Talk:Russia

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2021

103.218.133.243 (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

{{Democrat Republic of Russia}]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2021

In the part science and technology you can add how Yuri Kondratyuk was crucial to the US lunar landing since he developed LOR years before in

around 1929 Sam.washington2124 (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Talk 05:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Why is Russia not marked as "under a dictatorship"?

Belarus is marked like this, but why not Russia? 85.115.248.233 (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is based on what is found in reliable sources. If you have such sources declaring that Russia is under a dictatorship, you are welcome to add such content. But do read what's behind that link carefully, to be sure that your sources ARE reliable. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It's no longer considered a democracy by international watchdogs and they jailed the leader of the official opposition. I'm not sure if dictatorship is the best signifier - perhaps someone more specialized with relevant research material may wish to interject? It's very obviously no longer a constitutional republic in the sense that it claimed to be 10+ years ago. I think this is something that should be re-visited carefully and urgently.--107.190.3.177 (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

It is not a dictatorship because most Russians support Putin or his allied parties. A tiny urban elite is against Putin, but that is in a country wherein Stalin is still being considered a great leader by many. Or, if they think lowly of Stalin, they still support Russian imperialism. Gorbachev and Yeltsin might be regarded as heroes in the West, but rank-and-file Russians regard them as weak, impotent leaders. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Level of support is not a determinator of dictatorship or not, even if it is accurately gauged. Anyway, I believe most academics in the field will say the RF has an authoritarian government, not a dictatorship currently. Sorry I don’t have a reference at hand. —Michael Z. 15:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Geography section

Hello. I read the geography section, and in my opinion it can have a little tweak. After the opening sentence, there is a sentence referring to how Russia spans the northernmost corner of Eurasia, and before that sentence can somebody put this sentence -- "It covers most of the landmass of Eurasia" - and then change the previous sentence to "and spans the northernmost corner of the latter" and put it after? Thanks. 45.118.63.5 (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Distances

Distances: how to measure

When we talk about the distance between two points on Earth, a significant portion of readers might visualize taking a piece of string and spanning it over a globe (model of the Earth) from one point to the other. The path along the string is the shortest distance between these points along the surface of the Earth (a straight line beneath the surface is not considered when measuring countries). Mathematically this is called the distance along a geodesic line, here the distance along an arc (section) of a great circle. Another significant portion of readers might visualize a straight line on a common type of world map. The difference between these points of view would be negligible if we talked about the extension of mainland Portugal, but they are significant when we talk about a country that is "wrapped" nearly halfway around the North Pole. For this reason, when we indicate the distance between two remote points of Russia, we should make clear to the reader along which path the distance has been taken.

One webtool for measuring distances is www.distance.to. It allows not only place names as an input, but also coordinates, which is useful for places which are not in the place name list, like the Vistula Spit or specific islands of Franz Josef Land, or whenever the quality of the places-coordinates list of the tool is not satisfactory. Direct coordinate input only works with non-negative values (northeast) below 90°. Distances across the dateline are not correctly displayed as a graph, but are numerically correct in the examples checked.

With this tool, a query for the distance from Smolensk to Ust-Kamchatsk gives a result of 6,881 km and shows a path between these two points that passes over mainland Russia, but also over a short streches of the Polar Sea, (near Novaya Zemlya). This looks unexpected if we are used to distorted images of Russia on flat maps.

The 55½°N circle of latitude passes closely between Smolensk (54.78°N) and Ust-Kamchatsk (56.23°N). The path along this circle of latitude from the Smolensk meridian (32.05°W) to the Uts-Kamchatsk meridian (162.47°W) is 8,216 km long (school maths). As the two places are not situated exactly on this meridian, a small correction can be added to the east-west extension between them: 8,320 km ±170 km ( that is ±2 %, from 1 - cos54.78°/cos55.5° = 1.018 = 102%).

So the statements "Smolensk, in the west, is about 6.900 km apart from Ust-Kamchatsk, in the east" and "Russia extends over more than 8.000 from west to east between Smolensk and Ust-Kamchatsk" are both true. (Similar to saying "The endpoints of this horseshoe are 10cm apart. The iron extends 20cm between them.".) The difference in wording between "Russia extends" and "the points are ... apart" is significant.

In spite of bad quality of the places-coordinates list, "distance.to" gives mathematically correct results. It shows a distance of 10.007½ km both from 0°N 0°E to 0°N 90°E and from 0°N 0°E to 89.999999°N 0°E, so it models Earth as a sphere with a circumference of 40.030 km. The results for the distance between two points A and B can be verified as follows: express in cartesian coordinates the vectors a and b on a unit sphere (r=1) that point from the Earth's center to A and B. That gives : a1=r·cos(long)·sin(lat), a2=... etc. From the dot product equation a•b=1·1·cosθ the distance between A and B can be calculated as 40.030km × acos(a1·b1+a2·b2+a3·b3).Tim2007viatge (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Distances between easternmost and westernmost points

Russia's westernmost point is at the Vistula Spit in Kaliningrad Oblast. Rounded to 1°/100, it is located at 54.46°N 19.64°E in OpenTopoMap (coordinates are shown in the URL) and also in GoogleMaps, just 200m away from the location in the List of extreme points of Russia. Russia's easternmost point is at Big Diomede Island in the Bering Strait. It is located at 65.78°N 169.01°W in OpenTopoMap and also in GoogleMaps, 2km away from the location in the List of extreme points of Russia.

The distance calculator tool "distance.to" returns a distance of 6,624.66km between Russia's westernmost point and "Diomedes-Islands" (Which it locates on the Big Diomede Island. Enter "Diomede-Islands" to "Nome, AK, USA" to see this). Another distance calculator tool "calcmaps" [1] returns a distance of 6,614.83km for a startpoint drawn on the Vistula Spit near the border and an endpoint drawn on the Bering Street Island labelled "Little Diomede" (There is just 1 Diomede Island on that map. The 2 Diomede Islands are just about 5km apart). My own calculation, using the method sketched further above on this talk page, gives 6.622,79km. So these 3 computations all give about 6,600km. My edit of 05:52, 9 December 2021 shows with school maths that a route with a length of about 6,667km exists between these points and says that this is still a bit more than the most direct route. This was my first edit of the Russia article and it deleted the following statement, because I consider it false: "Kaliningrad Oblast, Russia's westernmost part along the Baltic Sea, is about 9,000km apart from its easternmost part, Big Diomede Island".

This statement in the Wikipedia was a bad reformulation of a 1996 book by Glenn E. Curtis which says "Russia extends about 9,000 kilometers from westernmost Kaliningrad Oblast, the now-isolated region cut off from the rest of Russia by the independence of Belarus, Latvia, and Lithuania, to Ratmanova Island (Big Diomede Island) in the Bering Strait.". To understand why I call this reformulation bad, please see further above in this talk page, where I use the Smolensk-to-Ust-Kamchatsk example to explain why the difference in wording between "Russia extends" and "the points are ... apart" is significant.

Even in the original wording of Curtis, I find it problematic to use a formulation that couples "9,000 kilometers" with "westernmost ... eastermost" points in Kaliningrad and Bering Strait. Given that these points are just about 6,600km apart, I think there needs to be a clear formulation which saves the reader from the fallacy of believing that a plane, missile or whatever, travelling from one point to the other, has to cover a distance of 9,000km.

In my first edit of the article, I did an intent to "salvage" Curtis' 9,000km by interpreting them as a west-to-east distance along the 60°N circle of latitude. However, at that time I hadn't paid attention to how Curtis continues after the above quote. He writes "This distance is roughly equivalent to the distance from Edinburgh, Scotland, east to Nome, Alaska.". The interval beeing compared (Kaliningrad to middle of Bering Strait) lies within the interval chosen for comparison (Schotland to east coast of Bering Strait), if we interpret it as a distance along a west-to-east path. The increase is over 15%, from a 171° span to a 198° span. An east-to-west interpretation of this comparison is as unproductive as saying "The 171cm distance from this person's ankles to his eyes is similar to the 198cm distance from his feet to the top of his head".

After demonstrating that 9,000km is not the distance between these two points (which is 6,600km) and showing on this talk page that Curtis cannot be meaningfully referring to the length of a path in east-to-west direction, how else can we couple "9,000km" with the two endpoints - and make this relation clear to the reader? In my third edit of the article, I asked in the edit description <<How is "distance" defined in the "9000km" literature? Do geographers have a concept "distance on a route inside (former) national territory" or "distance on a route that goes over land as far as possible"?>>.

If it is "distance on a route that goes over land as far as possible", than it is not "Russia", but "Russia together with Lithuania, ..." that extends from one extreme point to the other. (Plus, Big Diomede is an Island).

I suspect it is "distance on a route inside former national territory" and the 1996 book reused an older statement about the Soviet Union. Adapting this to the westernmost point of Russia's contiguos mainland would have required a burdensome re-estimation of the distance. The clumsy (in my opinion) parenthesis "the now-isolated region cut off from the rest of Russia by the independence of Belarus, Latvia, and Lithuania" is a clue that nurishes my suspicion.Tim2007viatge (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Distances: version history

After having participated in a series of alternating edits from 9 to 12 December 2021, I wondered if the discussion about 9,000km between eastern and westernmost points occured for the first time.

I jumped back in the version history in increasing time steps, as far as the version of 18:24, 16 February 2009. It says "The two widest separated points in Russia are about 8,000 km (5,000 mi) apart along a geodesic line. These points are: the boundary with Poland on a 60 km long (40-mi long) spit of land separating the Gulf of Gdańsk from the Vistula Lagoon; and the farthest southeast of the Kuril Islands, a few miles off Hokkaidō Island, Japan. The points which are furthest separated in longitude are 6,600 km (4,100 mi) apart along a geodesic. These points are: in the West, the same spit; in the East, the Big Diomede Island (Ostrov Ratmanova)." The distances are mathematically correct, but no reference is given. A reference would be especially important for "widest seperated", which cannot be demonstrated mathematicaly so easily.

Over 12 years later, the subject of distances consisted still of the same 8,000km and 6,660km between these two pairs of points.

This was eliminted with the edit of 15:58, 8 July 2021. It puts the "9,000km", "westernmost", "easternmost" instead, with reference to the 1996 book by Glenn E. Curtis.

On 8 December 2021, I bent this back to a more mathematical point of view, without knowing about the version history listed here above. This triggered alternating changes between Tim2007viatge and Mspriz, whose latest change deleted the subject of distances completely. In the intermediate versions, Mspriz helped by presentning the Britannica source.

The Encyclopedia Britannica includes a distance of "9,000km" that is free of the problematic association with westernmost and easternmost Kalingrad spit and Bering Strait island.

I will publish right now a version where distances are discribed with two sentences in the main text, plus details in footnotes. The first sentence presents the extensions of area from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, including the "9,000km". The second sentence presents the 8,000km distance between Kaliningrad and an island of the Kuril, but avoids claiming that this is the maximum geodesic distance (no source for this) and moves the endpoint of this distance from an island disputed by Japan to the farthest undisputed island of the Kuril. I hope the juxtaposition of "9,000km" and "8,000km" raises awareness that measuring distances is not trivial in the case of Russia. As references, the first sentence points to Britannica and the second sentence points to "distance.to". For over 12 years the distances in the geography section were presented in a way that appeals to mathematically minded people. Such kind of people could be tempted to challenge the Britannica data as unprecise. To prevent this, I put two footnotes at the end of the first sentence. The first footnote explains a way to interpret the Britannica distances as approximations. This explanation only refers to grid lines and geographical features which can be seen in the physical map of this article section. The second footnote confirms with two examples that the Britannica numbers are not maximum distances.Tim2007viatge (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Now we have Britannica's misleading "9000km east to west", without any contextualization, again, from an edit by MSpritz on 2 February 2022. For comparison: 9000km is the total flight distance from Russia's easternmost point (near Alaska) via Kyiv to Paris. I suggest to erase the north-south and east-west distances and use the following wording again, matured over 12 years from 17 February 2009 (overexpanded) to 7 July 2021:

“The two most widely separated points in Russia are about 8,000 km (4,971 mi) apart along a geodesic line." Tim2007viatge (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

User Mspriz (misspelled MSpritz in my previous comment) is permanently blocked as a user (since 3 February 2022) because of being a sockpuppet. Mspriz' change of 2 February 2022, critized in my previous comment, was one of the very last of the about 600 changes done by this user on the Russia page, starting mid of November 2021.

I cannot undo that change, because the Russia page has a stricter protection now, at the same time that Russia has militarily attacked Ukraine.

Regarding my suggestion to erase the north-south and east-west distances and replace them with the version (not by me nor by Mspitz) of 7July 2021: Automatic km-to-mile conversion should be applied, with the same magnitude of rounding for miles as for km. Footnotes on the Talk page can display badly (at least on the Android smartphone I am using). So, for more clarity, here is the suggested text “ The two most widely separated points in Russia are about 8,000 km (5,000 mi) apart along a geodesic line." And here is the footnote: " These points are: from the Vistula Spit and the southeasternmost point of the Kuril Islands. The points which are farthest separated in longitude are 6,600 km (4,100 mi) apart along a geodesic line. These points are: In the west, the same spit, and in the east, the Big Diomede Island." Tim2007viatge (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

"First Europeans to Sail to North America"

In the history section it says "In 1648, Fedot Popov and Semyon Dezhnyov, two Russian explorers, discovered the Bering Strait, and became the first Europeans to sail to North America." I'm not sure if this is an error in wording but it is blatantly untrue as by 1648 there were already many well established European colonies in North America and they certainly didn't fly there. Also the first Europeans to Sail to North America were Vikings. 2607:F0B0:7:81E1:1C3E:C7E7:C87A:DF10 (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

You're right, it's blatantly false as written. Even if there are some arguments to put on doubt the Viking arrival to the mainland (although consensus has increased in the last decades), the Spanish explorers reached North America in the 1520s, well before the date given. I'd remove that, and let the Bering part for now. Also, someone with access should check the source. --Urbanoc (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed the full sentence. If someone wants to re-add the Bering discovery bit (the only one that sounds right...), he/she/they need to come with a book page of a reputable source, as it's not a minor claim. --Urbanoc (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding information to the article

Russian lands were generally referred to as Muscovy until PETER I officially declared the Russian Empire in 1721; the new name sought to invoke the patrimony of the medieval eastern European Rus state centered on Kyiv in present-day Ukraine; the Rus were a Varangian (eastern Viking) elite that imposed their rule and eventually their name on their Slavic subjects

[CIA - The World Fact Book, Russia, Government, Country name, etymology. https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/russia/#government] — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuasEditor (talk • contribs) 17:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Whitewashing

Whitewashing religious persecution is something which bullies do. I mean: Putin has revived the Inquisition and this would be pretty irrelevant when you think about the bigger matter? The message is loud and clear: Russians live in a tyranny and they do not have human rights, such as freedom of religion. And that's right: in a tyranny individual human rights are pretty irrelevant. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

If Russians behave like they would have religious freedom, they will land in jail. That's guaranteed by the Russian Justice. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Possibly false claim about becoming large wine producer

“ Wine has become increasingly popular in Russia in the 21st century, as the country is becoming one of the world's largest wine producers.” — I don’t think the cited source has any evidence on this. Furthermore, cited source is based on an interview with a top-level Russian propaganda figure (Dmitry Kiselyov), so I would take everything he says with a grain of salt. 185.165.160.153 (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Probably is false. In 2014 it was #14 in the List of wine-producing regions, with less than 10% of the top 4's volumes. I'll adjust. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I changed the source. Mspriz (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

GA try

@Chipmunkdavis: Sorry for the ping... but can Russia, in its current state, pass if nominated for GA? I have recently done a ton of work over the article. Although its pretty bloated in size, the entire article is well-sourced with reliable sources (most of them with quotes), no notable grammar issues and is neutral throughout, with no massive editor disputes. Its currently rated as a C-class article, which it definitely isn't at this point. Mspriz (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Mspriz, I’ve only had a quick look at the intro, but I don’t think it reflects WP:NPOV. It has a lot of celebratory superlatives, but ignores the long-lasting effect on Russia, the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and northern Asia, and the rest of the world of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution, and overlooks the fact that the Russian Federation is the first country in Europe to defy the post-war international order by aggressively enlarging itself through the use of force or threat of force. These seem to be facts of top significance.

More generally, the introduction reflects an ethnic Russo-centric national WP:BIAS, omitting even a mention of or reference to the hundred or so national groups who speak dozens of languages from five unrelated language families in this multicultural state and its predecessor empires.

The synthesis of Byzantine and Slavic cultures that defined Russian culture for the next millennium seems to equate Russian culture with East Slavic culture, taking for granted the nineteenth-century Russian imperial version of East Slavic historiography and ignoring current neutral views (along with the existence of historical Ruthenians, later self-identified Belarusians, Rusyns, and Ukrainians). Russia was not Kyivan Rus; it was one successor of it, in terms of nation, state, culture, and history.

Rus' ultimately disintegrated, until it was finally reunified by the Grand Duchy of Moscow in the 15th century. What, now? This would be quite a surprise for the people in the Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia, Red Rus, and Carpathian Rus. Muscovy was not Kyivan Rus nor did it “reunify” it in the 15th century in any sense. Neither Muscovy, the Russian tsardom, nor the Russian Empire ever held all of the lands of former Kyivan Rus.

If I have a chance, I’ll try to look over the rest of the article. —Michael Z. 15:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I never got this ping. Just checked and it's not on my list of pings either. No clue why.

The page is as you mention quite long, something reflected in a very long table of contents. Much of this is a humongous history section (see section size template), with the Soviet Union subsection alone being larger than the entire Geography section. This is reflected in the lead, of which half the paragraphs are devoted to this single section of a seven-section article. The next longest section is Culture, and while it could use a bit of trimming it's actually not that bad. It goes listy in parts, but even these are often placed within context. However, all this length, and a mere single tangential mention in the lead. A quick glance at the article sources finds quite a few entire books with no page numbers, and a few citations to Britannica and TASS, but perhaps not enough problems to encumber GA.

A more in depth look at the sources would take a lot of time (not least due to sheer number), and there's a few bits here and there where I find issues like Michael Z. above (eg. expanding beyond the Urals creating a transcontinental country is an anachronistic view; the definition of Europe and Asia has shifted over time, especially in Russia where it was associated with various philosophies regarding expansion, culture, and identity). I would say however that in part this is going to be a reflection of the article length. The more article, the more potential areas of disagreement. (Long size also makes it more intimidating for reviewers.) Definitely not a C-class article though! CMD (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mzajac: Thank you for the suggestions. I removed the highly unneeded sentence about ethnic Russians on the first para of the lead. Although ethnic Russians compost about 80% of the population, Russia is multi-cultural, with a vast number of ethnic groups across the country. I also trimmed off the sentence about Muscovy "uniting" Rus, and the sentence about Russian culture. Now, the annexation of Crimea and the Ukrainian crisis is indeed very significant, its also currently very well-known globally. In my opinion, it belongs more to the Putin era section, more than the lead itself. Mspriz (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: No issues. You are indeed right about the history section being a large part of the article. Its massive, and needs to be trimmed in some areas, although I can't find them myself. I also noticed that a few books are sourced, without any page numbers given. I can try and find alternative reliable sources. The Britannica sources seem to be important for the areas they have been sourced to, but the TASS sources can possibly be replaced. Mspriz (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I've currently replaced a big portion of the blank book sources, mainly on the Imperial Russia section, which was almost entirely sourced with the latter. There are still a few left in the article, mainly across the culture section, I'll try to replace them as well. Mspriz (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The ancestors of modern Russians are the Slavic tribes: this statement in Russia#Early history is vague and inaccurate in almost every possible sense (in terms of ethnicity, national identity, citizenship, culture, state, or whatever). I don’t have access to the source to verify what it says. Certainly. these tribes weren’t the ancestors of all modern citizens of Russia, and the paragraph also discusses assimilation of Finnic peoples, implying others were ancestors of ethnic Russians too. —Michael Z. 21:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mzajac: Changed the source. Mspriz (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems pretty unsatisfying. The quoted passage introduces a paragraph whose whole point is the opposite of Slavic purity, leading to “today’s complex patchwork of human diversity in Russia.” This version puts the Slavs ca. 6th century BCE in a privileged place. If we’re setting the ethnic setting for a federation of 100 indigenous and native nations, let’s acknowledge the existence before 1991 of the ancestors of at least more than one of them.

I realize you’re signed up for cleaning up the article and not necessarily rewriting sections of it. But this is what strikes me as a serious WP:BIAS problem in an article about Russia the country of eleven time zones and 140M citizens, not just Russia the history of a state that revolved around a throne in Moscow in 1263. —Michael Z. 00:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I made a similar comment on the last GA run, regarding a lack of coverage of some of the minorities and peripheries. Haven't checked the current draft, but it's not a new issue with the article.

Regarding History, it's always possible to cut down (most leads as I mentioned cut it down to a single paragraph!). At the moment it is, by itself, 30kB of prose, which is somewhere between 50-75% of the size we'd expect the entire article to be. CMD (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mspriz: Excellent work on the article! I have a few suggestions: There are quite a few instances of MOS:SANDWICH (when text is sandwiched between two images); I suggest you either remove some images or use the multiple images template and put two images horizontally next to each other, such as in the "Literature and philosophy" section. The table in the "Political divisions" section only has two references. Perhaps mention the Belyayev circle in the "Music" section? Feel free to ask questions - Wretchskull (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: Thank you for the suggestions. I've tried to use the multiple images template across some sections, and I added a sentence about the Belayev circle in the Music section. I've almost entirely sourced the table in the politics section. It was indeed mostly unsourced. Is there anything else that could be improved? Mspriz (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The first graf in Russia#Etymology is misleading. It ought to make it clear that modern historiography doesn’t see Kyivan Rus as Russia, but a predecessor of three modern states (and of four nations, including the Rusyns). The “state centred on Novgorod” that lasted three years needs clarification. The mentioned Rus Land (rus’ska zemlia) was a region around Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Pereiaslavl in Kyivan Rus, sometimes interpreted as all of it, but only after the fragmentation of Kyivan Rus did Muscovy and Russia start using it to denote northeastern lands. Sorry I haven’t found time to chip in on improving this. Thanks for all the good work. —Michael Z. 18:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Mzajac: Could you please the fix the section? I do not exactly have a ton of knowledge about etymology. Mspriz (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Russia/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 16:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Hello, Lee Vilenski: Thank you very much for starting the reviewing process! I will be more than pleased to co-operate with you. Mspriz (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Prose

Lede

• and has the most borders of any country in the world, with sixteen sovereign nations - I feel like this could be re-written: and borders sixteen sovereign nations, the most of any country in the world Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Done Mspriz (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• It has a population of 146.2 million; and is the most populous country in Europe, and the ninth-most populous country in the world - same here. Try It is the ninth-most populous country in the world and the highest in Europe with a population of 146.2 million. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Done Mspriz (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Lede could maybe do with a copyedit (especially if this were to go to FAC), but it's nothing super offputting. It all makes sense. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd probably need some help with the copy-editing. Mspriz (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

General

• The current name of the country, Россия (Rossiya), - surely this is the "official name". There's lots of current names, one being Russia Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The official names of Russia in Russian are "Россия (Russia)" and "Российская Федерация (Russian Federation)" The country is commonly referred to as simply "Russia" in English. The Russian constitution states that the terms "Russia" and "Russian Federation" have equal official status. Mspriz (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• ethnic Russians is a weird pipe. Could we just link Russians? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • One pipe removed, from the Early history section. However, the first pipe, used in Etymology section, is used to distinguish between ethnic Russians and Russian citizens of other ethnicity. Mspriz (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• In late 8th century BCE, Ancient Greek traders brought classical civilization to the trade emporiums in Tanais and Phanagoria.[35] - can probably merge this into the paragraph prior. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Done Mspriz (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• List of early East Slavic states - main article. Is no longer at this title. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Done Mspriz (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Same for Russian Democratic Federative Republic Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Done Mspriz (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• This happens a lot throughout the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Done Tried to fix the issues across the article. Mspriz (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• The History section is probably a bit long (and as said below, is probably overcited.) However there isn't much egregious here. I'd just suggest a cull, and move less important bits to the History of Russia article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd probably need some help. But I've tried to trim off some excess. Mspriz (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• They include 45 UNESCO biosphere reserves - do we need to say UNESCO? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Done Mspriz (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Political divisions - wow that looks complicated, well summarised. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Everything sees well cited.

Review meta comments

• I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Peanut gallery comment: The article is very long, at 80 kB (12650 words). I think there is opportunity for better use of summary style in the etymology and history sections. There is also a very wide variety of sources used, 630 refs (this may be the most I've seen on any single article). The page load time is worsened by the high amount of wikitext, 338,763 bytes. The sources vary in quality a lot, and you could improve the page load time by consolidating based on a smaller number of high-quality sources. For example, many of the references in the history section could be replaced by this book. (t · c) buidhe 03:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Glad to, but probably not until next week. Thanks. —Michael Z. 20:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I strongly agree with buidhe. Replacing a variety of sources with a few high-quality sources is important. Using shortened footnotes (sfn) would definitely be needed as it will cut out a good portion of unnecessary text, making the reflist much cleaner. I'd be more than happy to help you out with that. Wretchskull (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Whilst I agree this is a good thing to do for the article, I don't think I'll challenge it at GAN. The article is already plenty long enough to look at; so long as the sources are reliable, that's all that matters at this time. I'll begin a dive through in a bit Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

buidhe: I re-sourced the sentences that you added the cn tags on. And Wretchskull, I agree, the article is a bit large, which is partly due to the massive amount of references. Over 630 sources. If the history section, the largest section, could get its sources sorted, then the article would get a large trim. Mspriz (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Seryo93: and @Mellk:: Sorry for the ping. But could you help with trimming unsignificant parts of the history section? The section is too massive. Mspriz (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I can take a look at that later. Mellk (talk) 06:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: This article's refs have harmonized whitespaces since December 2021, which bloat the article's size even more. Should they be used? Removing the spaces might give the article a big trim. Mspriz (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mspriz: That is up to you. The history section is rather bloated too, and WP:UNDUE or trivial information exists throughout the article. I'll see what I can do. Wretchskull (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

the whitespace in the rrefs is fine. Just need a bit more summary in the History and it'll be grand. Maybe remove a few of the refs that can be replaced. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: I tried trimming the section. Mspriz (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok. It probably needs a little more, but it's certainly nothing that will effect the GA criteria. Good job, I'll pass now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review! I appreciate it a lot. Mspriz (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Russian invasion of Australia

As russia is invading Australia we need to put a section in the article describing the Russian invasion of Australia.46.114.5.13 (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

That would be World War 3. Do you have a source for it? tgeorgescu (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Population estimate

Updated statistics from Rosstat puts the current population estimate as of 1 January 2022 at 145,478,097 (including Crimea) compared to 146,171,015 from 1 January 2021 (with a natural population decline of over 1 million – highest in post-Soviet Russian history). News articles: Interfax, TASS. Mellk (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Could you please update it? Mspriz (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I have updated it. I was just waiting for the .xls file. Mellk (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Theleekycauldron (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Protests in Petrograd (Saint Petersburg), March 1917.

• ... that the February Revolution of 1917 in Russia, named after the month February, actually took place during the month of March? Source: https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/what-was-the-february-revolution
  • Comment: I nominated Russia to GA status, and since the nomination passed, thought this would a nice fact. Since the revolution is widely known as the February Revolution, many, and arguably most people think it took place during February - although it took place in March.

Improved to Good Article status by Mspriz (talk). Self-nominated at 19:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - AGF
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - AGF

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - x

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: - not needed
Overall: Mspriz Welcome to DYK and thank you for your remarkable work in bringing Russia to GA status. The article sure has some info for the DYK section but DYK has some other rules than GA and we should take our time. Further comments below.

• I'll review this one Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Article is long enough, new enough and qpq is not needed. With Copyvio I assume good faith as the article seems to be too long for the earwig.

The fact of the hook is not mentioned in the article, the image is also not used. The image I guess can be helped with easily, how February and March can be included, I am not sure and I'll let you figure out. You can also suggest additional hooks.

Then each paragraph of the article should end with a source which sources the info mentioned above. I am sure there are sources within the article that potentially source each phrase, but we still need some more and I am sure you can help Wikipedia a bit.

• In the post soviet era, the separatist islamist insurrections need an additional source. √

• For the head of the Russian government according to the constitution we need a source. I found one that it is the head of the Government, but not according to the constitution. Maybe you could find one like this?

• For the composition of the three branches of the government we would also need a source at the end of the paragraph. I guess the source above sources it, but it only sources the three branches, not their composition which is mentioned below. Best is to add a source for each point.

1. In Human rights and corruption a source for the kleptocracy description of Russia would be good. A prominent one better. Kleptocracy Removed

• In the first paragraph in Transport and Energy, on the business of Moscows airport there would also be needed a source at the end of the paragraph.√ Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess the block of the DYK nominator solves the issue? I have adapted the article a bit, sourced some phrases and added the image and the phrase needed for the DYK. The Government phrases are too much to find and I'd just approve them per AGF. But then the DYK would have to be approved by another reviewer as I am sort of a prominent editor of the hook:)Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicle are you intending to adopt this then or should it be closed? CMD (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I could nominate it for DYK. It's an interesting hook. Would I have to nominate it separately? I actually would have preferred a review credit. If you want to nominate yourself, go ahead.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This is an interesting factoid but I do not believe it's suitable for DYK. It is a bit of trivia that is certainly WP:UNDUE in the Russia article. (t · c) buidhe 05:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, who wants to go against Buidhe's advice? I won't. Let's close it then.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Closing then. CMD (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if the nomination could be given another chance. It's not like our article on Russia would ever be eligible for DYK again given that it already reached GA status, and I'm sure there's plenty of material in the article that could be used as a hook, even if not necessarily the revolution angle that was originally proposed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Well it might get delisted soon, in which case a relist would be eligible. CMD (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm putting out a note at WT:DYK—we don't often get articles this widely viewed/important, we shouldn't pass this up. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I see no problem with running that hook, aside from the fact that it's not presently in the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The February Revolution hook is misleading – the revolution started in March according to the Gregorian calendar, but in February according to the Julian calendar, which was still used in Russia at the time. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• ALT1 ... that in Russia, International Women's Day on March 8 is so popular that florists can earn profits of "15 times" more than other holidays? — Maile (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

From the article, "International Women's Day on March 8, gained momentum in Russia during the Soviet era. The annual celebration of women has become so popular, especially among Russian men, that Moscow's flower vendors often see profits of "15 times" more than other holidays."

• • I like it, and the special occasion posting it can go with. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Ooh, great idea! May i suggest the punchier

• ALT1a: ... that florists in Russia can see a fifteenfold increase in profits on International Women's Day compared to other holidays?

• • • We'll probably have at least one hook that delineates that March 8 is IWD, doesn't need to be this one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    • also, for the cn tag, do any of these sources work? I'm not up on their reliability... [2] [3] [4] [5] theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they)
      • I like ALT1a even better. Much more hooky. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Theleekycauldron I have checked some of the sources and to me all are available. Though I must admit, that for Russia to keep the GA status some better sources are needed. The article has just been nominated for reassessment and I think we should better wait. As the original reviewer, I won't review it in the current status. After buidhe voiced doubts on the sourcing and the recently detected ranges from 14% to 70% middle class population I just don't feel comfortable approving it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
          • Fair cop, Paradise Chronicle—I've started a good article reassessment, and we'll put this nomination on hold while we do. If we end up having to reject, and this article then survives GAR, no prejudice against renomination. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• @Theleekycauldron: Given that March 8 is approaching, the GAR needs to be finished as soon as possible if the IWD hook is to be used. On the other hand, given recent events, there may be more roadblocks for the nomination at the moment. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: we're—we're not running this on IWD, right? that would be wildly inappropriate, even if russia pulled back all of its troops tomorrow. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Theleekycauldron It might be a bad idea to run a hook about Russia anytime soon but I can understand the argument of "the hook should be fine because: 1. the nomination was started long before the conflict began and 2. the hook has nothing to do with politics or the military". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
      • @Narutolovehinata5: The fact that it has nothing to do with politics or the military is the problem—it'd be seen as us trying to change the subject from the fact that Russia is currently carrying out an invasion of a sovereign entity without international or popular support. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Would having a hook about Ukraine running at the same time or at a similar time help, or is the current situation simply too much for any hook about Russia or Ukraine to run anytime soon? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
          • If there was another cutesy hook about Ukraine to run, maybe we could put them together. But, then, given the victim-bully narrative in US media, as leeky points out, running a hook that paints Russia in this oddly sweet light could be interpreted as a deliberate action along the lines of "look, Russia isn't that bad", while the West at least would find the same statement of "victim" Ukraine to not be worth mention. Navigating this stuff is almost certainly impossible and to be safe, avoiding all mention, with a wide margin of error, too, is the way to go, IMO. Kingsif (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
            • @Kingsif: Would pairing this nomination with Template:Did you know nominations/Prayer for Ukraine solve the issues? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
              • @Narutolovehinata5: I, personally, think we should not post anything that could be related, positive, negative, neutral, whatever, and the idea of putting two kind of opposing POV hooks together to cancel out is not any better (possibly worse, it may be obvious to the reader that we are trying to do that. And we can't discount people thinking "WP wouldn't put up something about Ukraine without being nice to Russia, gross" - on the internet, any possible misinterpretation will happen, you know) - but as convincing as I want to rant, if people really want to put these on the MP, it always takes more effort to keep telling someone no. Kingsif (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
• Given that it appears that the GAR is leaning towards a delist I wonder if it would be time to close this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
• Given that the GAR is leaning towards a delist, as well as instability with the article, it doesn't seem to be ready for DYK at this time. If the article's GA status is kept and the remaining issues are addressed, there is no prejudice against renomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Follow up on GA criteria

Unfortunately, when it passed GA the article continued to use unreliable sources. Currently there is one citation needed and 18 better source needed tags; the holidays section is also tagged as needing trimming per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. These cleanup tags are incompatible with GA so unless they're fixed a reassessment would be necessary. Courtesy ping Lee Vilenski (t · c) buidhe 10:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, is there a particular reason why we are tagging Statista as needing a better source? I couldn't find any discussion (I looked here. I can't say I've seen the discussion regarding that one. I'm not exactly questioning it, but you've also tagged some clearly reliable sources (such as the Washington Post) as needing a better source. Is this because it doesn't contain the information? I usually suggest an inline note be left on {{bsn}} tags to say what is wrong with the source, or use {{failed verification}}. I don't think the tag is particularly damming, as even if you can't replace it, you can just cull the sentence. Happy for a GAR, just wanted to confirm what is happening with these sources. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Lee vilenski, op-eds are not considered reliable except for the author's opinion. (News sources would not be considered reliable for all info either, but that's not why I tagged them in this case). There are three RSN discussions about Statista and lack of evidence that it qualifies as WP:RS. (t · c) buidhe 11:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Of the three times Statisa is mentioned at RSN, only once is it actually discussed here, where there is one !vote of reliable and one of unreliable. That's not really much of an argument against it being unreliable. I'd rather we had a discussion that found something to be unreliable, or other consensus that it was an unreliable source (say a blog or tabloid), and then tag items. The Op-ed stuff is fair enough, but not really enough on its own for a demotion, as it's only a couple of refs, that can easily either be replaced or culled. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I know for a fact that Statista often uses outdated data but presents it as up to date. And they combine data from different sources, ignoring the fact that these sources use different methodology and/or different survey date. Sometimes they do not even provide information about the original/primary source. This is completely unacceptable. They have a good looking website and it looks professional, but I can not imaging someone using this source for some serious work. My point is that if there is no other reliable source that support their data - Statista can not be used. Renat 16:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I added a source for the WW2 death toll (untagged failed verification, source tagged as better source needed just gave 26 million, not the range) and added two sources for the worsening relationships with US/EU/NATO 2014-present. I am not an expert about Russia or the war, so I probably won't try and patch this up further, but I hope this slightly improved the article. RoseCherry64 (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

"The East Slavs, ancestors of Belarusians, Russians, and Ukrainians..."

@Mzajac: Regarding this edit you made, I previously removed this because I thought it was misleading. I mentioned this in my edit summary before but to me this makes it sound like East Slavs do not exist any more. And Russians are categorised as an East Slavic ethnic group. I do not think we need some kind of list of the East Slavic ethnic groups (with potentially controversial exclusion or inclusion of Rusyns). Thanks. Mellk (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, okay, but the current text is poor. It says nothing about who were the eighth-century East Slavs, and nothing about their relationship to the subject of the following sentence or of the entire article. It is literally pointless as it stands (and the text must stand on its own, without relying on linked articles to make sense). The reader can easily infer the eighth-century East Slavs were the Russians and medieval Kyivan Rus was Russia, both of which are false.

Please don’t just remove the edit without ameliorating these problems (or at least use the revert function if you do, so I am alerted – by the time I came back the change was buried deep in the history so I just re-did it; sorry).

So how to fix, if not by at least defining East Slavs? —Michael Z. 16:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been busy lately. In my opinion I do not think there would be such confusion, because "Russians" and "Russia" are not used there, while these are mentioned as they are relevant to Russian history. Perhaps it can be improved by being a bit more detailed, specifically mentioning the tribes in Eastern Europe at the time and their unification under one state by Varangians. Mellk (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Russian Military Strength

Several of the claims about Russian military strength are cited to a website called "Global Firepower". That site has no about page; I can't tell who's behind it, where they get their numbers, or who finances them.

Is it a WP:RS? If it is, then I don't think it should be, because I think any user should be able to verify for themselves whether a site meets the criteria for reliability.

In the absence of information, I presume they get their numbers from the CIA Factbook (or some other part of the DoD), which is common practice on Wikipedia, but seriously violates WP:NPOV.

Can we source these numbers from someone that is at least transparent about who they are and where they get their numbers? Like, the CIA or someone?

MrDemeanour (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

"Russian is the second-most used language on the Internet after English"

This can't possibly be right unless you completely ignore the Chinese internet. 2A0D:6FC0:E82:C300:C48C:743C:7C50:7925 (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Government type

@Mellk: A republic is a democratic form of government, and Russia does hold elections. Although I fail to see what this has to do with sources calling Russia an autocracy. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tartan357: Republics can be hybrid/authoritarian though. While authoritarian, Russia has a semi-presidential system. This authoritarianism is already mentioned in the lead and politics section. Mellk (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not just authoritarianism. Of course republics can be authoritarian. Authoritarianism is a governance style that can be adopted by any type of government. We're talking about autocracy, which is a governance structure in which power is concentrated in the hands of one person. It is inaccurate to state it is a semi-presidential system without qualifying it with the fact that their elections are rigged and the de facto government type is an autocracy. This is verifiable many times over. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Simply, the head of state is not a monarch. Here in the infobox refers to the framework. Mellk (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Monarchy and autocracy are distinct concepts. I have not suggested Russia is a monarchy. And yes, the infobox does refer to the framework. That framework is top-down with Putin completely in control, and suggesting otherwise is a glaring omission. There are plenty of sources, and I can provide more if needed. What is the justification for going against the sources on the government type? The de facto structure is important and verifiable, and separated from the de jure structure by "under the". We shouldn't whitewash the reality, same reason Myanmar is referred to as "under a military junta" and Belarus is "under a dictatorship"—it's not a republic merely because the people in power say it is. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

This is is not what I meant. I meant where the head of state is not a monarch, there is a republic, in its simplest definition. And of course, Russia does not have a monarchy. How the infobox currently is does not contradict with those sources. Mellk (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It is officially a republic, and in reality an autocracy. Both labels are well-sourced, and both should be included. No reason to tell only one side of the story. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

In reality, Russia is a semi-presidential republic. Even if Putin is an autocrat. Mellk (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

You need to look into de jure and de facto. Both are "real", both are important. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Can we please change the government entry in the infobox to "authoritarian military dictatorship"? Only that does right to the actual situation. In Russia, there is only one psychopathic, narcissistic man who has any actual power. Everything that Putin wants, happens, and nothing that Putin rejects, will proceed. By calling Russia a "Federal semi-presidential constitutional republic", we are following his propaganda. Call a spade a spade and a dictatorship a dictatorship, just like we do with North Korea! Steinbach (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I tried to call it an "autocracy", which is dominant in sources and should be pretty uncontroversial to add. But I was reverted. See the above discussion. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Describe it anyway ya'll wish. But remember, in terms of how much executive authority the president has. The Federal Assembly giveth, the Federal Assembly taketh away. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd say "authoritarian regime" or "illiberal democracy". tgeorgescu (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Attribution of dictatorial country by the UK

Source: https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/russia-ukraine-war-uk-pm-boris-johnson-calls-putin-dictator-says-west-preparing-massive-sanctions-2787122

Someone being described as "a dictator" doesn't mean the country is a dictatorship. That's not a reliable source, either. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022

Russia should be labeled as an "authoritarian" state, given the modern-day military campaign of Vladimir Putin, imprisonment of anti-war protesters, and other heinous war crimes. Russia is not a democratic country anymore. 69.65.247.227 (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It already is. Have you read the lead? It is not clear where you want this. Mellk (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Also "modern-day military campaign", "imprisonment of anti-war protesters", "heinous war crimes" is not the criteria for authoritarian regime. Mellk (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

"a system of government by one person with absolute power." google definition of autocracy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constellation314 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thing is, we don't use Google to source our articles. We list things acording to how they are referred to in reliable sources. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Crimea

Under Political Divisions, the map shows Crimea as a part of Russia. It seems to me it should appear as a disputed region. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

¨Vladimir Putin has shifted from autocracy to dictatorship¨

Source: https://www.economist.com/briefing/2021/11/13/vladimir-putin-has-shifted-from-autocracy-to-dictatorship