to Futron, a technology consultancy, and The Economist magazine:

http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14256807&source=features_box4 --88.24.242.104 (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That is essential to consider Russia a World central Power as Space is now the equivalent of Sea during the XIX Century: space technology is essential for Defense.--88.24.242.104 (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

russia

russia is place i what to visited —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.194.203 (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Freedom House

I don't think its necessary to draw skepticism into whether the Freedom House rankings are biased or not by referencing the fact that some of their projects get US grants. Discussion of this should be in the Freedom House article not here. I am removing language (again) to that effect.

It may be questioned whether the 'not free' evaluation of Russia by Freedom House should be at the top of the article at all. It's very subjective, unlike most other _objective_ information here. Why, in comparison, there is no mention of Patriot Act, Guantanamo, Vietnam, Iraq and Aphganistan war crimes at the top of USA article? Why should we stick to so much criticized Freedom House? I propose to delete this passage from the top but leave the Freedom House passage in Human Rights section. Greyhood (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree - the article is not just about Russia right now, and the source is partisan, so its inclusion in the lede is inappropriate. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think its relevant to the lede about Russia because its form of government is relatively new and the information should be included. For introducing the article about Russia, I think you have to mention the Soviet Union and thereby mention the new semi-presidential republic. An apt description of this republic is that most external viewers describe it as functionally undemocratic. Freedom House rankings are also universally utilized in comparative politics. Mherlihy (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Russian Public Holidays

{{editsemiprotected}}

I would like to add info (or at least a link) to Russia's public holidays which are listed on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_holidays_in_Russia

I think the appropriate location for this is under the Culture section.

Thanks.

 Done - added to see also section.   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  240° 34' 30" NET   16:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Formation sect. of Infobox

Some things I think need to be discussed.

Rurik Dynasty, 862: Yes, the coming of Rurik to Novgorod in 862 is the beginning of Rus' statehood, but the "Rurik dynasty" wasn't a state, but a bloodline. I think the city-state of Novgorod The Great, in 862, is a more correct way of stating the initial formation of Rus'.

Vladimir Suzdal/ Rus' Principalities: I've never seen a state referred to as "the Vladimir-Suzdal principality" or any combination of "Vladimir-Suzdal" as being a successor state to Kievan Rus' in a textbook or any reading for that matter. I even floored this to a professor of mine who specializes in Russian history and he had never heard of it. Yes, both cities had significant control and Grand Princes, but they don't sum up or accurately describe the entire era. The appanage period had many (many!) principalities after the fall of Kievan Rus' in 1240, and was not restricted to the cities of Vladimir or Suzdal (there was also Tver, Moscow, etc.). Also, they can't be considered as "independent" since they were under the reign of the Grand Prince, who was appointed by the mongol Khan. The NW Rus' states here were vassals of the Golden Horde. Anyway, I think "Rus' Principalities" works best here and the link, as it is now pointing to the list of them all, makes the most sense. Also, it should be at 1240 and not sooner, since the Kievan state was in control up until it's dissolution and the vying for power among the appanages ensued.

Muscovy: Although we see Ivan Kalita begin the process of Moscovite rule over all Rus' lands in 1328, it is still a vassal of the Golden Horde. The Grand Prince title even goes to Michael of Tver afterward, so we have to look at a later date for the solid foundation of what would become Moscovite Russia. In my copy of "A history of Russia" by Nicolas Riasanovsky (7th ed.) he states "For practical purposes, Moscow can be considered as independent of the Mongols after 1452 at least, although the formal and final abrogation of the yoke came only in 1480." Furthermore, "The long reign of Ivan III (1462-1505) has generally been considered, together with teh following reign of Basil III, as the termination of the appanage period and the beginning of a new age of Russian history, that of Muscovite Russia." We also see in 1493, Ivan the Great offically assume the title of "gosudar" or "Sovereign of All Russia". I think we need to discuss what year to pick to be the beginning of the Moscow state as the political power of all Russia and successor to the appanages that followed Kiev. I've laid the history out, what do you guys think?

also: Russian Federation doesn't seem to be showing up, even though it's in the code. Why not? Can someone fix this?--Львівське (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• I advice you to read ru:Столицы России#Исторические столицы if you can read in Russian. In the Russian historiography there is a tradition, dating back to Tatischev and Karamzin, defining Russian statehood as continuous and uninterrupted, starting from the coming of Rurik, with the capital in ancient period being moved in this way: Novgorod > Kiev > Vladimir > Moscow. Now let's discuss the dates.
  • 862 - the coming of Rurik to Novgorod. Firstly, the attribute in the box is called "established_event", not the "predecessor_state", so no problem with Rurikid Dynasty. Then, it is unclear whether Novgorod really was the first seat of Rurik and thus capital of Rus'. Most likely the Old Ladoga was the first capital, though Rurik ruled from there only for a few early years of his reign. Then, the city of Novgorod itself is known from 859, not from 862, so it would be confusing to write "862 - Novgorod the Great". The term "Novgorodian Rus'" (ru:Новгородская Русь) is not well established in Russian historiography, and in English Wikipedia there is not even such article to make link to it.
  • 1169 - this date is controversial, nevertheless it is most frequently associated with the transfer of the capital from Kiev to Vladimir. That year Grand Prince Andrey Bogolyubsky sacked Kiev and put his younger brother to rule it, himself preferring to stay in Vladimir. But in fact he ruled in Vladimir already from 1155. In 1157 his father, Grand Prince Yuri Dolgoruki died, and Bogolyubsky became the strongest prince in Russia, so 1157 is sometimes taken as a date of capital transfer and start of Grand Duchy of Vladimir-Suzdal. It is unclear when Andrey Bogolyubsky formally became the Grand Prince, since the title was not hereditary, and before Bogolyubsky being Grand Prince meant being the prince of Kiev. He was first to break the strong association of Grand Prince and Kiev, calling himself Gramd Prince but sacking Kiev and ruling from Vladimir. That's why the 1169, the fall of Kiev, is most often taken as the date of capital transfer, or, less often, (like in English Wikipedia List of Russian rulers) 1168, when the conflict between Kiev and Bogolyubsky started. Since 1169 Kiev lost not only its former power, but also its prestige (the power was lost already in 1132 when Mstislav I of Kiev died - he was the last Kievan prince to really control all Rus'). Vladimir-Suzdal became the most powerful Rus' principality. Galich-Volynia also had been strong, but eventually was defeated and annexed by Poland and Lithuania, unlike Vladimir-Suzdal, which payed tribute to the Golden Horde but mostly retained self-rule. Because of this reason, and because of Moscow's connection to Vladimir-Suzdal, the latter is considered to be the part of continuous chain of Russian statehood. The term "Vladimir-Suzdal Rus'" is quite common in Russian historical tradition. Google gives more than 200,000 links on the request "Владимиро-Суздальская Русь", and so, after studying this question I insist on the line "1169 - Vladimir-Suzdal Rus'" in infobox. "1157 - Vladimir-Suzdal Rus'" is also somewhat justified variant.
  • 1363 - another controversial date. I don't insist on retaining this date in the box, but I can't conclude right now which is the better one. In any case, traditionally the mid-14th century is considered as the beginning of Moscow Rus'. 1452 is too late, by that time Moscow was de facto the main powerhouse in Russia for about 100 years. The transition of power from Vladimir to Moscow was not quick. In 1326 the seat of Orthodox Church metropolitan bishop was moved from Vladimir to Moscow. In 1331 Ivan Kalita became the Grand Prince of Vladimir. Then, English Wikipedia gives 1340 as the date of establishment of Grand Duchy of Moscow, the year when Ivan Kalita died, leaving Moscow as the most powerful of Russian principalities. His son Simeon managed to defend the title of the Grand Prince in the Horde, and since that time most Grand Princes of Rus' were from Moscow, with few exceptions. After 1331 and 1340 another important date was 1363 - the final subjugation and incorporation of Vladimir into Moscow state. The Grand Duchy of Moscow should be dated at least from that time, 1363.

Beslan and Moscow Theater hostage crisis

Since the Chechen separatists had declared independence in the early 1990s, an intermittent guerrilla war was fought between the rebel groups and the Russian military. Terrorist attacks against civilians carried out by separatists, most notably the Moscow theater hostage crisis and Beslan school siege, caused hundreds of deaths and drew worldwide attention.

Beslan and Dubrovka hostage crisis took place in the first half of 2000s, whilst the lines above may create a false impression that they occured during 1990s, way before Putin's rise to power (at least unless a reader clicks the appropriate links). I suggest this should be fixed. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.172.29.1 (talk) 08:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

New sections, sources and the size of the article

I just have added several sections that I believe were needed for these article (similar sections feature in other country articles):

• Russia#Flora and fauna
• Russia#Energy
• Russia#Science and technology
• Russia#Transportation
• Russia#Tourism
• Russia#Folk culture and cuisine
• Russia#Architecture
• Russia#Modern culture
• Russia#National holidays and symbols

I have taken information mostly from the main articles with links to them given under the headings, however it may be appropriated to insert more sources right into this article. This is especially needed for Tourism section and the whole Culture section. Everybody is much welcomed to make this work.

Another issue is the large size of the article, although it roughly corresponds to the size of United Kingdom article. Still it may be appropriate to reduce the size. I believe it should be made without reducing the number of sections, but by means of better phrasing throughout the whole article. Greyhood (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Updated. Greyhood (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Updated. Greyhood (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Lede needs a rewrite

I suggest a rewrite of the lede. It discusses "unfozen fresh water", forestry reserves, and lists a lot of do-nothing international groups, but no mention of Lenin, Stalin, communism, the Soviet Union, or nuclear weapons. At 594 words, it is also a bit too long -- the ideal length is about 500 words. Kauffner (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No need.

• The passages about the water and the forest reserves do actually describe the nature of the country - prevalence of forests, rivers and lakes. This is important, since if we delete it, the only geographic info in the lede would be about the size of Russia. Which would be wrong, since the geography of the largest country in the world deserves more attention.
• Nuclear weapons are mentioned.
• Soviet Union is mentioned.
• Socialism is mentioned. Communism is an ideological form of socialism; there was de facto socialism in USSR, but communism was just ideology and was actually never fully implemented in reality.
• No need to mention Lenin, Stalin or any other leaders. This article's lede is about the country, not individuals, and, after all, there were many figures in Russian history no less important than Stalin and Lenin - we simply couldn't and shouldn't list them all. Also, look throughout the articles about other major countries - the leaders are virtually never mentioned.
• International organizations show Russia's geopolitical outline - the country's status and allies. Though, perhaps, several less important organizations could be deleted.
• General size of the intro could be reduced by deleting the comparison with Canada, by removing G20 and APEC, and by better phrasing in some places. And I don't think there is any urgent need to reduce the size. Greyhood (talk) 07:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources for land area in the infobox

There is a problem with inserting sources for land area size in the infobox. All goes wrong because of the area_magnitude parameter. And I think it's better not include the source for land area at all - it's given beside, by the way.Greyhood (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Russia Ottoman liberation date range correction

{{editsemiprotected}}

Search for "these Great Reforms spurred industrialization and modernized the Russian army, which had successfully liberated Bulgaria from Ottoman rule in 1877-1978 Russo-Turkish War." The date of the liberation from Ottoman rule should be "1877-1878". Note that this text is also a link which needs to be preserved.

Done Welcome and thanks for contributing! Celestra (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixing links to disambiguation pages

I have fixed some links to disambiguation pages on this article for WikiProject Disambiguation. I have marked a few of the links as needing help, as I did not know enough about the subject to find the appropriate article (or perhaps there is none). Apart from those marked there are no more links to disambiguation pages here. If there is an issue with any of my edits then don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page (please not here, as I will not be watching this page). - EdoDodo ^talk 20:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Diplomatic relations

Check this link if you want up to date information. [18]Dsds55 (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.Greyhood (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Now we have 191 countries with Vatican being added.[19] Dsds55 (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Military Information

Some of the military information I believe is inaccurate. Most sources state that the US has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. I think the US has more tanks too as well, however, I am not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.98.80 (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

But in practice, free health care is restricted due, for example, to propiska regime.

Was it some butthurt republican or pribalt who added this crap? Ogomemnon (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It overplays the importance of the Propiska as an obstacle. Bribes (aka inducements to faster service) and lack of resources are more important in most of the country.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Propiska regime was abandoned in 2006-2007? now we have registration, softer regime. 62.32.72.252 (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Soviet Russian Kamrad (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Anyway, (proper)free health care is a myth.

Six words

I bet you one day when I'm old, The news guy will say six words that will change the world forever: "Russia has Declared War on Us! four words that have the power to change the world in a instant.--Killerz507 (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Russian Kamrad (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Do you know "World in conflict"? Good, epic RTS. There were no six words, because Russia invaded Seattle without any warning. But that's just game.:)

Dates in the infobox

User:TarzanASG insists on removing all the old historical dates from infobox, leaving there only some key dates regarding the formation of Russian SFSR, Soviet Union and RF. He motivates this by the fact, that Soviet Union is not recognized as a legal successor of Russian Empire. This is rather controversial claim, because Soviet Union was de facto successor of Russian Empire (virtually the same territory, people etc.) and was diplomatically recognized by the rest of the world to have sovereignity over the bulk of territory of Russian Empire. Why, for example, Japan claims part of Kuril Islands from Russia on the basis of 150 years old agreement with Russian Empire? Why so many people in Russia in the 1990-s claimed succession to the Russian Empire or Russian Republic?. Anyway I believe such edits of infobox are unacceptable.

• In the present form TarzanASG's edits are excessivly large and make infobox look dreadful.
• This article has 'good' status and here should be no 'red' links.
• This article is about Russia with all its heritage and history, not just about the period of Russian Federation exclusively. Even more strange is the controversial combination of RF and Soviet Union in infobox, without any other periods.

That's why, I believe, these edits should be reverted, but the consensus is needed. So it would be nice to know what other users think. Greyhood (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

OMG, I have just opened the article on the big screen notebook and the top looks even more dreadful. Greyhood (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have just finished the major work on this article, and I believe that reveverting some edits before me is a vital thing to make this article ideal. Sorry TarzanASG, but the infobox of such size and with so many red links is really awful. I think anyone in his right mind would agree with me. I don't want to wait the consensus anymore and do revert your edits right now, and please, don't argue and just follow my advice given before. Greyhood (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

User:TarzanASG, I advice you to add missing dates to Russian Federation part of the history section, and write the new section called Etymology (see other country articles for example), with an explanation of the terms Russia, Russian Federation, Russians and Rossiyane. Please, don't change the infobox. Greyhood (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Date for Russian Federation is incorrect it should be either 12 of June 1990 Proclamation of Sovereignty or 12 December 1991 rratification by Russian Supreme Soviet of Belavezha Accords which includes disestablishment of USSR. 26 January 1991 is only a date of recognition of it by Union authorities which is related to USSR important dates but not really related to Russian important dates the same way as recognition of American Independence by UK is not related to American important dates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorbins (talk • contribs) 07:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

quote 159 about study of alcohol-related deaths should be changed

The current quote description is: 159 ^ Burlington Free Press, 26 June 2009, page 2A, "Study blames alcohol for half Russian deaths"

The study in question is:

"Alcohol and cause-specific mortality in Russia: a retrospective case—control study of 48 557 adult deaths" by Sir Richard Peto from the University of Oxford.

The current quote link is suboptimal as: a) Burlington Free Press was not the original publishing media of the study. Actually the BFP-article only mentioned the study. The study was originally published in "The Lancet" b) The appropriate page from Burlington Free Press 26 June 2009 is no longer available online, as a research in the BFP archive doesnt come up with appropriate results

I suggest to change the quote to link to: 159 http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)61034-5/fulltext

under this url a summary of the study, incl. the complete list of original authors can be found, and after subscription the full text of the original study can be obtained.

I am not very experienced in page-editing and would like to ask someone with a better knowledge of wikipedia protocols to make the change. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.195.95 (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Greyhood (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Military

In the Military section,

"Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. It has the second largest fleet of ballistic missile submarines and is the only country apart from the U.S. with a modern strategic bomber force.[31] Russia's tank force is the largest in the world, it's surface navy and airforce are among the strongest. The country has a large and fully indigenous arms industry, producing all of its own military equipment. Russia is the world's top supplier of weapons, a spot it has held since 2001, accounting for around 30% of worldwide weapons sales[128] and exporting weapons to about 80 countries.[129]" A few comments; The source from which the claim that its surface Navy, and airforce are among the strongest is not cited, and would probably not be agreed by most military analysts. especially regarding the Navy, unless the strongest is used as a very general term (first tier of the world). Some of Russia's equipment is very poorly maintained, or obsolete. Its networking capabilities are not on par with the US or Western Europe. The country does produce MOST of its weapons, not all. It recently bought drones from Isreal, and is considering buying two Mistral class ship from France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.230.228 (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the phrase 'all of its own military equipment' for 'most of its own military equipment'. As for the airforce and Navy see the article List of countries by level of military equipment and check the sources given there for Russia. If measured by quantity, Russian Airforce and Navy are clearly among the strongest 3 and 10 respectively. "Some of Russia's equipment is very poorly maintained, or obsolete" - it was in the 1990-s, not now. The situation has greatly improved and is further improving. Greyhood (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think "among the strongest" is correct. Offliner (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Dont panic, dont worry - a weak side you wrote bout may be VERY strong side at war. "Zerg Rush" (which Russia and USA practice in war) don`t need to have best networks and videocameras on the head. The strong side of army is its death wish and many ye old rusty AK auto-guns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.21.168.170 (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Soviet Russian Kamrad (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)The main way of fighting is "zerg rush".

Lead

The lead of this article seems to be focused on trying to convince the reader that Russia is very important. Compare the lead of Russia with the intro of the far more important United States, and the tendency in the lead of this article is striking. Especially the comparative scale: the largest/most important or the nth in the world for geography, population, time zones, resources, energy, forests, water, empire, constituent, economy, military budget, nuclear arsenal, science and arts, technology, space flight... and: most powerful, dominate, permanent member, etc. Can we rephrase the lead in a more readable/varied and less power-obsessed way? Sijo Ripa (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Russia is obviously important. However the lead doesn't state that Russia is more important than USA or anybody else. It's the USA intro that does state that USA is most influential.
• All the cases of usage of "largest" and other superlatives are justified by the facts. When it comes to the Russia's size and natural diversity, you simply can't make a right impression about them in the short lead without using the word "largest".
• Still you are right about the impression of bad style created by so many "largest", and perhaps some of the phrases in the intro should be reworded.
• Ninth largest by population, eighth or ninth largest by nominal GDP, and the eighth largest by nominal military budget in fact show a problem that Russia has: largest territory, but not enough population, military and economical power.
• Most leads of the major countries specify the country rankings in population and economy, and other things. It is a common practice.
• Leads typically try to tell about the most important and prominent facts about the country. Russia is the third most prominent country after USA and China if measured by superlatives, so there is no wonder that the intro creates such impression. See also the last paragraphs of the leads in the articles USA, United Kingdom, France etc. - they are all written in the same manner as Russia's lead. Largest, major, third etc. It is perfectly normal and common. Russia also happens to be not only a major historical and economic power, but the largest country in the world, so also the first paragraph of Russia's lead inevitably will be about largest, major etc.Greyhood (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you think you could reword the last sentence in the lede? "The Russian nation can boast... tradition of excellence" I think that sounds out of place for an encyclopedia article. What about "Russia has a long history in every aspect of the arts and sciences, etc" Anyway, I tend to agree with the first commenter, the lede seems to say "look at me look at me!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.238.152.3 (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Any country article lead says "look at me look at me!", especially when it comes to major countries, where you really have something to look at. But OK, I'll remove the word "boast".Greyhood (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"compare with with far more important Unated States"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.218.47.122 (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is the article locked?

I would like to add new source articles but the page is locked, why is it locked and how can I update or add new important sources to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.19.58 (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It is locked because of vandalism on this page. Write down what you think about and someone will contribute it to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saiga12 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Area

According to the list of country by area, it's 17 098 242, not 17 075 400. How big is really it ? Nico92400 (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

biased phrase

This phrase is bias and OR "The Russian nation has a long tradition of excellence in every aspect of the arts and sciences" In every aspect of arts and sciences? is there a reference showing a top russian scientist/artist for each aspect of arts and sciences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.150.191.60 (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. I'd reword it, but it's protected.98.64.108.139 (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Me too, it's a pretty ridiculous statement for an encylopedia if you ask me. China and the United States, also with long histories, do not state that on their pages in the lede... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.22.197.50 (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL I'm an American and I'll be the first to tell you that we do NOT have a long history, ESPECIALLY in comparison to China... 1776 (or 1783 whichever you want to use) was pretty much last week in the grand scheme of things. Still, that aside, your point is valid and I agree whole heartedly. Jersey John (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this statement is biased. There is no reasonable way to prove that as a fact. It should be removed. Gomedog (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah this needs to be changed. Besides the obvious impossibility of the statement ("every aspect") the sentence just rings of nationalistic flag waving. There is no place for either factual fallacies, which this clearly is, or bias behavior on Wikipedia. AdamantiumNagy (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Russia always lag behind Western Europe, so such statements serve as psychological compensation. Olvegg (talk) 08:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

russian government

federal republic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.220.178 (talk) 02:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no Taiga in Arkhangelsk oblast

Definitely 91.206.126.241 (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is a spelling error, under Cuisine. "Pirozhki, blini and syrniki are native types of pankakes." Pretty sure this should be "Pancakes." I'd change it, but it's semiprotected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.70.43.15 (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Good catch, thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

world war 1

They entered world war one because of german invasions threatening Moscow. I dont believe it had anything to do with their "allies" because Russia later withdrew from the war with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. They were in an agreement with the central powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.171.254 (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Petrograd was capital of Russia, not Moscow, wich was a just a provincial city and threaty of Brest-Litovsk has nothing to do with it since it was signed by communists and incase you imbecile are not aware, there was a civil war going on in Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.148.166.210 (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC) \

What the hell? World War One ended before Russia went into revolution or was in the ending stages at least. It was because of Czar Nicholas's bad performance in the war that sparked the Communist Revolution. Peter Griffen Boy (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Maritime border

This article lists only Japan and USA as having sea borders with Russia. The article on Sweden lists Russia as having a sea border with Sweden. Which is correct? Coroboy (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• There are different types of maritime boundary. Russia borders USA and Japan through their 12-mile coastal zones, but when it comes to Russia and Sweden, the border goes between their EEZs. Greyhood (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

GDP (PPP)

Can someone please correct the first part which says Russia is eigth by GDP PPP, it's seventh and even the CIA factbook and IMF which both give the lowest estimates of Russia's GDP state this.

• Fixed. Greyhood (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Russian native speakers (map)

I've talked to author of the map at his talk page. Information about other countries (Poland, Romania etc.) based on Russian diaspora#By country. Please, correct the mistake:

• Poland, Romania, Hungary are not countries with 500k russian native speakers. There are small number of russians in these countries and russian language isn't widely spread there. If someone can prove information about "500k native speakers" - give the source, please.

Mikolavos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.74.9.67 (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

orthographic mistake

hey guys, I've just found a mistake below the picture showing stalingrad: it's saying ..."majority of the fighting in the World War II took place"... Well there should be no "the" before World War II. I believe the correct english sentence would be ..."majority of the fighting in WWII" or even better "during WWII".

cheers

charlie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.219.153.149 (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching it and I have fixed it. You know, if you created an account, you'd be able to make these kind of corrections yourself pretty soon :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 2, 2010; 13:58 (UTC)

Biased article

I enjoy reading about the history of various countries on Wikipedia, but the article on Russia seems unusually biased. There seems to be a significant injection of bias and opinion, rather than confirmed facts. It appears that whoever wrote the majority of this article has a very strong urge to make Russia seem as great and good as possible, and it is not even done in a very clever way. There is lots of "Russia is the nth best..." or "has the largest...", and many similar things. It also stresses positive Russian accomplishments and triumphs, while leaving out or minimizing failures and defeats. This article in particular distorts many different things, contains a fair amount of irrelevant information that clutters the entry, and uses biased language.

I surmise that whoever wrote much of this content is a patriotic Russian person and wants to portray their country in a more positive way, but this is not the purpose of an encyclopedic endeavor. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, so I dont know how the editorial review process works, but I strongly suggest the admins take a look at this article and re-write/re-edit it for less bias and stricter neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbeyna (talk • contribs) 22:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The article was actually written by many different people, with different biases and opinions. I have not observed any obvious efforts to glorify the country (and some of the "nth best" and "nth largest" statements are strictly factual). If you see any particularly offensive passages, feel free to point them out here, and where bias is patently obvious, you can be bold and try re-phrasing some parts in a more neutral way yourself. There is always room for improvement, one way or another. And by the by, just so you know, admins don't have any more say in the editorial process than non-admins do (they do sometimes have more say in janitorial processes, though :)). Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:01, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but I think this "bias" is present in almost every country article. Even the traditional book encyclopedias usually emphasize the country's achievements and the reasons why the country is important. Offliner (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The last poster is right that most country articles are biased, but I think this one is worst than most I have read. Hopefully people who are experts on Russia (not me) will improve this and make it more objective. I could help with the erratic grammar and sentence structure, but not much else.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.208.128 (talk • contribs)

Actually, another thing you could help with is identification of the portions which you believe are especially biased. If you think some sections are too gleeful and tend to "glorify the Motherland", so to speak, instead of providing neutrally worded encyclopedic information, please at least hint at what these sections are, so they could be re-worded by someone else, if you can't do it yourself. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:08, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

hi guys, while i think it is crucial to acknowledge the vast amount of contributions russians have made to science, technology, art etc over the centuries it is equally important for wikipedia to maintain an excellent reputation as a neutral source of information.I must admit I haven't read the whole article but judging from the abstract it seems to be a very biased article. For instance it states that the Rus Empire was founded by "noble" Vikings. Isn't that a bit over the top? Even if the author was thinking about "noble" as in peerage it is greatly misleading. Then it goes on by saying that "Russia established worldwide power and influence from the times of the Russian Empire". When was Russia a worldwide power(well, maybe the soviet union was but that's another discussion...)? Although Russia has been one of the most powerful nations of the world for centuries, it has also been confined to the European/Asian continent with no notable overseas colonies(this goes especially during the times of the russian empire!). the title "worldwide power" is a pompous and very vague expression that shouldn't be used at all(and if so then the only candidate would be the British Empire).Anyways, it's not for me to decide but you guys should think about changing some bits of the article.After all Wikipedia shouldn't be a collection of laudations... Cheers, Charlie ,—User:charlie • (yo?); 15:08, June;1, 2010 (UTC)

Charlie, while you are absolutely right about the importance of mantaining neutrality, you seems to be rather far from the proper knowledge of some parts of Russian history.

• Not "Rus Empire", but Kievan Rus' was founded by "noble Vikings". "Noble" in the simplest sence of nobility ;) The traditional beginning of Russian history is linked to the arrival of Rurik and his relatives to East Slavic lands in 862. Rurik was a legendary Varangian chief, maybe konung or earl. His non-legendary relatives and descendants, the Rurikids, became the ruling dynasty in Russia and formed the core of Russian nobility for many centuries to come.
• Regarding "worldwide power" - just read the Great power article. The Russian Empire was a great power at least since the 19th century.
• "it has also been confined to the European/Asian continent" Wrong. Russia supported the USA both in the American Revolutionary War and in the American Civil War; Russian ships started circumnavigating the world from the early 19th century and on, and discovered Antarctica as well as multiple islands in the Pacific; Russians helped Menelek II of Ethiopia to fight his wars in Africa, etc. etc.
• "no notable overseas colonies" - what about Alaska and the whole of Russian America?

My regards. Greyhood (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested in forming a group of users who monitor and correct racist bias against countries and nations. i.e. to try and ensure what should, surely be the rule on wikipedia?! an 'encyclopedia', that no group - for example an ethnic group, or a nation - are treated differently from all other groups. We also need a group of users to be a taskforce against bullying by some users of the wikipedia. i.e. people who refuse to debate/ edit with others and treat them as equals but instead act arrogantly and revert without consultation. And who use bullying/ 'micky-taking, often in groups, to have 'fun' bullying a user - rather than co-operating with them and treating them with equal respect as the rules require. Any people - especially ones with technical know-how about the wikipedia - I'm a newcomer as far as editing goes - want to form such a group? Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Indented line

@Pennypennypennypenny Although I support your idea, I think you should not talk about "bullying". As a seasoned user of forums, youtube, and such sites, I think the correct term would be "trolling". Just thought I would say that, although it has nothing do with Russia.

Asking you not to remove his comment for irrelevance- The Sunglass Parlour (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

superpower status of Russia

I have several new and good articles on Russia being a superpower again, I would like to add them but I can't edit the article. What do I do to add them or get permission to do so? Let me know, thanks?--71.95.140.176 (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

How do I add updated articles on this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.140.176 (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you register on the english wikipedia? Then you should be able to edit locked pages. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&type=signup&returnto=Talk:Russia Innab (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Super power status of Russia is questionable. Many and many articles today argue that US is the only one remaining superpower. I believe that you can find many sources that state that Russia is a superpower (as you have already done it) as well as you can find many sources arguing otherwise. If wiki strives for NPOV it should reflect that superpower status of Russia is still debatable. 66.65.92.95 (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Russia is hardly a superpower. It spends less on its military than Britain and France. Russia's Nominal GDP is 11th, less than Canada's (the article says 6th - this is wrong). Russia's PPP GDP is 7th, less than the UK and Germany. How can such a country be considered a superpower when Canada, France, Britain and Germany are not? The USA is the only superpower. The USA has a gigantic $14 trillion dollar economy, which dwarfs all others. The USA spends 10 times more than the UK on its military; in turn the UK spends more than Russia. I'll leave it to some honest Russians not tainted by nationalism to edit the article, because I don't want to get into a petty dispute. 109.155.133.17 (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Per previous statements, I'd recommend providing a sourced refutation to what is currently in the article. If a sourced section like this is to be removed, it should only be removed with consensus. ialsoagree (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

And just to add, per the article on superpowers, military might is not the only (nor the main) measure of a nation's "power" status, so an appeal to the US's military spending seems like a red herring. ialsoagree (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so military might is not the only measure of a nation's power "status". Agreed. But even on all other measures, Russia is still not a superpower. The vast majority of people agree that to be a superpower, you need a very large economy, big military projection power, and large cultural influence. Only the USA has these things, and nostalgia for the past will not change that. My edits removing the superpower references were removed - fine, I can't defeat pettiness and I won't take part in a silly editing war with people behaving like children. However, my correction of Russia's nominal GDP from 6th to (a generous) 11th was also reverted. Why? On every country article, these "positions" link directly to the article on nominal and PPP GDP, which each employ three regularly updated sources, of which I used the most generous one, which placed Russia unflatteringly outside the top ten in terms of nominal GDP. You might be able to get away with pretending that your country is a superpower, but to pretend your GDP is twice as big as it is is deeply dishonest. Wikipedia is usually better than that. Note that I didn't remove the "energy superpower" references, since this is an entirely different thing. Instead of pushing me to provide references to refute Russia's so-called superpower status, wouldn't it be better for those people to find sources proving it? They found quite a few articles making sensationalist claims that Russia is a "superpower again", but I can also find many articles on the web claiming Elvis is still alive. That is not a valid basis from making a claim in Wikipedia. The burden of proof is on these overly-patriotic Russians to prove that the world views them as a superpower (and they emphatically do not). The burden of proof does not lie with the person removing the biased parts of the wiki.109.153.218.27 (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)