Talk:Russia

Problematic

“ it has more advanced per capita rankings among the most populous countries and has steadily increased international development assistance and debt forgiveness to developing countries. After the United States, Russia is the second most populous country with a "very high" level of human development and other advanced rankings (such as the Human Capital Index and other living standards), is undoubtedly considered a country of the Global North, and was classified as a high-income economy in 2012-14.” It’s quite problematic and not accurate to begin with Russia performance in indicators of standard of living is very low , by GDP per capita Russia is ranked 65th way behind developed countries , it has one of the heights level of corruption in the world (ranks 137th) ranks 146th by Democracy and ranks 52nd by HDI so it’s not accurate and quite not true. Qplb191 (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Very funny. Palau, Romania, Panama and Seychelles, ranked 55, 56, 57 and 58 on this list of countries by GNI (nominal) per capita, are officially classified as high-income economies by the World Bank. But since Russia ranks 61st out of 191 countries, this rank immediately becomes "very low". Yes, 58th place is "very high", but 61st place is obviously "very low". Also take into account the population of the countries. Countries with small populations sometimes can achieve good results more easily. Countries ranked from 1 to 66 in 2021 are officially designated "very high" by Human Development Index. Only 3 countries on this list have populations over 100 million and they are the United States, Japan and Russia. Look carefully at list of countries and dependencies by population and say how many countries among for example the 25 most populous have advanced indicators. Only the United States, Russia, Japan, Germany, France, UK and Italy have a "very high" level of human development. Among countries with populations over 100 million it is only the United States, Japan and Russia. Not all of Russia's rankings are good, but when you intentionally pick only the worst, it's cherrypicking, bias and a violation of NPOV. Really look at the lead section for Panama or other countries. The article points to Panama's ranking in the Human Development Index, but you intentionally removed that information about Russia. Because all rankings are "very low" in Russia. Very funny. _ruASG⁺¹  15:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Terrorist nation

The EU considers Russia a terrorist nation, why isn't this mentioned? Preferably in the first sentence of the article. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Source? HiLo48 (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

A 'state sponsor of terrorism' not a 'terrorist nation' but comes from this (additional: 1, 2, 3) Tweedle (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Which is something we already say towards the end of the Independent Russian Federation section. HiLo48 (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length before and doesn't need to be entertained any further. michael60634 / talk / contributions 23:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually several countries recognize Russia as a "terrorist state" itself, not just a "sponsor of terrorism". TylerBurden (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Date in which Kievan Rus was founded

The article for Kievan Rus says it was founded in 882. Plus shouldn’t it also mention when Rurik became the prince of Novgorod in 862? MaxwellWinnie102 (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Also I think it should also mention the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 26 1991. MaxwellWinnie102 (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Russian statehood starts from Kievan Rus'?

Is there a reason for the page containing information about Russian history starting from Kievan Rus'? Wouldn't it be more proper to begin russian history from Principality of Moscow like you did with Belarus? 5.248.199.38 (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Which text of the respective articles do you mean? Certainly it should be clear that Kyivan Rus was not Russia.  —Michael Z. 21:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Formation

• Kievan Rus' 879

879 5.248.199.38 (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

And Belarus currently says “Duchy of Polotsk 987,” and Ukraine “Kievan Rus'

882.” These were all parts of their histories, and seen as symbolic predecessors, but none were formations of the respective states. Strangely, the Golden Horde and Grand Duchy of Lithuania are not mentioned. Indeed we should get a coordinated consensus to treat them equivalently and not pander to political POV.  —Michael Z. 14:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

If we are talking about Polotsk in 10th century, this can be seen as the beginning of Belarus statehood. So it should be no different for Russia, which statehood started from Principality of Moscow only in 13th century. Is there any reason to begin russian statehood from Kyivan Rus'? 5.248.199.38 (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

And yet traditional Russian accounts of their nation's history always did begin with Kyivan Rus. Where Putin's rewriting of the history books have left this I'm not sure. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

You know, North Macedonia also accounts that it is descendent from ancient Macedonia. But it doesn't make sense. It would make more sense to begin russian history from Principality of Moscow, isn't it? 5.248.199.38 (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Three states trace their national traditions to Kyivan Rus that was on parts of their territory. But they cannot trace continuous statehood to it, nor claim it as their nations’ state (if anything, though, the throne of Kyiv was inherited by Volyn and then the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia, not Suzdal and Muscovy). Their states’ legal identities began later. Russia was not Kyivan Rus.

So I find it questionable to list Kyivan Rus under “Formation” as an “establishment event” or whatever. We don’t list the Roman Empire in the infobox of France, Italy, or Spain, Ancient Athens or Byzantium for Greece, nor the establishment of the United Kingdom for the United States.  —Michael Z. 14:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Russia got national traditions from Kievan Rus'. Overall, endless autocratic regime and asian traditions is something Kyivan Rus' never had. But if we are talking about Rus', at the time of its existence it was the name of ethnic group of people around Kyiv and their domains(Polotsk, Novgorod, Galicia etc.). At this point Rus' can seen as the first statehood of Ukraine, like Polotsk for Belarus, but certainly not for Russia. So I think you'll probably need to cancel this formation quote. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Compare the list of rulers in Grand Prince of Kyiv.  —Michael Z. 17:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? 5.248.199.38 (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean after Kyivan Rus fragmented the principality of Kyiv continued to exist, but the new state of Muscovy had nothing to do with it.  —Michael Z. 22:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Not all parts of Kyivan Principality were considered as Rus', you know. Country of Rus' is merely the land of ruses/polanians, that were gathering tribute from other conquered tribes. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 06:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

No, I do not know. Tribute paid to Polanians in the ninth century or whenever has nothing to do with the title of Prince of Kyiv from the mid thirteenth.  —Michael Z. 06:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Huh? Are you talking about mongol period? The title of prince of Kyiv was still meaning the ruler of Rus'. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• The question is incorrect and meaningless. It's almost trolling. Originally the Principality of Moscow was just a subdivision of the Grand Principality of Rostov/Vladimir/Suzdal. No new statehood emerged in Moscow. It was simply the power of the Grand Princes of Vladimir (Prince Andrey Bogolyubsky in 1169 captured Kiev and became Grand Prince). Then you have to ask about the beginning of Russian statehood from the Grand Principality of Vladimir. Also, there is no change in the question of the beginning of Russian statehood and the consensus is the same. Proto-states or states existed before the year 862 (see Rurik's state, Primary chronicle and pre-862 rule of Scandinavians and "northern confederation of tribes", Rus' Khaganate, Paphlagonian expedition of the Rusʹ, Siege of Constantinople (860), Caspian expeditions of the Rusʹ, Slawiya, Kuyaba, Arthania, Saqaliba, Volga trade route and others). But traditionally the creation of the Russian state is the calling of the Varangians (Rurik dynasty) in the year 862 (see also Veliky Novgorod/Holmgård and Staraya Ladoga). Then "the capital of Kievan Rus’ moved in 882 from Novgorod to Kiev after Rurik’s successor, Oleg, captured this southern city". [1] There is a point of view that the first capital of Kievan Rus was Novgorod and the second capital was Kiev. But there is also another point of view. "According to the traditional account presented in The Russian Primary Chronicle, it (Kievan Rus) was founded by the Viking Oleg, ruler of Novgorod from about 879. In 882 he seized Smolensk and Kiev, and the latter city, owing to its strategic location on the Dnieper River, became the capital of Kievan Rus." [2] "Founded" in Kiev or "became the capital"/"moved to Kiev"? There are different traditions. Cite sources. Even the different Britannica articles have different information. All this has no relation to Putin's propaganda and does not exclude other traditions, but the scientific consensus for Russian history is unchanged. First, carefully read reliable sources. Nothing has changed in the last decades. But the indication of the year 879 is definitely a mistake. _ruASG⁺¹  14:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  The first source above is a textbook company that copies stuff from online sources, including Wikipedia. The second source above does not support that Russia is Kyivan Rus: in fact it introduces statehood with “The Russian republic was established immediately after the Russian Revolution of 1917 and became a union republic in 1922.”[3]  —Michael Z. 14:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  You didn't say anything new. All reliable sources are in principle cited in various Wikipedia articles in Russian, English and other languages. You, as a native English speaker, have the ability to read all the sources and write a good article. There is a "history" section in Britannica and it does not start with 1917 or 1991. Britannica does not say exactly about "statehood". At least 3 dates of the beginning of statehood are true. The "traditional" date is 862, the date of the "de jure" modern statehood is November 7, 1917 and the date of the "real" statehood and "independent" statehood is December 26, 1991. At the same time right now the Russian Empire is under state immunity as the Russian Federation is under state immunity and the Russian Empire is officially recognized as its predecessor. This applies to the debt of the Russian Empire, for example. It is impossible to mention only one date for the beginning of statehood. This is very funny, but it is not something new in world history. By the way, I have read an article about Russia in Britannica and it is sometimes incorrect, outdated and sometimes focuses on details, but does not tell the whole situation in economy or politics, i.e. it is also cherrypicking. It is possible to find reliable sources to disprove Britannica, but that work is not for me. _ruASG⁺¹  16:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  Brittanica seems quite careful in its language while describing states that existed partly on territory now in Russia. It refers to each of the Russian republic, the USSR, and the RF as a “new state.”

  Reliable sources do not say that the Russian Federation is the continuator of a state that started in 862, 882, or any time like that. In fact, today there’s a fair bit of writing about the Kremlin’s misuse of such a myth. 1263 is a date of its possible predecessor’s beginning as a state entity, however it wasn’t fully independent until it stopped paying tribute to the Crimean Khanate, I believe in 1701.  —Michael Z. 18:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  None of this is a problem. See Iceland, for example. The Russian Empire was obviously a continuation of the Rurik's state founded in 862. The Russian Federation is obviously the continuation of the Russian Empire and the Russian Republic (and the USSR as agreed). The turning points in 1917 and in 1991 may be much more controversial than the year 1263. In this logic, any dates from the history of the Rostov land, Rostov-Suzdal principality, the Grand Duchy of Vladimir fit better. The city of Rostov was mentioned in 862. In 911 Rostov was named among the five largest cities, subordinated to Kiev's Prince Oleg. First Novgorod princes sent to Rostov their viceroys, and after 882 Kievan princes sent viceroys to Rostov. The first Rostov prince was Yaroslav the Wise. The belonging of Rostov and Suzdal to the possessions of Monomakh was confirmed by the Lubech council of princes. In 990 Vladimir Svyatoslavich built a small fortification on the bank of the river Klyazma. In this place Vladimir Monomakh in 1108 began large-scale construction of the city of Vladimir. In 1125 Yury Dolgoruky moved the capital of his possessions to Suzdal and created the Suzdal principality. In 1155, Andrey Bogolyubsky left Southern Rus' and moved to Vladimir, which he chose as his residence. In 1157 the capital of the principality was moved from Suzdal to Vladimir. Prince Andrey Bogolyubsky in 1169 captured Kiev and became Grand Prince. You can choose any date other than the year 1263. Do not overestimate the role of the principality of Moscow in that period. The year 1263 is rather meaningless because the principality of Moscow was simply a subdivision within a country. The principality of Moscow emerged as a udel'noye kyazhestvo ("part principality", i.e. subdivision) headed by udel'nyj kyaz' ("prince of a part", "feudal prince", "unit princes"). The meaning of the word "appanage" does not fit because of Rota system, as I understand it. The Great Russian Encyclopedia explains the term as follows. [4]

  _{"Udelnye Princes are heads of vassal and kinship state formations (parts, units) within the principalities of North-Eastern Rus' (14th-15th centuries). The princes originated from the Rurikovich and Gediminovich dynasties, were blood relatives in the male line of the great or "capital" princes. In the system of grand principality of Vladimir in 14th century (till 1389) unit princes existed in practically all principalities - Moscow, Tver, Nizhniy Novgorod, Yaroslavl, Rostov, Starodub and, most likely, Belozersk. Unit princes had vassal obligations in relation to "capital" princes. The position, possessions of unit princes, their mutual relations with rulers of great or "capital" principalities and accordingly the senior members of Rurikovich's princely branches were defined by testamentary orders of "capital" princes. In principle, the unit princes had no right for independent relations with the khans of the Horde. The exceptions were the cases of open struggle of unit princes against representatives of the ruling (senior) line for supreme power in the principality or for transformation of an unit principality into an independent principality. In the relations of unit princes with the ruling princes, vassal obligations were in the first place: they were obliged to be together with the head of a great or "capital" principality everywhere and in everything (including against any enemy), to guard his interests and not to conspire against him, not to conclude treaties with anyone, except other unit princes of the same great or independent principality, not to claim the lands of the great or "capital" prince, under his command to participate personally in military operations at the head of their troops or to send their military leaders under the command of Great Princes' military leaders. In turn, the heads of the great or "capital" principalities assumed obligations, taking into account their common (clan) and individual interests, to include the local princes in the concluded treaties, to maintain them in brotherhood, love, honor and without offense and to patronize them, their ancestors and his estates. The escheat parts remained in the same principality and were at the command of the great or "capital" prince. Transformations of the units into independent state formations were very rare: for example, the Molozhsk principality was separated from the Yaroslavl principality, the Pronsk principality was separated from the Ryazan principality. In the 1490s the unit princes ceased to be junior partners of the rulers in international treaties. Grand Prince of Moscow Ivan III Vasilievich in his testament of 1503 strictly limited the rights of his younger sons and generally their prerogatives, which had at least some state significance (the ban on minting money, limiting the judicial functions of unit princes). Three of the four unit princes did not receive permission to marry and died childless."}

  _ruASG⁺¹  12:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Saying “obviously” doesn’t replace reliable sources nor make things true.  —Michael Z. 17:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• This not trolling by any mean. Spanish Empire is not Peru's statehood for example, why would Kyivan Rus' be russian statehood? Then russian history should start from the time when Muscovy became independent from Vladimir-Suzdal. "Beginning of Kyivan Rus' in 862 in Novgorod" is mostly promoted by russian nationalists and russian propaganda. The attention can be focused on Askold and Dir coming to Kyiv instead. The name of Rus' associates with ukrainian middle Dnipro territory, and what Russia has to do with it? What "sources" should I cite? 5.248.199.38 (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  Russian-speaking people can read the Journal of the Ministry of Educaton published in 1852 (page 237), the documents for the monument to the Millennium of Russia, the section on the history of Russia in the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedia or the history of Russia in the modern encyclopedia Krugosvet. The year 862 as the first event in the history of Russia is widely accepted as a scientific consenus in Russia and Russian history. You can find dozens of sources. Putin did not invent it. Historians and officials in Belarus and Ukraine can also consider the year 862 as the beginning of their statehoods. This is not a problem. Perhaps the problem is the monopolization of this "line of statehood" for religious reasons. Of course, from a modern point of view, there is no reason to monopolize "statehood". Even modern Russia, the USSR, the Russian Republic and the Russian Empire are 4 largely different states. They are other states, but not foreign states. And the "tradition of statehood" and the "same state" are different things. But all is OK with this "line of statehood", by which we mean the existence of not a foreign states, but our state on our territory populated by our people. Is the Rostov principality or the Grand Principality of Vladimir a foreign state in relation to the Russian Empire? And in relation to modern Russia? Who built the Cathedral of St. Sophia, Novgorod in relation to modern Russia? A foreign country? A foreign nation? Foreign people? This is impossible both in the scientific world and among ordinary people. Other people and nationalist traditions of separate countries can think as they wish. One tradition does not interfere with the other, except in cases of monopolization of historical events. _ruASG⁺¹  13:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Putin did not invent it, but Muscovite tsars did. They claimed, turning upside down the meaning of 862 quote with Rurik, that Rus' actually came from their territory, and Rurik is a descendant of the Roman Emperors, therefore Muscovy is a continuation of the Roman Empire. None of this is more than pseudo-scientific nonsense, and if someone writes works with such propagandistic information, then they do not take into account at least the fact that the name Rus' referred to the tribe of Polanians and their ethnic territory in the Middle Dnipro region. So what "consensus", what are you talking about?

  "Who built the Cathedral of St. Sophia, Novgorod in relation to modern Russia? A foreign country? A foreign nation? Foreign people?" yes, a foreign country, a foreign nation and a foreign people. Remind me, when Muscovy conquered and destroyed the Novgorod Republic, then exterminating the entire population of the city for disobedience to the muscovite prince? It is astonishing you are even asking such questions. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Moscow, third Rome is a religious concept associated with the defense of Orthodoxy after the decline of Byzantium. It is related to the Christianization of Kievan Rus' and the "Catholic" "occupation" of Rus', rather than some false ethnicity of Rurik which I am hearing about for the first time in my life. I noted above that ideologizing and monopolizing for religious reasons is bad enough from a modern point of view. And there were crusades against the Baltic and against Northern Rus' to teach the right faith. There were religious wars all over Europe and far beyond. Nothing unusual. By the way, the official language of the Great Principality of Lithuania was Old Belorussian. Very good. It still does not change the "line of statehood" in the Great Principality of Vladimir in any way. We cannot just rewrite history retroactively and erase from history those princes who ruled simultaneously in Novgorod, Rostov, Kiev, Suzdal' and Vladimir-on-Klyaz'ma. First, the Novgorod dialect greatly contributed to the development of the Russian language and yes, Novgorod was the target of the wars of the prince of Moscow. There was a whole series of Vladimir-Novgorod wars and Moscow-Novgorod wars. Civil wars and wars between princes were regular events and common practice even before Rurik. Nothing unusual. There is still no relation to the "line of statehood" of modern Russia. _ruASG⁺¹  17:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  It's not "defense", simply an attempt to extend history of young state based on the falsification of history. Only Kyiv and near territory was Christianized. Northern regions were not Christianized. Those, who were coming from Kyiv to territory near future Moscow to spread Christianity were mostly killed by local finno ugric people. Novgorod Republic has nothing to do with modern day Russia. Russian language is basically an Church Slavonic with multiple turkic influence.

  Novgorod language was even closer to Old Polish rather than Old Ruthenian/Ukrainian language. Any way, coming back to the suggestion, Kyivan Rus' as first statehood of Russia makes little sense, so it should be correct to start from Muscovy instead, not Kyivan Rus'. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Very funny. _ruASG⁺¹  19:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  What is funny? I remind you, the topic is about removing Kyivan Rus' from "russian statehood". If there's no reason to keep it, it should be removed, so, your answer? 109.237.92.26 (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  By the way, the question of names is quite separate. Rus' is first of all a Scandinavian people. Indeed, as a geographical term Rus' in the narrow sense and common speech a thousand years ago really means the Middle Dnieper. There is a capital and perhaps the largest concentration of Scandinavians. And in a broader sense, Rus' is all the territories where the predominantly eastern Slavs lived under the rule of the Rurik dynasty and which were part of the Rota system and recognized themselves as part of a single country or confederation. Okay. Let's say Russia and Belarus stole the name Rus' from Ukraine. We can rename Russia as Rostovia, Moskovy, Vladimiria or Monomakhia. And the people of Ukraine can rename it as Kievan Rus or Ruthenia. No problem. I support it. What will change with the "line of statehood" of "Rostovia"? Nothing. What will change with the "line of statehood" of Ukraine? Nothing. The princes of Novgorod, Rostov, Kiev, Suzdal' and Vladimir-on-Klyaz'ma are the same people from the same dynasty and who are part of the same Rota system and who rule the Orthodox Slavic peoples speaking East Slavic language(s). The statehood of "Rostovia" still begins in 862 at the calling of the Varangians. And the calling of the Varangians is still a common legendary event for Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, if the people and historians want to recognize it as part of their history. _ruASG⁺¹  16:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Balderdash (Russian imperial historians invented the name Kyivan Rus). You wouldn’t write confusing essays if reliable sources said that the statehood of the Russian Federation began in the ninth century.  —Michael Z. 18:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  I know, but it seems that term Kievan Rus' began to be used in a different sense. There are plenty of sources. You can find sources on Google, which no one would consider pro-Putin. I am not the author of the idea of this discussion. Sources from the 1990s are hard to find and after 2000 theoretically many sources can be called pro-Putin. So I did the most interesting part of the work and gave links to 19th century sources above. They are pro-imperial, but not pro-Putin. =)) _ruASG⁺¹  19:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  You moved to normanist antinormanist topic. Origin of the name can be either Scandinavian, Slavic or something else. The Rus' will still be people in Middle Dnipro, did they took that name from someone or it was always their name doesn't matter that much. "There is perhaps the largest concentration of Scandinavians" no, why would it be? If we take the information from chronicle, Novgorod was the main place for Varangian settlement, even though most likely it was not. It didn't make Novgorod Rus', Varangians in Novgorod were paying tribute to Kyiv just like any other slav. "And in a broader sense, Rus' is all the territories where the predominantly eastern slavs" umm, no. Rus' in wider sense is all the territories that were under Kyiv influence or were paying tribute to the city. This includes finno ugric tribes as well, and could have include people of other origin if Kyivan Rus' conquered more territory. Rurik dynasty is term created by muscovite tsars, there was no such term in Kyivan Rus.

  Well, if you actually think about, renaming russia into Muscovy would be correct, since the name "Russia" was mainly imposed by propaganda, and modern "muscovite tsars" are using this name for the same reason.

  There was no such state as "Rostovia" in 862. The topic was generally about Kyivan Rus', as we can see there's no reason to mark Kyivan Rus' as first statehood of Russia. I believe this should probably be excluded. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Don't do cherrypicking. The Rota system existed even if the term "Rurik dynasty" did not exist. The princes of Rostov, Suzdal, Vladimir and many other princes were part of this system. Kiev was the collective property of the Rurikids. Princes like Yuri Dolgorukiy, Vsevolod the Big Nest, Yaroslav II of Vladimir and Alexander Nevsky were both princes of Kiev and Vladimir. I understand the rest. When Kievan Rus' conquered more territory and everyone pays tribute, it's a good thing. Everything else is bad. It's OK. _ruASG⁺¹  20:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

  Kyiv was not property of anyone. Viceroys from Kyiv were ruling in the conquered regions, anyone of them could became Kyivan Prince legally by this system. You understand, ok. Are you an administrator here? I am still waiting an answer to my suggestion. 5.248.199.38 (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Including Belarus on the map of Russia as part of the Union State.

Considering that the EU is shown on the maps of other European states Wikipedia articles, and that the Union State of Russia and Belarus is a rather similar union, perhaps we should show it on the map? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Republics

Article states there are 22 republics. The article about republics in Russia says there are 21 recognized republics. Wikifan153 (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems as if the 22d republic is the Republic of Crimea. Given that it isn't fully recognized as part of Russia and the article on republics of Russia does not count it, I think we should change it to 21. Wikifan153 (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not the division that isn't recognised, but the actual territory. I note the current map is hashed but without explanation, we should have some sort of note to explain the numbers. CMD (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

You mean the division of the actual territory that isn’t recognized is recognized? That is not the case. No one has recognized it.  —Michael Z. 22:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

An odd reading. CMD (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

To bring it back to the OP, perhaps it’s better to say there are 21 republics (and N oblasts, &c.) within the internationally recognized borders of Russia.  —Michael Z. 01:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

That would be a tangent from the topic of the section, and not how it's done on similar pages. CMD (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

There is actually an old note, I've expanded it to include 2022. CMD (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Spelling standardisation needed

There are a few -iz(e) spellings which should be changed to -is(e). PurpleQuaver (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Ethnicity

For the ethnicity portion of the infobox, would it not better to use the 2021 percentages in the "% of those who declared ethnicity" column here:

Ethnic groups in Russia#Ethnic groups of Russia, 1926–2021

This seems like a more accurate representation of the country's ethnic composition. Reverend Mick man34 ♔ (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Change map

Russia controls donetsk and crimea 43.241.144.234 (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Removal of maps

File:Us-su-maritime.jpg

On 03:28, 28 July 2023, User:Chipmunkdavis made a removal of the map File:Us-su-maritime.jpg depicting the border of Russia with the USA. The editor stated, "Very out of place in the infobox".

File:Map of the western border of Russia.png

On 07:12, 28 July 2023, they made another removal of a map, thumb, with the rationale, "Rv, infobox already has a locator map. Not the place of country articles to host maps of each border section".

I don't think the position of the editor is reasonable. Most readers only check the infobox and the lead of articles in Wikipedia, where they should find ideally the most important information of the page. I have found myself frustrated by the lack of proper visual information in the infobox. Many times I seek information about a country to see where it is located and its neighbors, only to find a map that provides no information about what are the names of the neighbors of the country. Therefore, I find the infobox incomplete. Other editors have found my rationale reasonable and at least one have shared the same frustration (see discussion Talk:France#Removal of map).

Russia is the largest country in the world by area. As such, providing only one map in the infobox for information is not enough. For that reason, I added the map File:Map of Russia-en.svg, depicting the whole of Russia and its immediate neighbors. But I find that because of the size of the country, more maps focusing on certain regions of the country were needed in the infobox to provide a better visualization of the position of Russia among its neighbors.

I believe many readers come looking for the specifics of the international borders of Russia, probably much more than for other items in the infobox like its coordinates, its demonym, its Gini, or its HDI. Therefore there should be maps of the borders of Russia that are labeled with the names of the relevant countries.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It is standard to have a locator map of each country, which already does show the surrounding area. Infoboxes cannot have everything, they are 'at a glance' sources of information. Maps could show a million different things, so we show the location. If you want labelled maps of the world, there are many places to find them. Similarly there are other maps for other purposes. As to the title of this section, this was also not a 'removal" really, but a reversion of edits which include one map which is very blurry and appears to have a Microsoft Office star shape in the default palette. CMD (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It is standard to have a locator map and there should be more maps in the infobox to provide important information at a glance. Considering that switcher templates make maps only one or two lines each, it is reasonable to have such useful information in place. A picture is worth a thousand words. Per MOS:NOFORCELINK, "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links". It is better to provide important info in the infobox instead of making people search other pages. And as I indicated, it is not just my opinion but other editors share my opinion to a large degree or even completely.

About the star, for your information I used an open source program, not proprietary software. You are grasping at straws.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Open source program that imitates the default Microsoft Office palette, my apologies. There is as I mentioned a million things that could be included in maps, but we can't fill the infobox with a line for each. The more items, the less impactful the existing ones. If you want a general change across all countries to have labelled bordering countries (and seas?) be a standard inclusion, I suggest you raise a centralised RfC. CMD (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Or the default Microsoft Office palette imitated open source programs' palettes. After all, open source can be used commercially.

There are a million things that could be included in articles as well, but we can't just add everything. The key words are "important info". Of course we need to decide what information is due in an infobox and a lead. We simply have a different opinion on what is acceptable, necessary, or useful to include. Thanks for the suggestion of the RfC, I was thinking about going through the dispute resolution ladder but certainly a centralized RfC may be the route. Meanwhile, other editors' opinion are welcome as well.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Moxy and Mathglot:. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems like the same case as at Talk:France#Removal of map. I'll say what I said there: Support keeping both maps. It's intensely frustrating to come to a major geography article and find either a broader-geographical-context map or an internal-divisions map missing. Both are important encyclopedic information. And if this has anything to do with PNG format: SVG fetishism is tedious; there is no guideline or policy support for deleting images because they are in PNG format. PS: It is not necessarily important that both map types be in the infobox itself, as long as they are both near the top of the article so the reader can find them "above the fold" and without having to dig around for them. But putting them in the infobx ensures this. PPS: The general-geographic-region map is the more important one to have ealier; more readers are probably looking for "What is Russia next to?" than "What are the constituent parts of Russia?".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's not spam the info box with random images. Moxy- 00:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

What is spam for you in this case is very important information for me and many readers who want to know what is Russia. Therefore, several maps should be in the infobox because it is the place most readers limit themselves to. But as usual, the deletionists against the inclusionists. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Will have to.disagree.....several images in the lead is clearly undue in most cases and may cause accessibility problems for many. No need to have the same maps 2 times in articles lIke topography weather Etc. Pls review MOS:IMAGELEAD. Moxy- 02:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

In most cases is not in all cases and depends the topic.

I read MOS:IMAGELEAD. Any specific guidance within you wanted me to be aware of?

• "accessibility problems". I am all ears. I am sensible to that issue. Can you expand?

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGELEAD Images should be related to the text they are by. For example here you added administrative divisions and a weather map that are both already included in the article (in a more accessible format) and are not mentioned in the lead. Your edit summary seems to be related to Wikipedia:Lead fixation. As per our research of how readers navigate articles....the TOC will lead readers to these maps there are already in the proper sections as the TOC is widely used see data here. We also need to be careful not to fill the lead with to many images as most country articles already have three to five files in them... including flag, coat of arms Etc..... last thing we want for our country articles is a scrolling nightmare as seen at many city articles like New York City.... as we know most people will only scroll once and we're hoping that leads them to more WP:PROSE or the TOC in mobile view over just more images.... (see data link above for stats). We should try to retain our readers by leading them to more prose information or the TOC in mobile view for navigation. Moxy- 03:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Moxy, it is certainly controversial that you relate in an unclear manner my edit summary to lead fixation. Can you clarify the relevant part of said essay? Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:22, July 25, 2023 -added maps to infobox from the body of article (standard practice to repeat info in the infobox) because most readers only see the start of the article and don't go into the body unless looking for something specific. Wikipedia:Lead fixation "The effect is especially prominent on highly visible and already reasonably complete topics, such as Canada..." (note how a country article is used as an example) Moxy- 04:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

What effect? You are starting to make me feel uncomfortable. Thinker78 (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify regarding the lead fixation thing, I created the map of Guatemala and Russia, among others, out of a desire to provide other editors important visual information about the country. I noticed that in countries' articles there is no proper map with the names of the neighboring countries.

Oftentimes, there is even only a projection with the country showing small within the continent, which provides no clear idea of the country at hand. I was annoyed by such lack of information and decided to make maps to fill what I felt was a gaping hole in the infobox, illustrated by SMcCandlish feelings as well.

I do believe providing a map with the neighboring countries names is one of the most fundamental data of a country page, because likely readers come to this pages to have an idea where the country is at. In the case of Russia, as I stated elsewhere in the thread, it is a specially big country that needs more maps in the infobox for better info to readers.

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

According to the very page you shared (Research:Which parts of an article do readers read), 60% of readers in non-tablet mobile devices only check the lead, which backs what I stated that "Most readers only check the infobox and the lead of articles in Wikipedia".

You said the "last thing we want for our country articles is a scrolling nightmare". The New York City page you linked to has a gallery of many images in the infobox. A switcher template, which I use, doesn't display all the maps but provides for the reader to choose a caption in order to display it.

Also, the maps I added (which, again, appear only as a short caption and not as a full map unless desired) likely provide more sought after information than other items already in the infobox like the Gini, HDI (don't know what is it), Driving side, the Calling code, the Internet TLD (which I have no idea what it means).

No idea why you and the other editor balk at the maps of the borders that provide crucial info but are ok with such overly specific information in the infobox.

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree the info box is already overloaded with useless data....but this is the data we put in after many many talks despite my misgivings. Last thing we need is more random stuff. Moxy- 04:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you really think that providing fundamental info in the form of maps about where the country exactly is is random stuff? Really. Amazing. Thinker78 (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

But that's not all our adding is it Haiti? It's clear at this point the bulk of these edits do not currently have consensus for inclusion. Moxy- 05:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

In Haiti I added maps that other editors made, none of them were made by me. In there I did not limit maps for borders but the maps additions I included were limited to FOUR short lines of captions, less than 10% of the number of lines of the entire infobox.

Maybe in this thread there is no consensus because two editors including myself favor inclusion and two editors including yourself are opposed. But regarding those other countries, my edits stood for a while which meant there was implicit consensus for them until you reverted them. Read the WP:CONSENSUS policy. And as you said yourself, you wanting to exclude information from the infobox have not had the support from the community.

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Best be honest Haiti: Revision history maps added then removed in under 48 hrs...then restored by you and removed again in 7 mins by another editor. Moxy- 12:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Moxy You are not that collegial in discussions are you? Can you try to be collegial instead of having this useless accusatory tone? Because you are basically accusing me of dishonesty. Kindly read the WP:CIVILITY policy.

Besides, I was talking about "other countries", not limited to Haiti. For example, in the page Guatemala, on 07:16, 27 May 2023‎ I added a map. It stood undisturbed for almost two months. Then I added maps and you reverted.

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The article you referred to in this discussion was Haiti. Making a mass change across a number of articles to see where you won't get reverted is not a strong argument, and can become disruptive. If you want to cudgel someone about civility, do it on an admin noticeboard. CMD (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)