Talk:Russia

Falsification

This map ([1]) falsifies history. Kievan Rus disintegrated before the advent of cities Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod. The name " Belgorod Dnestrovsky" appeared in the Soviet Union (1944). The name "Vladimir Volynsky" -1795 year. ... ... Michaila vnuk (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a FALSE "fact" in the ancient history on the Russia page................and because of the "Semi-protected" lockdowns, I am unable to CORRECT the mistake. It was NOT the Mongols, nor the Grand Duchy of Moscow that "gradually unified" the many tribal territories of early Russia - it was a certain Viking leader who was KNOWN for his even temper and fairness. The warring Russian warlords - themselves - asked this Viking leader to help them settle their differences and establish peace among the Russian tribes.......and he DID !.

Also, the NAME of Russia does NOT come from Early Slavic.........the name comes from "Rosi", a Viking word meaning "rowing" / "seafarer". Another source of the word "Russia" comes from the ancient Celtic word "rusi" which means "river"........because both the Vikings AND the ancient Celts entered and explored Russia before it even became Russia. The Russian people are NOT just from the Slavics - they are ALSO from the Vikings AND the Celts. My sources for this info: American Heritage Dictionary (which also gives the origins of nearly every word in the dictionary), and TWO books about the history of Ireland. I ended up purchasing BOTH of them because they each have historical facts the other doesn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastalwestgirl (talk • contribs) 20:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Who really cares with how things are going right now in Russia, but celts has really nothing to do there. I can't find any links, but I recall that there has been some articles by russian historians, that Novgorod was established by vikings & prussians(vikings were intermarried there - just like later in Britain) - despite that prussians were westernmost of baltics they have some linguistic similarities with slavs, that other surviving baltics don't have, for example root Nov- is also used in their language. Prussian name might as well turn later to russians, or it might be way around, that prussians got their name by vikings and is just local variant of pronouncation. North german roðr means rowers - just what vikings did on sea.92.22.50.162 (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Religion statistics

Regarding the readdition of these changes: as I said in my edit summary, I question not the precision but the reliability of the replacement sources. Considering that the replacement sources show markedly different figures than the previous ones, I think the question is worth exploring. The previous source (CIA World Factbook) is a known quantity, widely used across Wikipedia for demographic data. The first of the replacement sources is a relatively new NGO whose standards, methodology, and agenda are unclear; the second appears to be to a news site. I'm not going to revert again at this point, but the burden is on the user adding new content or replacing sourced content to justify inclusion, and simply bludgeoning the content into the article isn't good practice. Please discuss first. Other users, please comment. Rivertorch (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Query begun at the relevant noticeboard. Rivertorch (talk) 05:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Based on the response at RSN, I am tagging the two sources {{verify reliability and {{verify source}}, respectively. This should not be construed as meaning the sources aren't reliable or don't support the listed stats, only that their reliability and ability to support the content have not been established. Rivertorch (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Russia now is 5th largest economy 2013

Time to update Russia's GDP, it's 5th now[2] and probably will be 4th or 3rd by 2015. We need to correct this.--82.212.94.58 (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

According to IMF Russia is still in 6th place in 2012 - Purer13 (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

apologies to wiki, no direct message bar in ru-ss so posting here, possible terror attack Russia

as i read about islamists calling on attcks to russian oil lines, cars in the distance hirn and my mother starts scrubbing the floor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.170.116 (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2014

Section "Language":

Change "make their native language official" to "make other languages official".

Republics (political constructs) do not have "native languages" as they are not living entities.

174.19.165.103 (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have used the language of the Constitution - republics have the right to establish their own state languages. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2014

Home cooking!

64.187.166.110 (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 23:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Federal University

Should there be an incorporation of the difference between a Federal University and a Private University? Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural_Federal_University (Named after Boris Yeltsin) Twillisjr (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent events

I just added a (recentism) tag to the article because the section that encompasses the recent crisis in Crimea seems to be longer or just as long as the section that discusses the entire 20 year Russian Republic. Let's try to keep events in their historical context. JOJ ^Hutton 12:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. But my edit was reverted. --TarzanASG (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Well hopefully we can get more eyes on this, but even a few experienced editors with knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines cannot keep up with tons of inexperienced editors and ips. JOJ ^Hutton 13:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

A better name would be "Contemporary Era" encompassing Putin's controversial elections, the Georgian crisis, and Crimea. a> monochrome_monitor.exe/ 21:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea

Map needs updating to include it. 71.173.29.187 (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Crimea should appear as light green-coloured (like in other similar cases: the Pakistani-Indian-Chinese claims on Kashmir, or the Argentine claims on Falklands, South Georgias and Antarctica), as it is now a disputed territory between Ukraine and Russia; also Ukraine’s map should be changed. ★ Nacho ★ ★ 17:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Serbia has recognised russia's claim to crimea so it is partially recognised as part of russia now. It should be shown as light green on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.14.189 (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it is more like striped (annexation), see Morocco. Russia controls Crimea but this is not recognized internationally, it is not just a claim. The map of Ukraine should indeed show Crimea as light green-colored.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, Crimea already appears as light green-coloured in the Ukrainian map. Also, there is an edit war on Russia’s map (5 reversals in less than 20 minutes).

Disagree. Russia violates international law to control Ukraine's Crimea by military aggression but this is not recognized internationally.Superman218 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

And?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea is part of Russia whether its legal or not. Wikipedia is about information not political agendas and peoples feelings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.230.122 (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The Georgian annexation was also controversial, but those territories are on there. I'm all for adding it in light green (or striped) as long as we use a key with "disputed territories" or "occupied territories". a> monochrome_monitor.exe/ 21:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Wait, is there a legend for "disputed"? Crimea is light green on the Ukraine article, why isn't it on this article? a> monochrome_monitor.exe/ 21:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Because "claimed" and "annexed" are both disputed but are two different things. Look at Morocco.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

So is anyone going to update the map, fixing its numerous outdated errors, including the non-recognition of Crimea which should be put in light green as it is on the map of Ukraine. WhyHellWhy (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Crimea had a lawful popular referendum, and is part of Russia legally. If not, then you might as well add Ukraine as an anarchic states since it has no "legal" government because of it's far right coup, and not recognized by everyone.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.13.245 (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done - I've made a new map showing Crimea in light green and added to the infobox.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. Trillionaire! a> monochrome_monitor.exe/ 02:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem :) --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The map is gone again! What happened to the map showing Crimea in light green? -A concerned Wikipedia user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.150.7.41 (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Is anybody reading what I write? Crimea should not be light-green, it must be striped. I revert the edit please update the map to striped.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm Polish and all for Ukraine, but Wikipedia should show the facts on the ground and not politics! Crimea was taken by Russia and is a part of Russia at present, so it should be on the map of Russia and on the map of Ukraine as occupied. This is how it looks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.254.49 (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the Polish IP editor. We've got to ignore personal views here of whether this is seen as a good or bad thing. Also, I don't really see how the opinion of foreign Governments such as the UK, USA, EU etc has any bearing whatsoever of the reality on the ground. The simple fact of the matter is that Russia controls Crimea, it is now a subject of the Russian Federation, Ukraine has lost all control of Crimea, the autonomous Crimean Parliament has declared its self part of Russia and formal accession has been ratified. Crimea is now part of Russia, its a fact, not a grey area. Opposition to changing this seems to be based on other countries not agreeing with it, their disproval is having zero impact on the reality of the situation, as I have outlined. Hot air is just hot air. Owl In The House (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I support FutureTrillionaire's use of light green. It follows Wikipedia's conventions on orthographic maps. Regardless of whether Russia de facto controls Crimea, the legal legitimacy of that control is in dispute, and there is substantial opposition to it. Light green represents a claimed territory, claimed territories do not necessarily have to be territories outside of de facto control, but rather can be territories under disputed legal claims. I reject proposals to copy the Morocco map that shows Western Sahara in striped dark green because that map does not represent Wikipedia's conventions on orthographic maps.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Applying Morocco's striped concept wouldn't make sense, because not all of Western Sahara is under Moroccan Control. 19:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)~

I support Owl_In_The_House the reality is the Crimea is part of Russia if we like it or not Ukraine not longer controls it at all and I don't see why this map should be any differnt then the India map where it controls and owns a part of it's territory but china "claims it" but India is the one who owns and controls it so it's dark green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.155.144 (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If the orthographic maps of China and India do not follow Wikipedia's conventions on orthographic maps that describe what colours to use - light green for claimed territory, then those should not be considered as models to follow.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea has not yet been formally annexed by Russia - while a treaty of annexation was signed by Putin, it still needs to get approved both by the Constitutional Court, and both houses. It's a foregone conclusion, how that's going to turn out, but for now, the legal fiction of Crimea being an independent state is still ongoing, and will probably continue for about a week. Until it is formally annexed, Crimea should not be shown as part of Russia on the map. Jmcanon92 (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The treaty actually is applied from the date it is signed (i.e., March 18); that's according to the document itself. It needs to be ratified before taking full effect, but for all practical intents and purposes it allows Russia to treat Crimea as a part of the Russian Federation. And once ratified, the effective date will be March 18, not the date of ratification.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 19, 2014; 16:56 (UTC)

Crimean Referendum

The section 'Russian parliament authorization for Crimea', contains the following line: 'A Crimean status referendum was held on 16 March 2014. In spite of protests of the Yatsenyuk Government and some Western politicians, the international observers from European countries (none of whom had official status) recognized the referendum as legitimate and agreeable to the international laws', the part highlighted in bold is not mentioned in any of the sources cited in that section, someone able to edit the article may want to double check, then remove, edit or leave as necessary. Facemeltaaaaaargh (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This part of the article does need to be changed. The referendum wasn't recognized as legitimate by the EU, the US and various other countries. It is just simply incorrect to say the referendum was seem as legitimate when it was not. Only Russia recognizes the results of the referendum. The news article cited says in it that it the referendum was seen as illegal by the US and Europe and it has been condemned by the international community.

That is not right, there wasn't a condemnation by the "international community" this could be only done by the general assembly of the UN. --Wrant (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

None of the citations provided said anything about the observers being unofficial. Removed uncited material as per policy and added a reference that did cite the number of countries sending observers. - Hoplon (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

That looks better, though still shows no information on who the observers mentioned are, or what official organisations they belong to. Considering the OSCE have denied claims that they provided the observers, and stated themselves that they consider the referendum illegal, perhaps it could be updated in order to include that as well. http://www.osce.org/cio/116453 Facemeltaaaaaargh (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The uncited claims are back, added by User Caterham305, looking at the history it appears to be the third time this user has added that information, again with no sources. Facemeltaaaaaargh (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Edits to that section today were meant to make sure that the text in the article matches what the cited articles say. I don't know what distinction you are trying to make between "official" and "unofficial" observers. If the OSCE decided to send observers (they didn't) then those would be the "official observers of the OSCE". If three random Polish Plumbers decided to send observers then those would be the "official observers of three random Polish Plumbers". Not to put words in your mouth, but I think what is being asked here is whether the organizations or individuals sending observers are "recognized", not "official". But that would lead us back to the big question of who makes recognition decisions. Ultimately, we can't do any more than cite reliable sources. - Hoplon (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

What it said was fine after the edit you made, just seeing as claims have also been made, and denied, that the OSCE sent observers, that the info could be included too, would it be considered relevant to the topic? (with reliable sources of course). I'd say yes but I'm not entirely sure, thought it better to bring up than not. Also, the same person keeps adding the following text (in bold), which is uncited, 'The election was attended by observers from 21 countries who found it legitimate and agreeable to international laws', the source cited does not state that at all, only that observers from 21 countries registered to attend, it says nothing about their decision on the legitimacy of the election, and I don't see how it could, being written 2 days before the election took place. Facemeltaaaaaargh (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Have to disagree with the following line: "The election was attended by observers from 21 countries and was found legitimate and agreeable to international laws.[93]" This is an unconfirmed statement: only an Crimean spokesman said this (see article). The majority of the 15-nations UN Security council (currently China, Russia, USA, UK, France, Argentina, Australia, Chad, Chile, Jordan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Nigeria, Republic of Korea and Rwanda - http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/) have declared the referendum illegal, with Russia using its veto and China abstaining from voting. Also - Ban Ki-Moon is going to Moscow and Kiev to talk about it. With the UN still moving around in the background, it's too early to declare Crimea a part of Russia, since the final word hasn't been said on it. Also, while Russia can veto in the Security Council, in case Ukraine decides to bring it as an case to the General Assemblee the outcome will be unpredictable. (It's possible to do so in case the Security Council cannot settle on agreement - which in this case will be very likely unless Russia decides to change the current circumstances regarding Crimea's status) MicBenSte (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The international community

"condemned and illegal - international community", there are 193 states and only a fraction of the countries condemned the situation and said that the referendum is illegal. Even if the phrase is widely used in the press it doesn't mean that it's right. It's not an established term in this context and should not be used in the article. Only the UN can pass a legally binding resolution according to the international law. --Wrant (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your point that even if widely used by politicians (and cited by the press) there is really no authority that can speak on behalf of "the international community". I would clarify that only the UN Security Council can pass binding resolutions; UN General Assembly resolutions by definition are non-binding. I question this statement "Only the UN can pass a legally binding resolution according to the international law". UN Security Council resolutions are only binding on UN members. They are not binding on non-members nor do they have any special place in international law outside of the UN itself. - Hoplon (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, I agree with you. But wouldn't this mean that the resolutions from the UN security council could even breach the international law? For instance by accepting an intervention?

--Wrant (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)