Talk:Russia

Beslan and Moscow Theater hostage crisis

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-believers

It's called “atheist”, kids.

Although considering there are religions that do not feature any deities, it might be a more accurate term. However, the phrase itself sounds biased and is not generally used.

No it is not! They are called non-believers and this term is unique to the Russians who had traditional belief before the Orthodox Church came to Russia. They are not atheist because atheist dont beliave in God at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.26.247 (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Russian Kamrad (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)There are atheists and agnostics(?) as I know, not non-believers. I know only one non-believer, his name is Fomah and he is a character of a poem or something like that. "Fomah the non-believer"(Фома-неверующий).:)

Military

In the Military section,

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

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

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

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

Dates in the infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date for Russian Federation is incorrect it should be either 12 of June 1990 Proclamation of Sovereignty or 12 December 1991 rratification by Russian Supreme Soviet of Belavezha Accords which includes disestablishment of USSR. 26 January 1991 is only a date of recognition of it by Union authorities which is related to USSR important dates but not really related to Russian important dates the same way as recognition of American Independence by UK is not related to American important dates.

New sections, sources and the size of the article

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

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

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

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

Lede needs a rewrite

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

No need.

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

Sources for land area in the infobox

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

Diplomatic relations

Check this link if you want up to date information. [1]Dsds55 (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Now we have 191 countries with Vatican being added.[2] Dsds55 (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Russia Ottoman liberation date range correction

{{editsemiprotected}}

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

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

Lead

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

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

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

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

Fixing links to disambiguation pages

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

Military Information

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

Six words

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

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

Biased article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The study in question is:

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

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

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

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

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

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