Talk:Russia

Bordering states

Poland and Lithuania both border Russia. Russia owns an area of land which contains the city Kalingrad between Poland and Lithuania on the Baltic sea coast. The bottom of the article for Russia does not list these countries as bordering states, nor does it mention the Baltic sea.

Viktor Vasnetov

Sorry to interupt, but I couldn't help noticing that the painting of Ivan the Terrible is atributed to Ilya Repin, it is actually a painting made by Viktor Vasnetov

Russian GDP

А на душу населения указать ввп очко играет? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.113.185.7 (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"nominal GDP is recognizable enough term; in 2009 there was recession; the figures of nominal wages growth seem to be perfectly valid - despite internal inflation, that was still huge growth in terms of international capabilities"

If you think nominal GDP is more recognizable then ok, but it really makes no sense to call it that. It's nominal GDP converted at exchange rates.

With regard to the other two changes. The 2010 is the most up to date one. But if you're going to change it back to 2008 you should change the % back to 5%. Also 4% growth in 2010 does not sound like a recession.

But most of all the 80$ and 600$ figures are completely wack. I don't know who the idiot who wrote the story for AP is but they need a remedial course in economics. Yes, between 2000 and 2008 there was a lot of growth. About 70% in terms of per capita income in fact. But not 750%, that is simply ridiculous (actually, even accounting for inflation, which over the period was roughly 100%). 70% growth over 8 years is nothing to sneeze at. Over the same period growth in US for example was something like 10-12%. China during the same period grew by about 75%. A change of 750% implies an annual growth rate of about 28% which has never happened in the history of any country on earth in terms of real income. And the only time it has happened for nominal incomes is in cases of runaway inflation. I would just remove that sentence and replace it with numbers for per capita income from academic sources or from international organizations. Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Just realized that the objection might be to the '11th straight year of growth' (2009 recession interrupted it) rather than 2010 per se. I still think the article would benefit from having up to data info, though yes, it is also worth mentioning that between 2000 and 2008 there were 8 years of growth.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, with all those typical infobox parameters and lists like the List of countries by GDP (nominal) the term seems OK and no need for further specifications.

I've fixed the figure of average growth back to 7%, thanks for reminding me of this.

Since there was recession in 2009 it was incorrect to speak about 11 straight years of growth. Though, perhaps, the sentence could be reworded to reflect more details and more recent data.

If you have better sources for income, please insert them to the article. However, this document from Rosstat shows that the average wage in Russia was 2223,4 roubles in 2000 and 17290,1 roubles in 2008 which is 670% growth in roubles. Given the fact that rouble became stronger to dollar between 2000-2008, I'd expect that 750% growth in dollar value would be normal. Yes, there was inflation etc, but when we are speaking in nominal terms, that seems normal. Also, while there was internal inflation which reduced the real income increase, the possibilities of Russia in imports and in foreign travel grew significantly. GreyHood ^Talk 15:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think adding "converted via market exchange rates" helps to clarify the distinction between what is meant by "nominal" in this context and the PPP approach. But if you think otherwise, that's fine.

The figure actually listed in the source is 5% not 7%.

I'll try to reword it to include both the 8 year streak and the most recent data.

You can get income data from, for example the World Development Indicators [1] (pretty much any international organization numbers are going to be based on these). That's where the 70% I mentioned earlier comes from. You can also get the data on the price level (CPI) and exchange rate there. Between 2000 and 2008 prices increased by about 270%. Exchange rate data indicate that the value of the ruble relative to the dollar went up by about 12% - so yes, it got stronger but nowhere near enough to explain the discrepancy between the 70% increase in incomes and this purported 670% or 750% increase in salaries. At the same time I just don't see what the purpose of including nominal values is in the first place - it just simply doesn't tell you anything about living standards, purchasing power, well functioning or strength of the economy or anything like that. So how about replacing the MSNBC source with actual data from WDI? I can pull the exact numbers but want to know that I'm not going to be wasting my time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What source do you mean exactly lists the figure of 5%? The CIA World Factbook seems to give only the figure for 2008, not an average growth. Can't see where is the original source, but the figure of around 7% must be true. If I remember right, the present growth rate is 4-5% and it is deemed noticeably lower than pre-2008 growth.

As for the nominal without real growth, both figures have some sense, so if you want to add real one no need to remove nominal. GreyHood ^Talk 13:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The source is this [2]. Click under "economy" and look under "

GDP - real growth rate: ". It says 5.2% for 2008 (not 5% actually). 4% IS noticeably lower than 5.2%. One percent point difference is very large in terms of growth rates.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Your recent link lists more up-to-date figures, with 4% growth in 2010. Yes, there was 5.2% growth in 2008, but there was higher average growth as calculated for the entire period of 2000-2008. Perhaps I'll try to find the sources for these figures. GreyHood ^Talk 11:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Here are the data for real GDP growth in Russia from Rossatat. 2000 - 10%, 2001 - 5.1%, 2002 - 4.7%, 2003 - 7.3%, 2004 - 7.2%, 2005 - 6.4%, 2006 - 8.2%, 2007 - 8.5%, 2008 - 5.2%, 2009 - -7.8%, 2010 - 4%. GreyHood ^Talk 12:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see, you're talking about annualized average growth for the whole period 2000-2008. Sorry about the confusion. Yes, using the GDP per capita data from World Bank gives ((14767/8612)^(1/8)-1)=6.97% which is essentially 7%. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I meant annualized average growth. Thanks, your additions are very nice. GreyHood ^Talk 21:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Why including the 2011 GDP forecast when we are still in October and we will not know what will be the GDP for the 4th Quarter of 2011 until March 2012? In my opinon you should wait to March 2011 to include the 2011 GDP for Russia.--83.35.205.55 (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Normanist theory and related issues

I have to revert Alphasinus edits once again. Here are details:

• The nation's history began with that of the Slavs,...

Most Russian history textbooks traditionally start with the coming of East Slavs to the East European plain. Most modern Russians are descendants of East Slavs and share their genetics and speak Russian language, that is East Slavic language. While contributions of other ethnicities to Russia's history, culture genetics etc. are also great, the East Slavic dominance is out of the question, the East Slavic roots of Russian nation are obvious, and it is traditional approach to Russian history. I suppose that Alphasinus wants to connect the start of Russian history with coming of Varangians, but the state and nation are different things, to begin with.

• Founded and ruled by a Varangian (North Germanic) elite...

If I had more time for serious tasks, I'd long ago expanded the article Varangians and related articles with material from Russian wiki, such as from ru:Варяги or ru:Русь (народ), supported by references from quite academic scholars. It is definitely known that Varangians came to Russia from over the Baltic sea and that their culture was predominantly Scandinavian. While it is normal to suppose that initially they were mostly Scandinavians (likely, mostly Swedes due to geographic considerations), the exact ethnic composition of Varangians is unknown. Germans, Baltic Slavs and Finns could also be Varangians since according to one hypothesis the word designated any warriors and traders from the Baltic. While the origins of Varangians are complex and not entirely clear, the origins of Rurik are even more disputed. Finally, already by the time of Christianization of Rus Varangians were very strongly assimilated and integrated into East Slavic society and therefore it is obviously incorrect to say that Kievan Rus' had Varangian or "North Germanic elite" for the most part of its history.

• The name Russia is derived from the Rus, a group of Swedish Varangians (Vikings}

Once again, while it is a strong and widely accepted hypothesis, it is just one of many. There is no place to review all of them in the general article like Russia. GreyHood ^Talk 16:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Answer to Greyhood. Here are details:

• Most Russian history textbooks traditionally start with the coming of East Slavs to the East European plain. Most modern Russians are descendants of East Slavs and share their genetics and speak Russian language, that is East Slavic language. While contributions of other ethnicities to Russia's history, culture genetics etc. are also great, the East Slavic dominance is out of the question, the East Slavic roots of Russian nation are obvious, and it is traditional approach to Russian history. I suppose that Alphasinus wants to connect the start of Russian history with coming of Varangians, but the state and nation are different things, to begin with.

To say that "the nations history begins with the east slavs" is silly sentence, and should be removed alltogether. It's not said in the source either. Like you say, "the state and nation are different things", Russia is a state, the Russians are a nation.

• If I had more time for serious tasks, I'd long ago expanded the article Varangians and related articles with material from Russian wiki, such as from ru:Варяги or ru:Русь (народ), supported by references from quite academic scholars. It is definitely known that Varangians came to Russia from over the Baltic sea and that their culture was predominantly Scandinavian. While it is normal to suppose that initially they were mostly Scandinavians (likely, mostly Swedes due to geographic considerations), the exact ethnic composition of Varangians is unknown. Germans, Baltic Slavs and Finns could also be Varangians since according to one hypothesis the word designated any warriors and traders from the Baltic. While the origins of Varangians are complex and not entirely clear, the origins of Rurik are even more disputed. Finally, already by the time of Christianization of Rus Varangians were very strongly assimilated and integrated into East Slavic society and therefore it is obviously incorrect to say that Kievan Rus' had Varangian or "North Germanic elite" for the most part of its history.

I've never written that Kievan rus ad a "North Germanic elite" for most of it's history, it is true that the rus were assimilated by the slavs later on, but mainstream sources do write that the first leaders were varangians (vikings).

• Once again, while it is a strong and widely accepted hypothesis, it is just one of many. There is no place to review all of them in the general article like Russia.

Mainstream sources write that the word Rus came from the vikings. There are many people why dispute that the Soviets perpetrated the Katyn massacre, and who produce alternative fringe theories to justify their claims, but that shouldnt prevent us from writing that it was indeed Stalin who did it. Alphasinus (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• What do you mean by "silly sentence"? East Slavs, Russians and Russian nation existed before the modern state of Russia. And this is a traditional approach to Russian history which hardly needs a source.

>I've never written that Kievan rus ad a "North Germanic elite" for most of it's history.

• But the sentence could be understood that way.

>Mainstream sources write that the word Rus came from the vikings.

• Than you just haven't read enough sources. Also, you should understand that it is hypothesis, not fact. And this should be reflected. GreyHood ^Talk 15:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I should note that your edits are highly inaccurate and misleading in many ways:

• The territory of Russia was settled before the Indo-Europeans, so why start the account from them?
• Why remove the East Slavs from Russian history completely? Sorry, but this is exactly an alternative fringe approach.
• Why use the misleading term "North-Germanic" at all?
• How exactly Slavs were "ruthlessly exploited"? This is highly dubious POV, unsupported even by the Primary Chronicle.
• As for the "Judeo-Turkic Khazars" - they were not ethnic Jews, they were followers of Judaism. And Slavs paid tribute to them even before Khazars converted to Judaism. GreyHood ^Talk 15:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Most things in 9th century history as hypothesis. All we can do as wikipedians is to cite the professionals.
• As for the "Indo-European" sentence i'm simply citing your source.
• Scandinavians are North Germanic just as Ukrainians are East Slavic. What's misleading?
• The Vikings of Eastern Europe were engaged in slave trade. Ahmad ibn Rustah. The word slave is derived from the Slavs.Etymology of Slave.
• What about fixing the Judeo-Turkic note instead of reverting the whole contribution alltogether? Alphasinus (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• So we should report hypothesis as hypothesis and do it accurately. And we can't go into details of complex questions in the general articles like Russia.
• As for the "Indo-European" sentence, the source also cites East Slavs, and the emergence of East Slavs is obviously much more important in context of Russia than the emergence of Indo-Europeans.
• Misleading is the possible connection to the region of North Germany.
• The etymology of the word "slave" is unrelated to the question - your own source says the word appeared later than the period we discuss. Anyway, the slavery was quite common in Europe at that age. And if some sources, as Ahmad ibn Rustah says Rus exploited Slavs, the other sources, like the Primary Chronicle, often describe them as equal. So there is no need to push one-sided description in a general overview article. GreyHood ^Talk 16:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

IIRC the "slav->slave" connection has much more to do with the Balkans than with Russia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Alphasinus, its nice how you choose three Britannica references to support your inaccurate claims, but not used the Rus (people) article from Britannica which directly states that the origin of Rus is disputed.

Rus, also spelled Ros, ancient people who gave their name to the land of Russia. Their origin and identity are much in dispute. Traditional Western scholars believe them to be Scandinavian Vikings, an offshoot of the Varangians, who moved southward from the Baltic coast and founded the first consolidated state among the eastern Slavs, centring on Kiev. Russian scholars, along with some Westerners, consider the Rus to be a southeastern Slavic tribe that founded a tribal league; the Kievan state, they affirm, was the creation of Slavs and was attacked and held only briefly by Varangians.

Don't know why Britannica uses almost exclusively Normanist view in other articles, perhaps to make the long story short, but the fact that it is just one view is obvious and we can't ignore the Russian point of view in the article about Russia. Britannica is a tertiary source and has its faults. Also, Alphasinus, you have not addressed various inaccuracies and dubious claims I've mentioned here. So please consider your edits once again. Your support of one-sided Normanist approach is incorrect. We should report the primary point of view but pay respect to other notable points of view. GreyHood ^Talk 18:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

russian gdp worldbank

russias gdp in ppp is 2,812,383 dollars according to worldbank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

plz edit it since worldbank data came later it should be the most accurate.--Askosh (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Foreign relations

I am surprised to see that there is no mentioning of Russia-United States relations in the post-Cold War era. Since Barack Obama became president in 2008, both countries have sought to reset relations in a manner of rapproachment. The New START Treaty in 2010 was landmark legislation approved by both countries that reduces their nuclear arsenals. This information is too important not to mention in the foreign relations section of this article. Yoganate79 (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Russkyia

I'm currently beginning my study into the Russian language and have noticed this article uses the feminine form of Russian(the people),Russkyia and not Russkie. Both of the previous sentence are phonetically spelled in English. Is this correct usage in the article? I bring this up only because most other laungages are male Dominate in there nouns, such as Spanish. It would make sense however, because Russia (the country) is usually referred to as mother land. I'm sorry if this topic had already been brout up as I'm on a phone and unable to access the archives. Also. Brought up for proper correction if I'm right. Doubt I am though. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.68.17 (talk) 09:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind pointing out the specific sentences you are asking about? I've done an inline search for "russkaya" (which is a feminine form of the adjective that means "Russian"), and found only "russkaya zemlya" and "russkaya pravda", in neither of which "russkaya" refers to the people, and in both of which the feminine form is used because the nouns "zemlya" and "pravda" are of feminine gender. If these are not the ones you are asking about, I'll need more information, please. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 4, 2011; 14:57 (UTC)

Ivan IV the Terrible

I was very surprised when I found out that some english sources claimed that грозный is translated in Russian as "awesome" or "magnificent". This is absolutly not true. As written in the main article about Ivan IV more acurate translations could be "fearsome", "redoubtable" or "severe". — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiZis (talk • contribs) 03:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "awesome" (awe-inspiring) is in fact pretty synonymous with fearsome (see awe in the dictionary). The confusion arises because young people colloquially use the word to mean "cool." Various sources do indicate "Ivan the Awesome" as a possible translation. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Gini index

Hello everyone! I found out that there is a inconsistency with low/medium/high in the Gini rankings - f.e Russia Gini (2008)42.3[5] (high), Uruguay Gini (2009) 42.4[3] (medium), Nigeria Gini (2003) 43.7 (medium) - shouldn't Russia have ranking "medium"? This low/medium/high isn't very objective because it is hard to say when does low go over to medium and medium over to high. I suppose that "Gini (2008)42.3[5] (83th)" would be more objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siim44 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Fixed as proposed. GreyHood ^Talk 18:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

time zones

Now that we know that President Dimitri Medvedev has an intention to keep his country on summer-time for the entire year, how does that affect our record of time zones in the Russia infobox? Thehistorian10 (talk) 08:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)thehistorian10

Too many links

The "Culture" section has way too many links. I would like to fix it, but I can't edit it for whatever reason. Can someone help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Up Tack (talk • contribs) 03:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You can't edit this page, because it was semi-protected (you are not autoconfirmed). I agree with you, some of the words are too common to link.--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 20:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)}

I delinked a few, like "mushroom". I think the rest is fine. Regards--♫GoP♫_T^C_{N 20:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)}

Length of runways

In the transport section: "The total length of runways in Russia exceeds 600,000 km." Okay, I might be missing something, but that seems absurd on the face of it. If "Russia has 1216 airports" then that means there would be almost 6000 kilometres, on average, of runway for each airport. That can't possibly be right. Perhaps they meant meters? The reference link at the end of the sentence seems to be dead as well.--Slyguy (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)