Talk:Russia

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)

After the crackdown on speech in the last two weeks, this may well be reevaluated. —Michael Z. 16:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Russia is a defacto dictatorship. I dont understand why this article follows Putin's propaganda and suggests in the infobox that it is a democracy.

"Government Federal semi-presidential constitutional republic[5]"

In the German Wikipedia it says in the infobox: "De jure semi-presidential republic (federal republic), de facto defective democracy with autocratic to despotic features", which is much more accurate. The Ukraine gets a lot of support nowadays but not from the English Wikipedia, which prefers to stick with Putin's propaganda. Nulli (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It is "more accurate" only as a description of appearances, because Russia apparently holds elections whose outcome is predetermined (according to the U.S. State Department). But de facto, as is clear to anyone who has closely followed the news in 2022, it is most definitely a dictatorship. 2601:200:C000:1A0:6175:949A:164C:2C34 (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources claiming Russia is a dictatorship. It is an authoritarian democracy. Also supporting Ukraine or Russia shouldn't affect the articles. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view on everything. Just because you support Ukraine you should not mark Russia as a dictatorship. Bilikon (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Authoritarian democracy is an oxymoron. Russia is a dictatorship. Politicians are no longer democratically elected, dissidents are jailed.Wikijules29 (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wikijules29: You might want to read illiberal democracy.

And I'll tell you what is the problem with such tyrants: they organize a well-oiled propaganda machine (ideology vs. reality conflict). And then they get seduced by their own propaganda machine. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source subtitled: Vladimir Putin’s dictatorship and an academic source Chidgk1 (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

currently described as a centralized authoritarian state....."Authoritarian regimes may be either autocratic or oligarchic in nature and may be based upon the rule of a party or the military".....pls review Håvard Bækken (2019). Law and Power in Russia: Making Sense of Quasi-Legal Practices. University of Oslo - Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies. pp. 64–. ISBN 978-1-351-33535-5.Moxy- 03:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

If you look at the wikipedia page anocracy you'll find a map that shows Russia is an anocracy (meaning partly democratic and partly authoritarian). 87.21.116.135 (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

If Wikipedia were infallible, then you would have a good point. 2601:200:C000:1A0:6175:949A:164C:2C34 (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

A dictatorship is characterized by an UNELECTED leader or group of leaders, among other things. Russia holds elections, and although they are not fully democratic, it still probably means that Russia is not a dictatorship. It's probably authoritarian though. Suasufzeb (talk) 19:21, 31 July 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... [1] [2] [3] [4] 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

"Government type" is not NPOV

Russia does holds democratic elections and the majority of the people do vote for Putin and his party. I dont think its fair or neutral to start calling Russia an "autocracy" or "dictatorship" just because youre upset over the invasion of Ukraine. Nobody called the UK a "dictatorship" when they invaded Iraq. Western media sources can also be biased. 45.239.136.252 (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• I dunno what happened. All the political opponents ended up in prison and people who criticized the government all fell out of windows or ate poison. They really should be more careful. GMG^talk 17:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• this is not a democracy. A huge number of falsifications. 176.59.145.122 (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.59.145.122 (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Russia holds elections, but they are not democratic. Most people in Russia probably support Putin, some due to propaganda, some due to being afraid of consenquences from opposing Putin, some because they genuinely support putin, and many other reasons. Suasufzeb (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Naczi reborn in 2022.

After starting a war in Ukraine, this country should be marked as new Naczi regime in 2022. What they did in Ukraine is not someone should forget. 89.10.159.43 (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The topic is discussed in articles about Russian nationalism, extremist nationalism in Russia, Putinism, and Rashism. It’s a glaring omission that the official ultranationalism and revanchism#Russia that’s led to an unprecedented war of aggression in Europe is not even mentioned. —Michael Z. 16:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not condoning the actions of Russia but,the Russian government is not Nazi in any way. But the Russian government is definitely not a democracy and is more Authoritarian. It is extremely Authoritarian, which may become Totalitarian. PatricioZavala (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

'Consolidated Authoritarian regime' according to Freedom House. It is more than 'more Authoritarian'.

'not Nazi in any way'?

• 'aggression was the gravest charge against the accused' Nuremberg trials
• propaganda similar to Nazi one, fanatic society, Gleichschaltung, 'Z' replaces Swastika
• The Russian Orthodox Church acts like "German Christians"
• https://theconversation.com/putins-fascists-the-russian-states-long-history-of-cultivating-homegrown-neo-nazis-178535

Xx236 (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not Russia is now Nazi (or Naczi, if you, uhm, prefer), Wikipedia does not assign labels. It reflects what supposedly (allegedly?) reliable sources say. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The conversation article is not a source that proves that Russia is itself neo-nazi. It does state that Russia collaborated with neo-Nazis, but collaborating with neo-nazis is not the same as being a neo-nazi regime, even if the source is reliable. Suasufzeb (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Similar propaganda, Russian orthodox church "acting like German Christians", "fanatic society", "Fanatic society" do not indicate that Russia is a neo-nazi state. It only shares similarities between them. The Nuremberg Trials don't really prove in any way that Russia is itself neo-nazi. Suasufzeb (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Russia is under an authoritarian government, Russia committed war crimes in Ukraine, but authoritarianism is not necessarily neo-nazism. You need to know it's exact definition, and provide reliable sources actually indicating Russia is neo-nazi itself. Suasufzeb (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Ivan IV (the "Terrible")

The description of his rules is imperialistically biased. He was cruel (oprychnina) and destroyed Novgorod democracy. Xx236 (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC) The book Skrynnikov, R. G. (2015). Reign of Terror: Ivan IV is quoted ignoring anything about the terror "In 1572, an invading army of Crimean Tatars were thoroughly defeated in the crucial Battle of Molodi". sSuch information is available probably in any basic history, the book is about the terror.Xx236 (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

If you want to call him terrible, sure, but that's because of him typically being referred to as that, not directly because he did bad things. Neutral point of view is necessary in Wikipedia. Suasufzeb (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Russia a terrorist country

9 may 2022 Lithuania's parliament has designated Russia a terrorist country and its actions in Ukraine as genocide. https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAP/7ccfdcc0cf8511ecb69ea7b9ba9d787b https://www.npr.org/2022/05/10/1097911440/lithuania-russia-terrorism-genocide-ukraine?t=1653761441335 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DariusMar (talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC) DariusMar (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Darius

This is not the Lithuanian government's encyclopedia, nor the Russian government's encyclopedia. It doesn't matter what a bunch of partisan politicians say. Political statements alone do not change facts. The Impartial Truth (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, of course, that political statements do not change facts. But it does seem to me that if the Southern Poverty Law Center declared Russia to be a hate group, that point would be in the first or second paragraph. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center is a partisan special interest group that is funded nearly entirely by one political party in the US. They are even less of a reliable source than a politician. You must be sure what you cite does not argue from a conclusion but instead towards one. The Impartial Truth (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I quite agree! And how many articles in Wikipedia say that the SPLC lists this or that organization as a hate group! Uporządnicki (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

It's possible that Russia is, was or will become a terrorist state. However, just because lithuanian government said some things doesn't mean Russia is a terrorist state. Provide reliable sources if you want to indicate that Russia is a terrorist state, but not Lithuania just saying some things without proof. Suasufzeb (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources say that Russia has been designated a terrorist state by at least one sovereign state. Academics are also saying it is terrorist. These statements are encyclopedic information about Russia, and perhaps they merit being stated in the article about the country. I’ve listed a few reliable sources on the question below, in #Terrorist state. —Michael Z. 16:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Add Russian invasion of Ukraine, 2022, to the lead

It's a major event that warrants being mentioned in the 'history of' in the lead. Arguably it's as important as the events such as constitutional crisis of 1993 which we do mention. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

They have done this many t times since the 1990 like Georgian war-Chechen War- etc.. .....so lets say something like has taken military action against Post-Soviet states including ......Moxy- 12:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) One of these led to the restructuring of the national government. If that's where Ukraine end up going, then sure. Otherwise, I don't see any reason to treat it different than the Chechen Wars. GMG^talk 12:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support It definitely belongs in the lead, and it is fundamentally different and more significant than the other events named above (not that they were insignificant). It is an international conflict. It includes the first annexation in Europe since WWII and alleged goals have included régime change in an independent state and total occupation of the biggest country inside Europe. The strength of forces and geographical scope are an order of magnitude larger than those conflicts, actually the biggest European conflict since WWII. The response has been massive military aid to Ukraine and international isolation of Russia, and results include unprecedented military losses and economic damage. Russian actions have already been classified as genocidal.[5] —Michael Z. 18:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree to this. In terms of NOTABILITY, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is leagues more notable than any of the other "special military operations" that Russia has conducted in the past. The 2022 invasion has received international attention, to such a degree that not even the tiniest or most distant of countries can ignore it. Indeed, I would even go so far as to argue that the 2022 invasion is the closest we have ever come to World War III in the post-Cold War era (that is, if you don't regard the Cold War itself as WW3). Even though there are only a few direct military belligerents in this war, the number of indirect belligerents (whether military or economical) is significant and global (i.e. not just regional players). This is, for all intents and purposes, a world war. Ironically, it is illegal to refer to this conflict as a "war" in Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The lead is already overbalanced with history, failing MOS:LEADNO. It doesn't really mention anything on culture or geography and barely touches on the other section headers. I would be happy with a mention along the lines of Moxy and a general reduction of the two paragraphs into one summarizing the history. Aircorn (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose It's classic recentism, and almost certainly an attempt to highlight how evil Russia is. HiLo48 (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Regarding “recentism,” in terms of European wars this one already overshadows anything else of the last 77 years, including the state’s thirty-year existence. Its historical significance is on the scale of the fall of the Soviet Union that created the Russian and Ukrainian states, and existential for the second-largest state in Europe. Russia's international aggression is at least as important as its democratic backsliding and authoritarianism mentioned in the lead, and the direct consequence of them. Regarding “evil,” please do reread that guideline and tell us how it relates to reporting a top act of international aggression since WWII. —Michael Z. 18:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  The vast majority of countries around the world are opposed to this war. Citing it as an example of "Russophobia" is quite frankly not convincing. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Per others above definitely undue, and we probably shouldn't have the constitutional crisis of 1993 there either. CMD (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Why is it "definitely" undue? Please provide reasoning, and not just "as what other people have said". Be specific, and clearly outline your views on the topic. Otherwise, your opinion is effectively irrelevant. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support mentioning in the lead. taken military action - that's quite the euphemism for a country invading two small neighboring countries, installing a puppet regime in one of them, and now invading and waging a prolonged war against a large neighboring country, including committing documented war crimes. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Russia and its predecessors have undoubtedly taken similar actions many, many times. CMD (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

    No one has taken such actions since the Second World War and signing of the UN Charter in the first half of the last century, and the following proliferation of nuclear weapons. —Michael Z. 18:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

    That is both a very limited time frame and almost certainly not true. CMD (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

    The timeframe is over twice the age of the Russian Federation. How is it not true? If it’s not true, perhaps you can find a comparable example in Category:Annexation, but I think this has already far surpassed any of them. —Michael Z. 18:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

    Post-WWII annexations include the 1961 annexation of Goa, annexation of Golan Heights and East Jerusalem (both conquered in the Six-Day War of 1967, with legislative incorporation taking place in the 1980s - Golan Heights Law, Jerusalem Law), 1975 Indonesian invasion of East Timor, just to name a few. Some of them were reversed outright, some are still operational-but-contested-internationally (Golan, EJ), and still others got international recognition and aren't contested any longer (Goa). In any case, the claim that 2014 event was the first annexation in the world since WWII is, indeed, not true. Just as CMD said. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

    EDIT: I've confirmed from closer analysis that Seryo93's comment above is indeed a misquotation of what Mzajac said. Mzajac never said "[the] 2014 event was the first annexation in the world since WWII", as Seryo93 has implied above. | Just to add to this conversation, I think you are misquoting @Mzajac here. As far as I can tell, he never precisely said that the 2014 event was the first annexation in the world since WWII. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

    "No one has taken such actions since the Second World War and signing of the UN Charter in the first half of the last century, and the following proliferation of nuclear weapons.". And yet, there were many post-WWII annexations waaay before 2014. Seryo93 (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    If you actually read what is being said, @Mzajac is saying that "no one has taken such actions" in reference to the comment made by @Space4Time3Continuum2x. And what Space4Time3Continuum2x has said is "that's quite the euphemism for a country invading two small neighboring countries, installing a puppet regime in one of them, and now invading and waging a prolonged war against a large neighboring country". Nowhere in these quotes by these two users is there the mention of "annexation". Indeed, Michael Z (Mzajac) does say "first annexation in Europe since WWII" in a separate comment higher up, but he does specify "in Europe" here, rather than "in the world". Overall, I think you need to first practise your English-reading abilities before you can accuse people of saying certain things. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    For the record, I think Space4Time3Continuum2x is referring to Georgia and Chechnya in the comment "invading two small neighboring countries, installing a puppet regime in one of them". Chechnya is not really a proper country at the moment (although it historically was), but it was a de facto state during the 1990s. Russia certainly did invade Chechnya and install a puppet regime there, i.e. Kadyrov. With that being said, Chechnya was always legally recognised as Russian territory by the international community, unlike Georgia. And obviously, Ukraine is the "large neighboring country". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    Exactly. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC) Chechnya was always legally recognised as Russian territory by the international community - what's the source for that statement? Chechnya#Soviet_rule says Russia claimed that under the Soviet constitution Chechnya did not have the right to secede but it's unsourced. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    I would say that the United Nations and most UN member states considered the borders of the Russian Federation to align with the borders of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, under the principle of "uti possidetis juris" (Latin for "as you possess under law"). As part of the theory of the succession of states, when one political entity legally succeeds a preceding political entity, it should conventionally retain the exact same borders as its predecessor. The Russian Federation was pretty much universally recognised to be the legal successor of the RSFSR, which means that the United Nations and most UN member states would have recognised the RF's new borders as being the exact same as the RSFSR's old borders. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    This is basically the exact same principle that applies to the cases of Georgia (vs Abkhazia and South Ossetia), Azerbaijan (vs Artsakh), Moldova (vs Transnistria), and Ukraine (vs Crimea, Donetsk PR, and Luhansk PR). After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the internationally-recognised borders of each of the successor states was the borders of the former Soviet Republics. Some of the former autonomous republics within the USSR broke away at around the same time (during the 1990s), but all of them did not receive a substantial level of recognition from the international community. Chechnya is basically to the Russian Federation as Abkhazia and South Ossetia are to Georgia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    As for what Mzajac's "first annexation in Europe since WWII" comment refers to, I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Crimean Peninsula, specifically. Obviously, Russia is also in the process of annexing other areas of Ukraine, but it hasn't finalised these actions yet. The first part of Ukraine that Russia annexed was Crimea, back in 2014. Arguably, Crimea was part of Russia in the past, but Russia willingly ceded Crimea to Ukraine in the 1950s or so, and Russia recognised Crimea as part of Ukraine from the 2000s and onwards. The problem with Crimea is not the fact that Russia is ruling Crimea now, but rather the fact that Russia's method for getting their way in this dispute was against the norms of international law. It may well have been the case that Russia could acquire Crimea through legal measures (e.g. paying Ukraine a huge sum of money, providing defence guarantees, etc.), but Russia instead chose to use aggression and coercion in order to get what it wanted. This is why the Crimean annexation shocked the entire world (well, mainly the West). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    Admittedly, Russia's actions towards Crimea are similar to India's actions towards Goa. With that being said, I think there's a major difference between these two disputes. The difference is that Goa was not a piece of a nearby country but instead belonged to a really far away country, that being Portugal. On the other hand, Crimea belonged to Ukraine prior to its annexation by Russia, and Ukraine is only just next to Russia. So, in the Russia-Ukraine dispute over Crimea, it's hard to find sympathy for Russia as opposed to the India-Portugal dispute over Goa. In India's case, they could claim "colonialism!" in order to justify their annexation of Goa. On the other hand, in Russia's case, the colonialism argument doesn't work since Ukraine is local to the region. So, Russia has to resort to arguments like "Ukraine is a fake country that belongs to Russia" or "Ukraine is committing genocide against ethnic Russians" or "Ukraine is a puppet of NATO and the West, therefore it's colonialism". Etc. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    Here's another significant difference between the Indian annexation of Goa and the Russian annexation of Crimea. According to the "Annexation of Goa" article on Wikipedia, "the war had lasted two days, and had cost 22 Indian and 30 Portuguese lives". A two-day war taking 52 lives is not very significant from a military or humanitarian point-of-view. Geopolitically, yes, of course this conflict was significant. However, on a military or humanitarian level, this conflict barely caused a scratch. In the Russian annexation of Crimea, I think the loss of life was perhaps not too high. But the Russian ("Russian-backed separatist") takeover of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic was extremely bloody. And the subsequent 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has caused an enormous amount of suffering and the loss of life. Furthermore, between 2014 and 2022, the DPR and LPR separatist republics continued to engage militarily with Ukraine, resulting in even more deaths throughout that period. Also, the Russo-Ukrainian War has been going on for over eight years now. That's a lot longer than the apparent two-day length of the Indian annexation of Goa. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    It doesn't really matter much. If we measure by the scale of military action, then it would be obvious, that Russia warred many, many times in the past. If we measure by the fact of the annexation, then again, Russia annexed many territories in the past, and, likewise, Russia wasn't the only state that did so. Seryo93 (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

    I'm not sure that Russia's history of imperialism is something to be proud of. Indeed, India has imperial elements to its history as well, just in a different context to Russia's. Obviously, by the time of the British Raj, there wasn't too much imperialism happening in India. In any case, the facts that I presented still stand. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

    @Seryo93 - Just to let you know, I've analysed your comments above more closely, and I am indeed very certain that you've misquoted Mzajac. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, I can't say. But a misquotation is a misquotation. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

    The key counter against singling out 2022 hostilities in the lead is the "Russia and its predecessors have undoubtedly taken similar actions many, many times.". And this is what my comment was about. Russia engaged in wars several times before and annexed territories several times before. Yet, neither of these conflicts is mentioned directly in the lead, except WWII. Seryo93 (talk) 11:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

    The problem is that what @Mzajac is talking about is not just annexations but instead a wider topic, that being "aggression" in general (not to mention genocide, imperialism, colonialism, war crimes, "might makes right", etc.). Annexations is only a small part of what he is talking about, yet you are treating it as the whole thing, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Indeed, not all annexations are characterised by aggression. For example, China's annexation of Hong Kong was relatively peaceful because the United Kingdom willingly ceded the territory. It's the same with the United States' annexation of Alaska; the US purchased the territory legally from Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

    I'm not exactly sure what I would call your logical reasoning in this present conversation, but the closest I can come up with is "gaslighting". Again, I don't know whether you are doing it intentionally or unintentionally. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

    For the record, I personally don't really buy the "appeal to history" argument. I mean, sure, yeah, Russia has done imperialism about 1000 times in the past. However, the problem is we are not living in the past, we are living in the 21st century. Russia pretends to be a civilised country, and it carries itself as a world leader, for example, occupying one of the five permanent seats at the United Nations Security Council. If Russia is so eager to go back to the barbarism of the previous decades and centuries (not to mention that almost all countries around the world were similarly barbaric at various points in the past), then the entire civilization of the entire Earth is doomed, basically. Most other countries on Earth are at least making an attempt to develop concepts of human rights and a civilized international order. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

    To me, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine would be comparable to the United States just suddenly launching an all-out invasion of Canada, or China launching an all-out invasion of South Korea (not quite Taiwan, which is a more complex issue). Russia is literally the biggest country in the world, and it's trying to conquer a neighbouring country that is reasonably significant in size. Another example... Australia just suddenly deciding to invade and annex New Zealand, genocide and all. I'm from Australia by the way... Such an action would be unthinkable, even though Australia technically has a (weak) historical sovereign claim to New Zealand. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

    I said no one has taken such actions since the Second World War. Please don’t bother arguing against some hyper-specific factoid and pretend you’re addressing g what I wrote.

    No state has conducted a mechanized invasion of a country of over 40 million population and 600,000 sq km area with the intention of conducting régime change, annexing its land to its own territory, and destroying it as a state and nation, levelling its cities, killing and wounding hundreds of thousands, displacing over fifteen million, forcibly deporting millions, violating prohibitions of the Genocide Convention, while threatening nuclear escalation, creating an artificial famine affecting the food security of millions in the Middle East and North Africa (and possible cascading effects), and endangering the post-WWII world order, and heavily damaging its own international reputation, armed forces, and economy.

    And it’s not just me.

    • Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: “The world is in the midst of the most dangerous European security crisis since World War II.”[6]
    • New York Times: “A Russian invasion of Ukraine would be unlike most wars in 80 years”[7]
    • RFE/RL: “the largest war in Europe since World War II.”[8]
    • NATO: “Biggest Security Crisis Since World War II”[9]
    • United Nations: “Not only is Ukraine the largest humanitarian disaster in Europe since World War II, it's also the target of the ‘fastest and most generous’ outpouring of support ever seen for a conflict.”[10]
    • United Nations: “Ukraine has fastest-growing refugee crisis since second world war”[11]

    Russia’s war in Ukraine appears in the lead of Ukraine. Since you bring them up, the Six-Day war is mentioned in the lead of Jordan and Israel, and the invasion of East Timor is mentioned in the lead of East Timor.

    The eight-year war is significant enough that it has spurred changes to the lead section:

    • “Disputed territory” on the map has been increased and the map caption has a link to Russian-occupied territories
    • “Crimea annexed” was added to the infobox “Formation” section, so apparently this war acquisition is more important than dozens or hundreds of historical territorial changes
    • “Area” and “Population” in the infobox have been updated to account for the occupation in Ukraine
    • The DLNR territories created and occupied as a result of this war have been added to note [d] in the lead
    • Since the war started, Russia’s “great power” status, “potential superpower” status, HDI ranking, military ranking, Council of Europe membership, and IIB membership have been dropped from the lead.
    • Russia’s military expenditure ranking in the lead is now out of date.

    Why not mention the event that binds all of these together?

    This war is very significant. —Michael Z. 17:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    Excellently said. I think the problem here is that a lot of the editors of this Wikipedia article are Russians. Now, normally, that wouldn't be a bad thing. However, at the moment, it is illegal to write on the internet any criticisms towards Russia with regards to the war in Ukraine (invasion), which is so illegal in fact that you aren't even allowed to call it an "invasion" or "war" in Russia, but rather are forced to call it a "special military operation". Indeed, Russia has been trying to force the international community to call it a "special military operation" too, primarily through its status as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Furthermore, Russia is currently accusing Wikipedia of spreading anti-Russian pro-Ukrainian propaganda, to the point that it is taking Wikipedia to court and is threatening to ban the website in Russia. So, all of these actions that Russia is currently taking means that Russian editors, especially those who are physically based in Russia, are pretty much unable to write any criticisms about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or else face the possibility of being arrested or even worse. This partially explains why there is such a big pushback to not mention the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in the introduction of this article, disregarding personal opinions. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    Except on Russian Wikipedia, it is referred to as an invasion and aggression. Enough walls of text please. Mellk (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    The Russian Wikipedia does not correspond exactly to the English Wikipedia, and I'm also not active there anyway. For example, the Russian version of list of states with limited recognition lists extra entities in comparison to the English Wikipedia version. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    I think it is also valid to point out that (1) there must be non-Russian editors of Russian Wikipedia, such as Lithuanians, Ukrainians, and foreigners who have learnt Russian, and (2) some of the editors of Russian Wikipedia must be living overseas. My comment above was mainly directed towards Russian editors of Wikipedia living directly within the borders of Russia. I believe that these people truly are limited in their capacity to edit articles relating to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in a truthful manner. This includes some of the editors within this very discussion, as far as I can tell. This is a valid fact to point out. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

    Most editors of Russian Wikipedia are certainly Russians living within Russia, this has been surveyed, and it is quite obvious when using it for those who understand Russian and Russian topics. So this is indeed irrelevant. Mellk (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

    Regardless of whether it is relevant or not, in your capacity as, I presume, a Russian Wikipedia editor... Is my statement true or false? Is it true that it is illegal to refer to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as a "war" or "invasion" in Russia? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Too recent. Stuntneare (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support A country actively committing genocide becomes the single most important piece of information, worthy of note above all else. Colinmcdermott (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

So that is two for oppose, 3 for support. Let's move forward and construct a suitable piece of text that describes this. Colinmcdermott (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The way it was added is a strong no from me, MOS:LEAD states As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate. I don't see why you think this should be added on a GA, and then discuss how exactly it should be worded. Moxy (talk · contribs) is probably more familiar with this. Mellk (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I have removed it. A reminder that this is not a vote, and even if it was, those numbers seem wrong. CMD (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Weak Oppose too recent. I have checked Serbia, the country that started the previous large European war. The lede does not mention it. The lede of Yugoslavia indeed mentions the war but it might be because it was the end of the federation. Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  The lead of Ukraine mentions this war. —Michael Z. 13:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  Changed my !vote to Weak Oppose but still think it is too recent for the lede Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  The international conflict this is belongs to is now several years longer than WWI, WWII, the Russian Civil War, or the Crimean War.  —Michael Z. 16:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I presume (without knowing) that whenever any sovereign country with 100+ million population has independently and unilaterally performed a full invasion on another sovereign country with ~30% its population, it has merited a mention in both countries' lead sections. If my presumption is true, then I support; if my presumption is false, then I oppose. CraigP459 (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support - The problem with citing the "too recent" argument is that it is absolutely clear at the present stage that this war is going to be a prolonged one with profound consequences for the future. Of course, Wikipedia is not a "CRYSTAL BALL". However, I think the likelihood of this war suddenly ending tomorrow as opposed to dragging on for months or years to come is extremely low. This war is undoubtedly the most significant conflict to have taken place in Europe since at least the Yugoslav Wars (it's a bit of a stretch to say "since WWII", admittedly). In terms of my other reasonings, you can read my various reply comments above. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  The impending effects on European and global security, on the balance of power and trade, the anticipated recession in Russia are all supported by reliable sources, and do not constitute WP:CRYSTAL. No, we don’t know, for example, by exactly how many percent the Russian economy will have shrunk by 2023, but we do know that right now, current financial data and current forecasts are showing drops in trade and production and effects on the economy directly resulting from this war. —Michael Z. 17:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Terrorist state

RuZZia is a terrorist state, how much blood,deaths , terror it must show before the wiki is updated for what it is? 184.145.219.95 (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Neither your opinion, nor mine, is what determines how Russia is described in the encyclopedia. If you have a published, reliable source to cite that shows that Russia has been designated a terrorist state, please do; otherwise, this declaration will not be made in this Wikipedia article. General Ization ^Talk 19:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Tha Parliament of Lithuania stated that Russia is a terrorist state. It also fits definition - if one agrees that al-Quaeda is a terrorist organisation then Russian government does same things in Ukraine but on a greater scale. --Htarlovx (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

There is definite proof that Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization, it's not just because some people said it. Reliable sources need to be listed to prove that Russia actually is a terrorist state. Suasufzeb (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Was terrorism not mentioned in articles on Al-Qaeda after it was designated terrorist by courts, states, governments, and academics?

• Escritt, Thomas (2021-12-16). "German court accuses Russia of "state terrorism" over 2019 Berlin park murder". Reuters. Retrieved 2022-08-02.
• "VR [Ukrainian parliament] recognizes Russia as terrorist state, bans military symbols Z and V". Ukrinform. 2022-04-14. Retrieved 2022-08-02.
• Treisman, Rachel (2022-05-10). "Lithuania designates Russia as a terrorist country, a global first". NPR. Retrieved 2022-05-10.
• Medina, Eduardo (2022-07-28). "The U.S. Senate passes a resolution seeking to label Russia as a sponsor of terrorism". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-08-02.
• Ward, Alexander; Desiderio, Andrew; Forgey, Quint (2022-07-28). "House group moves to label Russia as terrorist state". Politico. Retrieved 2022-08-02.
• Tenzer, Nicolas (2022-07-29). "Putin's Russia is a Terrorist State: Should it be Written into Law?". Tenzer Strategics. Retrieved 2022-08-02.

 —Michael Z. 16:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Would need academic sources over what is here and at State-sponsored terrorism#Russia as per WP:EXTRAORDINARY and WP:SOURCETYPES.Moxy- 17:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The facts that Russia has been designated terrorist by Ukraine and Lithuania, and that the US Senate and a Congress committee are seeking its designation by the USA, are easily sourced from the news.

The fact that academics have considered and some have argued that Russia is terrorist is also easily sourced from their writings and others that reference them. See Tenzer above, and, for example:

• Motyl, Alexander J. (2014-04-14), “Putin’s Russia as a State Sponsor of Terrorism,” World Affairs.
• Kuzio, Taras (2015-01-22), “Is Russia a state sponsor of terrorism?,” New Eastern Europe.
• Byman, Daniel L. (2018-04-30), “Russia is a state sponsor of terrorism—But don’t treat it that way,” Brookings Institution.
• Kuzio, Taras (2022-06-08), “Is Russia – legally – a ‘state sponsor of terrorism’?,” EUObserver.
• Jim Jones (judge) (2022-07-25), “Russia is a state sponsor of terrorism — and should be treated that way,” The Hill (newspaper).

The question isn’t whether Russia is or is not a terrorist state. It’s whether the debate over the question is is notable enough to mention or discuss in the article. Seeing as other states have designated Russia a terrorist state, I believe it is.

By the way, including this question in the article is not WP:recentism, because the debate has been ongoing since at least the 1999 Russian apartment bombings, the 2014 start of the Russo-Ukrainian War and mass murder on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 by the Russian armed forces, and the 2015 start of the Russian military intervention in the Syrian civil war.

 —Michael Z. 18:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Must be better sources then media junk. Scholarly vs. Popular SourcesMoxy- 18:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Updates

• In the Economy section, its written that Russia is the twentieth-largest exporter and importer (2020); but according to newer data by the International Trade Centre in 2021, Russia is the thirteenth-largest exporter and the 21st-largest importer.
• In the Sports section, a sentence about the Russian Grand Prix being cancelled is tagged as ill-sourced; it could be backed by this source. Also, a sentence should mention the 2022 suspension of Russian national teams and clubs from international soccer competitions by FIFA and UEFA.
• In the Transport and energy section, this sentence should be added in the first para: Russia is the world's sole country to build and operate nuclear-powered icebreakers, which aid freight transport across the Northern Sea Route. Stuntneare (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• In the Agriculture section, this sentence could be added: Russia, along with Ukraine, is often referred to as the "breadbasket" of Europe; due to its rich, fertile soil. Russia and Ukraine, together, account for 29% of global wheat exports, 80% of the sunflower oil, and 40% of its barley exports.
• In the Climate section, along the last sentence about climate change, there should be a mention of Russia's increasingly thawing permafrost.
• In the Science and technology section, the last sentence about satellites should be updated. Russia, as of December 2021, has 169 operating satellites, according to the source given.

I was in the process of actioning these when I noticed the access dates and then took a closer look at the icebreaker claim (which does not seem to be in the source). Are these sentences being copied from elsewhere, and if so, where? CMD (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: You can see the talk page discussions above... I copy-pasted a few sources I had put in the talk page earlier, but got ignored. So I decided to make a list about the data that should be updated. Earliest discussion about these changes date back to June. About the icebreaker claim, here's another source that claims Russia is the sole country operating nuclear-powered icebreakers. Stuntneare (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, if it's your work that's fine. I have updated points 1, 2, 5, and 6. For 3 I'm not sure how that's due, as I haven't read many high-level sources on Russia's economy. For 4 it would be preferable to get Russia-specific figures (can still say it is part of breadbasket if needed with that source). CMD (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Thanks for the help.

• In the agriculture section, with the previous source, it could be added that Russia is a part of the breadbasket in Europe. But I couldn't find reliable sources that mention the exact percentages of Russia's wheat, barely, and sunflower oil exports - but almost every source puts Russia as either the first or second-largest exporter. Along the sentence of Russia being the largest exporter of wheat, it could be added that it is the the largest producer of barley and buckwheat, and among the largest exporters of maize and sunflower oil; and that it is the leading producer of fertilizer, per this source from the Food and Agriculture Organization.
• In the Government and politics section, the sentence about Russia experiencing democratic backsliding is backed by a blank book source, which could be replaced by this study from Harvard. Another issue I found is within the infobox, there are excessive sources backing the government type, which widens it significantly. This could be backed by one, single source given in the government and politics section about Russia being an authoritarian state since Putin's arrival. Secondly, the input about the Declaration of State Sovereignty in the formation section should be shortened to simply Declaration of sovereignty, to reduce the infobox's width.
• Recently, large parts of the Post-Soviet Russia section were trimmed as "recentism", but I believe these sentences are very important, as they back some claims from the lead, and should be restored: Putin went on to win a second presidential term in 2004. As a result of high oil prices, a rise in foreign investment, and prudent economic and fiscal policies, the Russian economy grew significantly; dramatically improving Russia's standard of living, and increasing its influence in global politics. Putin's rule increased stability, while transforming Russia into an authoritarian state.
• The sentence about Yeltsin leaving office as highly unpopular was also removed, but is important, and should be readded: Yeltsin left office widely unpopular, with an approval rating as low as 2% by some estimates.
• The para about Russia's invasion of Georgia is very short, and should be merged with the last para.
• In the economy section, the sentence about Russia's economic sectors are tagged; as they need update. However, the data is from 2017, and is from the CIA World Factbook, a source most other country article use. I tried to find newer sources for the sectors but couldn't find one. Many other countries have data dating back even further, but not tagged.
• In the demographics section, the sentence about Russia being a "multinational state" is also tagged for no reason. It could be modified to "multiethnic" to avoid confusion. Stuntneare (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Updated agriculture, backsliding source, added break tags to the infobox as "Declaration of sovereignty" feels potentially confusing. I removed one source from the government type infobox field but did not take further action there as this touches upon the de factor/de jure government analysis which in my experience has not achieved much consensus anywhere. Possibly no sources are needed there, if a source is included, optimally it would have a quote to explain why it is there. I restored some of that text, but tweaked for concision and to remove unsourced text (the CNBC source was particularly overinterpreted there). I did not include the Yeltsin unpopularity, as I don't see why that is important. Merged invasion paragraph and removed clarify tag, for the multinational state tag I expanded slightly based on the source. CMD (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Thanks a lot for the help. In my opinion, the sources backing the government type are excessive and unneeded, since there are sources in the main body itself. They can be removed. Cheers and thanks again.

@Chipmunkdavis: Sorry for the ping. But seeing how some data was removed from the lead recently, the last sentence of the lead's third para could be modified, which currently stands as: It ranks low in international measurements of freedom of the press and civil liberties and has high levels of perceived corruption.

It could be expanded to: It ranks high in international measurements of standard of living, household income and education; having universal healthcare and a free university education. However, Russia ranks low in measurements of human rights, freedom of the press, economic freedom, and has high levels of perceived corruption.

Stuntneare (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of these ranking sentences in general, and more specifically the additions don't seem to be within the current article text. CMD (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Many other GA or FA class articles have this type of layout. The sentence about HDI is present in the infobox, while the data about education and healthcare sentence is present in the healthcare and education sections, respectively. These were present in the lead itself before suddenly being removed recently. However, the other additions aren't, could they be worked into the article? For example, by expanding the Human rights and corruption section? Stuntneare (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Some do, but that doesn't make them good. A ranking is almost meaningless, it is purely relative comparison which does not give specifics on the actual situation of the country. Rank changes are pretty uninformative too, a county can improve on a certain factor yet in ranking, or become worse at something yet on a ranking. Not sure where HDI is in your proposal, but it is an interesting example. The HDI is classified as "very high", which is at least slightly informative. A ranking of 52 though? Given that puts it out of the top quarter, it's not a ranking that would make readers think "very high". The article can always be added to, but for these reasons I am never a fan of relying on rankings as a way to mention them in the lead. (The education section does not specifically note university is free, although I think I see where that might be implied now.) CMD (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

So do you suggest removing the rankings entirely from the lead, given that it was also added recently? I believe the sentence about university education and healthcare could be restored. Stuntneare (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

My view is that rankings are a poor way to express ideas in the lead. However, with regard to the wider topics, I have not followed changes in the lead nor taken a look at how due weight might match mention in the article and mention in reliable sources. CMD (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Why is Russia not marked as a terrorist state?

Considering all the actions that RF has taken, they should be considered a terrorist state. Why is it not reflected in the article? 77.219.13.195 (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Already under discussion in #Terrorist state, above. —Michael Z. 16:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Because it has not been designated as one. Stop trying to make Wikipedia biased, this article needs to be protected to avoid silly claims like yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.180.251 (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 August 2022

According to the latest situation in the European continent, we, the sovereign Ukrainian people, ask Wikipedia to recall the name of a country, which started and still support the unprovoked full-scale war against Ukraine. Taking into account the firing of hypersonic missiles "Kinzhal" and other long-range missiles, with which Russia fires residential complexes and schools, hospitals and kindergartens, we demand to call Russia a terrorist country. Until this fact is confirmed at the international level, Russia will continue its crimes against humanity. Anastasia NSN (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kleinpecan (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Science and technology

The image of Mir used previously has been deleted, so this image could be used. Calesti (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The previous image had not been deleted and has been fixed. SpinningCeres 02:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Economic sectors

@Moxy: With this edit, I have modified it to use the phrasing you added (removing the pre-existing phrasing which thereby became redundant), but changed it to be ordered by percentage of contribution to GDP from high to low.

If you don't feel this addresses your concern about the complexity, then I would ask that you elaborate on what there is about this presentation of economic sector data that you feel makes it too complicated for the average Wikipedia user to understand. Thanks. Fabrickator (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems ok... would have to ask the tagger what they dont get. Moxy- 11:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Fabrickator:, @Moxy:: Is the tag still needed? What type of "clarification" is still needed from this very simple sentence? I think this is very un-needed. The tag has stayed there for months. Stuntneare (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Dont think we need it as it is right now. Moxy- 15:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: This change did not address the concern that the {{clarification needed}} raised, which is whether the information about economic sectors jibes with some (presumably common) belief about the actual significance of the different economic sectors. The tag actually hasn't been there that long, but IMO, the issue was raised and hasn't been addressed. Fabrickator (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

What? make insulting or mocking remarks? say again ....how can we dumb it down more? Moxy- 22:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: @Chidgk1: I don't understand. It really feels like you're taking on opposite sides, on the one hand stating that the target audience for Wikipedia should be for an uneducable "layperson" (?) who can't handle percentages, then turning around and seemingly implying that it's now oversimplified. But what the commenter seems to be pointing out is that the stated facts do not conform to our understanding of reality. In any case, I would suggest treating this as a constructive comment. Oil is constantly mentioned in news about Russia's trade, yet a sector that includes oil is not even clearly identified. Did you look at the source he provided before deciding that his response ought to be dismissed without further consideration? Fabrickator (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Would never use that source.....that said ... I still not sure what they dont understand? What is not clear here? Moxy- 00:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy:, @Fabrickator: This user (Chidgk1) has a long history of tagging unjustly and trying to remove important sentences from the article one by one slowly, in the guise of either "too excessive" or "old data". The way he recently mass-removed important sentences, and then replaced the sentence about the Forest Landscape Index (latest data) and turned it into a sentence about wildfires says a lot. Even though a sentence about wildfires is mentioned in the Climate section. The sentence about the composition of the GDP has been tagged since months and months, previously for "old data" and now it apparently needs even more "clarification". Even a child would understand this sentence. Multiple country articles use the CIA World Factbook as a source, with the same sentence layout. What exactly is the issue? According to Chidgk1, any data before this month, is outdated. His goal is to get this sentence ultimately removed, just as he did to the sentence about the automotive industry, and of course replace it with some criticism. You do not simply tag sentences out of curiosity or random estimates. One thing I keep on noticing is that the only thing is he does is tag and leave, and the tagged sentence keeps on rotting, with no improvement ever done, as no one cares. Stuntneare (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stuntneare: Insofar as I am aware, "flag and leave" does not create an obligation to fix what you have flagged, and if the flagger has identified a proper issue, it is not a mark against the flagger if nobody fixes it. OTOH, there are parties involved here who have claimed flaws which (IMO) are without proper basis. To tell you the truth, I don't really have a bone in this fight, I'm trying to take more of a mediator role, and I would suggest that the participants would be better served by extricating themselves from this immediate area for a while, as this series of edits does not seem to be headed towards any material improvement of the article. Fabrickator (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Fabrickator:, @Moxy: I have tried finding more "recent" reliable sources over the composition of the GDP. This source from the World Bank, with data as recent as 2021, cites the composition of the GDP by different sectors: services (53%), industry (33.2%), manufacturing (14.5%), and agriculture (3.8%). This is about 4 years newer than the current source used, and as far as I can see, the newest official data. In the second para, there are two sentences written about the importance of the oil and gas sector (petroleum industry) and natural resources as a whole to the Russian economy. Stuntneare (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stuntneare Thanks for finding newer data. I suspect the World Bank is a more reliable source than the CIA for economics. If you amend the article with this feel free to remove the "clarify" tag I added Chidgk1 (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Chidgk1 thank you for replying...we have had 5 sections about your recent edits and it's great to see you engage with us here. Anyway you can reply to the section belo....lets forget the other 3 sections for now. Moxy- 17:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Removal of important data

In 24th August, user Chidgk1 removed a few important sentences about the renewable energy production, import-export data, and the ranking in the Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report from the article in the guise of "too detailed". The mass-removal was done without any consensus, and I don't see anything too detailed about the sentences, you can find them in FA class articles such as Japan or Australia. I think the sentences should be re-added since there was no consensus taken prior the removal. Stuntneare (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Zero reply.....say restore. Moxy- 11:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Stuntneare,

I didn't realise you wanted me to reply - I thought you were asking for 3rd opinions. I don't think being in other FA class country articles is enough to show the fact is important. Different things are important for different countries. So if you re-add something please could you write in your change comment why it is important for Russia - thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

could you read this pls ....Authoritarian System ...will give you a few days.Moxy- 14:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Crimea annexation

Should this be mentioned in the introduction? It seems like a very significant event in terms of delineating Russia's territorial extent and borders. It is more or less the "most recent polity admitted", comparable to the situation with Hong Kong-and-Macau re China. As it stands, the annexation of Crimea is mentioned in the timeline in the info-box, but not in the lead (except in a note that I added recently, to the area statistic). As for Hong Kong-and-Macau re China, even though the China article doesn't actually mention their respective annexations (i.e. transfers) in the lead, it does instead mention the two territories outright as Special Administrative Regions of China, because it explains China's administrative divisions in the introduction, which is something that the Russia article does not do. To me, the annexation of Crimea in 2014 is a significant enough event to be mentioned in the lead, regardless of one's political views on the matter. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I will also point out this... In the info-box orthographic map, Crimea is depicted in light green as a "disputed territory". However, this seems to be out of line with the standards of other Wikipedia articles about countries with disputed territories. Looking at the examples of China, India, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, North Korea, South Korea, and Ukraine. All of these countries have their disputed territories in light green (while the mainland of the country is in dark green). However, the catch is that all of the territories that are in light green are not controlled by the claiming country. Meanwhile, the territories that are under control are indicated in dark green, including territories that might also be disputed (e.g. Aksai Chin in China, Kashmir in India and Pakistan, Arunachal Pradesh and Junagadh State in India, and literally the entirety of Korea). We don't necessarily have to follow the exact same standards as other articles, but I do think there possibly needs to be some kind of an indication of who has control over Crimea. Because, from the map alone, it is impossible to tell; it's simply labelled as "disputed", and we have no idea who is controlling it or who is disputing it. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of historical arguments; before 2014, Crimea was not part of Russia, and after 2014, it effectively has been a part of Russia since then, although the status is largely unrecognised by the international community. Historically, Crimea has fallen into and out of Russian control several times, I believe. Nonetheless, legally speaking, it was not part of Russia in any capacity from around 1995 to 2014. From 1991 to 1995, Crimea's status was disputed internally within Ukraine, as the "Crimean ASSR" (1991-1992) and the "Republic of Crimea" (1992–1995). Crimea was of course a part of the Soviet Union throughout its entire 69-year existence (1922–1991), having been transferred internally to Ukraine 1954 (whilst both Russia and Ukraine were parts of the Soviet Union). My point being, while I accept the historical arguments for sovereignty over Crimea from the Russian perspective, the territory absolutely wasn't a part of Russia for around two decades, which is significant enough to regard as a "permanent" territorial change rather than as a "temporary" status. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Crimea has been part of Ukraine for almost seven decades. —Michael Z. 14:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

As I specified, both Russia and Ukraine were part of the Soviet Union, which was centralised around Moscow. So, Moscow had control of Crimea for the first fifty years out of those seventy, even though Crimea was administratively within Ukraine's territory at that time. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Moscow is not Russia. Russia is not the USSR. Even though you stated a bunch of facts correctly, you wrote Crimea “absolutely wasn’t a part of Russia for around two decades,” which is absolutely wrong. —Michael Z. 18:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

When I say "absolutely", I mean 100%. Crimea had absolutely zero Russian sovereignty or suzerainty from 1995 to 2014. Previously, Crimea had been influenced at least to a partial degree by Russia. So, I am saying that Russia was not able to touch Crimea at all for those ~20 years. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Crimea wasn’t part of Russia from 1954. “Influenced by Russia” is so vague as to be meaningless, but even it doesn’t mean part of Russia. —Michael Z. 19:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that many people regard Russia to be interchangeable with the Soviet Union. In many respects, it was, given that the Soviet Union primarily revolved around Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there is a problem of bias regarding Russia and Ukraine, and it even affects a lot of academics and experts in history, international relations, etc. But implying Crimea was “part of Russia” after 1954 is just factually incorrect. —Michael Z. 21:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

No, the history portion of the lead is already too long. Not sure why it merits infobox inclusion either. CMD (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the 2014 Crimea annexation is "history" so much as it is a contemporary event. The issue with this article about Russia (which also affects most country articles) is that it's simultaneously about the history of Russia as a nation going back hundreds of years and about the current regime of Russia, namely the Russian Federation. So, it's a bit difficult to draw a line between these two perspectives. It has been argued, I think, that Crimea is not worthy of mention in the introduction due to its relative insignificance in the grand scheme of Russian history. However, I would argue that Crimea is very relevant to the contemporary history of Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The annexation is included as part of the History section, and the current regime is discussed at Politics of Russia. CMD (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

There should be more information about the current regime and less about the hundreds of years history in the introduction. This is a debate between what the nationalists want and what the realists want. History going back to ancient (mediaeval) times is not relevant to the world of today. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like your looking for History of Russia (1991–present).....yes it could be updated. Moxy- 03:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

adhesion to the issues of PostEurop stamps in 1995 with the theme peace and freedom

hi, I was wondering if there could be a section where to mention Russia's adhesion to the philatelic program of PostEurop issues dating back to 1995 (when it issued its first EUROPA stamp with the theme - that year - "peace and freedom", showing the white stork (bird also used in 2019 in the European series stamps by Belarus and Ukraine, when theme was "national birds"; more about this here: Talk:White_stork#peace_symbol_on_first_russian_PostEurop_1995_stamp )

--151.44.32.191 (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit too specific here but a nice pic so I added to List of birds of Russia Chidgk1 (talk) 12:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Size of Russia, with Crimea?

The size of Russia is given as 17,098,246 km². This seems to include Crimea. If we look at what Encyclopædia Britannica writes, it is 17,075,400 km² (see this article) - and given that Crimea is around 27 000 km², it seems that the result - 17 071 264 km² - is quite close to what EB states.

If this is the case, then it should be corrected. There are only a handful of countries that acknowledge that Crimea belongs to Russia (see "Pro-Russian stances on Crimea"). Ulflarsen (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think it does include Crimea. Maybe it includes water? It is almost identical to the value in the infobox on February 15, 2014: 17,098,242.[12] (I wonder why the discrepancy.) —Michael Z. 17:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I have not checked that here, but I checked it in Norwegian Bokmål (which I mostly contribute to) and there it has been a change after the Russian occupation of Crimea. Seems it is connected to Wikidata, as we usually take such data from there. Thus I have manually entered the value from EB in the article in Wikipedia in Norwegian, and I have also added a similar note in the discussion page in Wikidata (see this thread.). Ulflarsen (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you.  —Michael Z. 22:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Is 10 history books in "further reading" too many?

10 of the books in the further reading section are either 20th century or have "history" in the title, and there are links to 3 bibliography articles. I think the list should be shortened to include only the best books, so readers don't waste time. But I don't know which are the best.

Your thoughts? Chidgk1 (talk) 10:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Russia is not a dictatorship

The main page says Russia has become a dictatorship — this is wrong at best and propaganda at worst. While Russia is certainly an authoritarian state, calling it a dictatorship is incorrect. 146.200.180.251 (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

FYI - there are four sources given in the country infobox. 2A02:AA1:1623:58B5:CD6B:5BF4:D56A:F8BD (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@2A02:AA1:1623:58B5:CD6B:5BF4:D56A:F8BD Still you can't call Russia a dictatorship while other countries like Egypt, Venezuela, Iraq or others aren't labeled as dictatorships. Bilikon (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

We can and should if a significant proportion of reliable sources do so; in fact, we would be violating our own policies by not doing so. We do not choose how to describe the subjects of our articles based on how the subjects of other articles are described. See WP:V and WP:OR, among others. General Ization ^Talk 20:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Abbreviation РФ RF

RF as an abbreviation (at least in Russian) is widely used among the government and its news outlets. Should we re add this? see search results Beshogur (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

It should be added only if it is widely used in the language of this Wikipedia. 2A02:AA1:1623:58B5:CD6B:5BF4:D56A:F8BD (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Russian Annexation of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson

I noticed that the map of Russia shown in the infobox shows Crimea in light green as a "disputed territory". Today, it appears that Russia will announce the annexation of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson; following the rigged referendums that they conducted this week. My question is, should these four regions also be shown in light green following these events? Bobtinin (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It is standard practice for significant claims to be added to maps (caveating that Crimea here does not follow standard practice). Presumably these will be significant claims, although given it's an active war zone who knows what will happen. At the very least, there is no deadline and we shouldn't be updating ahead of seeing some actual published maps from Russia showing the claims. CMD (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Annexed territory

Shouldn't we add the annexed territory and place them in light Green like Crimea and a different area size just like Morocco and Western Sahara or Israel and the Golan Heights or East Jerusalem 196.249.97.77 (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@196.249.97.77 i agree Marmite037 (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes we should, but there is no rush. UserXpetVarpet (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Now that President V.I Putin has formally annexed the territories, I think we should, even if it's under the disputed tag Sardukarfan (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes but the borders of the territorial claims are still unclear, since the war is still ongoing. Maybe a dotted line for the border? Or a different color for the claimed Russian territory that is currently under the Ukraine's army control? 80.117.44.138 (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• 

I suggest this image could replace the image for the map if or when we are shown a map of the borders Russia has annexed. --Aaron106 (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Someone forgot to remove the border between Crimea and Kherson Oblast. 𝕍𝕀ℂ𝕋𝕆ℝ𝕀𝕍𝕊 (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes it's ok but we should also add the diff area sizes like we did for Russia without crimea and Russia with Crimea Nlivataye (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This sham map is pure nonsense and needs to be removed. Russia's borders have not changed, they remain the same. If a permanent situation arises in which Russia indefinitely occupies these territories, as Israel and Morocco do, a map change might be needed. While the war in ongoing and the frontlines change, it's a completely different situation. Jeppiz (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory is the unfortunate reality of the world. We should portray the world how it is, not how we would like it to be. The war will probably devolve into a frozen conflict. We should use our platform to uphold truth and unbiased information. The map should be updated with the light green color to show which territories are in dispute. Joseph Winowiski (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

We should portray the world how it is The "world how it is" is that Russia has internationally recognized borders and that's what we will show. Volunteer Marek 20:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Very funny.

2600:6C67:8700:9400:ED2E:400F:5CA9:BD15 (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

That is clear example of WP:OR. First, the proposed new map even includes territories not controlled by Russia. So these are Ukrainian territories, controlled by Ukraine, yet the map puts them in Russia. There is no precedence for that. Second, a frozen conflict may be the result, in which case we need to reflect that reality. There is no frozen conflict today, so WP:CRYSTAL applies to that claim. Third, there is no 'dispute' here, simply a claim by a war criminal, universally rejected. Jeppiz (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

We should use the map, yes Russia does not control all of the annexed territories. That's why we have it in light green to show its disputed territory. With all due respect, The arguments for not using the map are just nitpicks.--Zyxrq (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

A good example of this would be the map we use for Venezuela here: [13]. We represent the country as it claims to be on a de jure basis; regardless of whether it actually de facto controls the territory. Arguably, Russia's characterization is more accurate than Venezuela's in the sense that Russia does have de facto control over some of that territory and is fighting a war to try to take the rest; neither of which are true in Venezuela's case. It's not a statement on the legitimacy of the country or their claims to any specific territory. In fact, the light green (as opposed to dark green) indicates that their de jure claim is contested by another state party. We should display the map with light green for the claimed territories, maintaining consistency with how we display other conflicts/claims worldwide. Suntzu3500 (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It is a relevant example, yes. However, this situation is less than 24 hours old and (despite lots of users 'wanting to be first') there is a policy in place that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. For such a thorny topic, waiting to how reliable sources describe it is the proper approach. The problem here is that some users want Wikipedia to be at forefront of declaring changes, rather than reporting on them. This is (or should be) an encyclopaedia and not a newspaper. Jeppiz (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Any "disputed territories" (sic) should be explained in the body of the article. These kind of nationalist claims have no place in the infobox. Volunteer Marek 20:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2022

Edit "History" subsection to denote Russia's formal annexation of Ukrainian regions of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk regions as of 30 September 2022, despite international protest. Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-63077272 BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Unacceptable change

Russia's illegal work in Ukraine should not be accepted as the world does not accept this Russian Freakshow! 194.230.160.132 (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@194.230.160.132 Wikipedia should portray the truth, not propaganda, and not support any side. Just show things how they are. Bilikon (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bilikon: Please read the essay at WP:NOTTRUTH. General Ization ^Talk

The Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory is the unfortunate reality of the world. We should portray the world how it is, not how we would like it to be. The map should be updated with the light green color to show which territories are in dispute. Joseph Winowiski (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I see you made sure to throw that "unfortunate" in there just in case. Volunteer Marek 20:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Editors are permitted to have opinions, just not to share them using the voice of the encyclopedia. General Ization ^Talk 20:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2022 (2)

This page should now include the dispute of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia.

Yeah Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPOV. No. Volunteer Marek 20:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: per above. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2022 (3)

We should show the annexed territories of Ukraine as a claimed territory of the Russian Federation. My argument for this is the reflection of Golan heights as a claimed part of The State of Israel which is internationally recognised as a part of the Syrian Arab Republic, there is a discrepancy between them which should be corrected. 81.107.48.13 (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)