Talk:Russia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Russia was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Countries (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
WikiProject Russia / Human geography (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the human geography of Russia task force.
 
WikiProject Europe (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Eastern Europe (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a WikiProject related to the nations of Eastern Europe.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Asia (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Caucasia (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caucasia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Caucasia, Caucasian people and Caucasian languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Supplemental
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Toolbox


Russia's population needs to be revised up[edit]

Considering the people of Crimea are all Russian citizens, Russia's population needs to be revised up by 2 million.

162.221.121.79 (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Crimea is not a part of Russia. So it should not be included. --Taivo (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
That's like saying Kosovo is part of Serbia. Pffft. 207.35.219.34 (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Kosovo has a fair amount international recognition as an independent state. Crimea has virtually none as a part of Russia. It's still internationally recognized as Russian-occupied Ukraine. --Taivo (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Let me educate you a bit. Russian Federation is recognized by all UN states so is all the territory that belongs to Russia and defined in Russian constitution. Russian population consist of people that live on the territory defined by Russian laws and constitution and not in some fantasy-Russia that exits in someone delusional mind. --188.187.57.140 (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
If you plan on being obnoxious, at least take a moment to learn some facts. Russia's own Constitution (Article 15), declares the supremacy of the international law over Russia's laws. And from the international law point of view, Crimea is nothing but an occupied part of Ukraine. Of course, no one takes what's written in the Russian Constitution seriously (Russia itself included), hence all the "Crimea is now a part of Russia because we said so and we have guns" circus.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 6, 2015; 17:37 (UTC)
OMG laughed hard. Theres no such international law that says that Crimea is occupied part of Ukraine. Or maybe you could give me a link to this amusing "international law"? You know, articles from Ukrainian propaganda media are not international law, right? ahaha As for Russian constitution, no it does not declare any international law supermacy over anything. It just declares supermacy of international agreements ratified by Russia over federal laws, not over constitution itself obviously. A little bit of education for you also. --188.187.57.140 (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Ezhiki, we're clearly feeding one of putler's hired trolls. --Taivo (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I know; it's a bad habit of mine... And of course, the UN Resolutions (such as Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignity) are also nothing but Ukrainian propaganda... what was I thinking...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 6, 2015; 19:13 (UTC)
Yeah, i already got that you are someone who enjoy to be humilated. Now go google the difference between international law and declarations of random countries--188.187.57.140 (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, Ezhiki, the anon IP has putler's talking points written out for him in advance and he's paid per post. His assignment for today is "Wikipedia" and he's obeying the voice of his master. --Taivo (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
So we have a legitimate discussion here and some users clearly suffering from diarrhea and lack of medication are insulting other people and calling them putler paid trolls just because they have absolutely no arguments to counter their opinions? Arent such users should be banned here?--188.187.57.140 (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Taivo (talk) is an obvious Ukrainian troll. How is he allowed to edit articles on Russia? There are no legitimate reasons not to include Crimean population in the total population of Russia, because these people obviously don't live in Ukraine. They all have Russian passports for goodness' sake!Keverich2 (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Yawn. Crimea is not a part of Russia, it is disputed territory and not recognized as a part of Russia by any other country. We do not adjust population figures based on territory captured during war until that war has been concluded or at least stabilized. Crimea and Donbass are parts of Russia only as a result of a continuing armed conflict that is still actively being fought. --Taivo (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Not recognised as part of Russia by any other country? How is that true? All there's been is a non-binding general assembly resolution (i.e. meaningless) in favour against recognising any change, with 100 nations voting for it, 11 against the resolution and a whopping 58 abstentions. A sizeable number of the Earth's nations have no opinion on the matter whatsoever. Further, the idea that Crimea is part of a continuing armed conflict is patently ridiculous - its re-unification with Russia has been accepted as a fait accompli from the very beginning (i.e. no demands for its return as part of any serious peace settlement by the US, EU, NATO etc). The Donbas conflict is a seperate issue and only Ukrainian nationalists with a tenuous grasp of geopolitical realities think that Crimea is ever returning to their jurisdiction. The issue is quite apparently closed. Beryoza (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
And there you have it: The paid Russian troll network at work. You completely ignore the fact that the longest-imposed European and American sanctions against Russia are based on the Russian invasion of Crimea and only later on the Russian invasion of Donbass. You completely ignore the fact that those sanctions have been renewed and Russia's illegal occupation of Crimea has been specifically mentioned as part of the reason for renewal. Ukraine, at no point, has recognized Russian sovereignty over Crimea, neither has any other country in Europe. It is disputed. Only a Kremlin propagandist would think otherwise. --Taivo (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
"Paid Russian troll"? I'm Australian and have been a wikipedian on and off for almost a decade (as my contribution history should make patently obvious), your going off about 'Russian trolls' just makes you look completely ridiculous and kind of paranoid/crazy. As to your arguments - the sanctions imposed for Crimea had no bite whatsoever. Only the sanctions instituted in the Donbas conflict have had a remotely serious effect on the Russian economy. Or for a dramatic example, France fully intended and committed to completing Russia's order for the Mistral ships *despite* the Crimea annexation. But its good to see you backpedaling - you've gone from 'not recognised as part of Russia by any other country' to 'no other country in Europe' - which is progress, I suppose. Of course Ukraine will never recognise the loss of territory, but lets pretend for example that the entire planet was to recognise Crimea as part of Russia tomorrow (not that it matters to realities on the ground) - would you still say its disputed? Beryoza (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
You keep talking about Russia's invasion of Crimea as if it's nothing to pay any attention to. It doesn't matter whether the "Crimean sanctions" had "bite" or not, they are still there, they have not been lifted. And, yes, Russia's "annexation" of Crimea has been recognized by some banana republic dictators, North Korea, and Syria[1]. Just because countries abstained from the UN vote doesn't mean that they are on-board with the illegal annexation. Your attempts to "normalize" the relationship between Crimea and Russia are stunning. Crimea is "disputed" and should be treated as such in all cases. --Taivo (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how I've done any such thing. I've merely pointed out that its annexation by Russia has been accepted for the irreversible fait accompli it is, hence the fact that sanctions imposed in relation to Crimea have been objectively less serious than those imposed for the Donbas, and entirely unrealistic demands like the return of Crimea to Ukrainian jurisdiction haven't formed part of any demands to see the lifting of said far more serious sanctions. These are simply facts - frankly, your partisan interest in this matter has you throwing punches at ghost arguments - you keep insisting Crimea is 'disputed' as if I've said otherwise. I don't see where I did. What I took issue with was your patently false comment that it is unrecognised by any other country. As to the UN vote - an abstention means - as I said - that "A sizeable number of the Earth's nations have no opinion on the matter whatsoever." Very simple. But there is a serious question to be posed - at what point would you accept Crimea's status as not being disputed? When Ukraine relinquishes its claim, or before? Beryoza (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Since the sanctions against Russia were ramping up as Russia's naked aggression against Ukraine ramped up, of course the first sanctions in relation to Crimea were not as big as the last sanctions. Indeed, specific sanctions against Russians in Crimea have been imposed by the US recently. You suppose that the invasion of Crimea will eventually be accepted by the world and that Russia's theft will be recognized. That's a huge assumption without any basis in fact. --Taivo (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The annexation of Crimea is inherently more aggressive from an international law perspective than Russia's military moves in the Donbas - Russia has permanently carved off part of Ukraine's territory and formally incorporated it into its own by using its own military. In the Donbas it provides military support to a rebellion with the intent of destabilising Ukraine / having it accept internal political arrangements to Russia's liking, with no obvious intent to seize said territory for itself (which it could have done at any time - and still can). The reason the sanctions weren't as big is very simple - Russia's seizure of Crimea has been accepted as a fait accompli by everyone who matters (Ukraine, quite frankly, does not. It is too weak to be a player in this game - it is merely the ball) - no matter how much they loudly denounced it. How else to explain that demands for Russia to return Crimea have not formed part of any serious proposal for the lifting of all sanctions? Because everyone and their mother knows that Crimea is not going anywhere. Beryoza (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that you are reading off the Kremlin's script so accurately. It doesn't matter where I see the words on Facebook or Twitter or here on Wikipedia. The words are quite the same. --Taivo (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I must've missed where the Kremlin's script includes statements like "the annexation of Crimea is ... aggressive" and "[Russia] provides military support to the Donbas". All you're doing is demonstrating your partisanship and inability to think about this matter objectively, so you mirror-image whoever you're talking to as an implacable ideological foe as opposed to someone with a differing view on how to interpret it.Beryoza (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
[2] --Taivo (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Is that meant to be directed at me? If so, why? All I see is a release about the EU extending its utterly irrelevant decision to saction goods from Sevastopol and Crimea etc. Do you think this somehow refutes the point that there is no serious expectation amongst any EU country that Russia needs to return Crimea to Ukraine in order to see the other, far more serious sanctions lifted? Because you know - it does the opposite of that. The Russians could care less. Beryoza (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I personally see no problem in presenting two numbers: excluding and including the disputed territory of Crimea, or have the second number as a footnote. If one number is presented then it should be the number "excluding Crimea" because the annexation is virtually not accepted internationally. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. If Russia + Crimea is listed at all, it should be in a single footnote at most. --Taivo (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

simple and other topic[edit]

taivo and rapper upthere are racist bias it seems , are they rly neutral ?! the question for wiki mods ... 1 crimea now Rusland , 2 more men more weapons, AShM LACM SRBM bombers groundattack fighters SAM (also abm capcts) ships uboote berein vehicles ground radars earlywarning&other like , slcm , coastal def misls cmplx , is exactly a fortress 3 kosovo , i should cite, and many other cases alike , oil gas geostrat wars , topple russia encircling baltik > black sea > transcaucasus > caspium > central asia 'killing ' plans against rusland , and , savchenko is a soldier, paid , ' retriever dog' , uaf bombed common peoples , cities , by pupet gov by nuland nato gladio stay behind etc , delta yats kapitelman turcinov kolomoyski klithcko other , also khodorkovski kasparov (berezovski) have roles , saakashvil grybauskite other warmongers greedy fat bloody butchers humanityless . --Zafer14ur8 (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC) r & s

Is Russia part of Asia?[edit]

I know this question has been discussed earlier. But we are having a problem in the article Comparison of Asian national space programs where Russia has recently been added. I am not quite sure if it's right or wrong. If it's right then a lot of changes will have to be made in the article. For example, these two articles have been written not considering Russia as part of Asia:

Also, After reading this answer at Quora, I believe Russia is not part of Asia. What do you all suggest. Please respond. Thank You. - Jayadevp13 07:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The Politics part needs to be changed. Supreme Court of Arbitration ceased to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.242.101.53 (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is in North Asia, but the proper and less confusing term which might be used is Eurasia. Khestwol (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


Democracy or not?[edit]

Hi, as we all know Russia is not that freedom how it is presented officially and there are books saying Russia is not a democratic country anymore. So I just wanted to suggest that it should be somehow mentioned in infobox and I also wanted to know your opinions on Russian democracy.

Thank you and best regards, Itsyoungrapper (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


Itsyoungrapper,

While Russia does indeed, despite adamantly invoking the pretenses and regalia of a "democratic state," reflect that it has succumbed to the auspices of authoritarian magnates, it is not the objective of the infobox to disseminate opinions on the status of democracy's establishment in Russia - such information would most likely be included in articles on the Putin and Medvedev governments, rather than a portion of the article which seeks to exhibit only vital facts about the nation in question. Consult the page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes for further information, of which will confirm the air of simple presentation intended by infoboxes.

Sincerely, M.A.

Homeric Dithyramb (talk) 05:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


Leading member?[edit]

Guys, please settle the dispute over whether Russia "is one of the 5 members of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), along with Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan" or just the leading member of this Union on a talk page rather than by edit war. When the issue is settled please drop me or any other admin a note and we would unblock the article Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Typo in First Paragraph[edit]

I don't really know if I'm doing this right but at the end of the first paragraph it should read "as of November" not "as at" as the page is uneditable I figured I should bring it up here. KorinVallance (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Valenciano (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
KorinVallance and Valenciano: I'm the one responsible for the translation, and can assure you that 'as at' is the grammatically correct translation for a legal document. 'As at' denotes that it is a snapshot of the population estimate on that date, and does not depict a estimate 'from' or after that date (i.e., it is retrospective, not a projection for after 1 November 2014). Nevertheless, as it is evidently causing confusion for readers unaware of the convention, I have simply translated it as being 'on' for one of the documents cited, plus 'in' for the first paragraph of the lead. As I've read both of the documents, they do not discuss any projected data but draw on statistics from 2013 and 2014. The use of 'as of' is misleading.
Personally, I find the compromise in the first paragraph to be equally as awkward and would have preferred to leave it as was. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

According to the Constitution of Russia, the country is a federation and semi-presidential republic, wherein the President is the head of state[edit]

Is the constitution respected? Was Mr Medvedev the real head as the president? Russian power-switching operation 2008 Xx236 (talk) 06:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Politics of Russia is outdated and has multiple issues, so the link Main article is controversial.Xx236 (talk) 09:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

History[edit]

The History section contains many controversial statements, either Soviet or nationalistic Russian.

The nation's history began[edit]

The history of ethnically non-Russian lands didn't. Russia is now multinational and selecting Russian history/mythology isn't neutral. Russia has Tatar, Ukrainian, Bashkir roots. Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

first constitutionally socialist state[edit]

Who cares about slave socialism?
Also the first state with a concentration camps network.Xx236 (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

initiated a threat of war to the Soviet Union[edit]

There was Poland between Germany and the Soviet Union. The best way to prevent the war with Germany was to preserve Poland.
The extermination of ethnic Poles in the SU known as the Polish Operation of the NKVD (1937–38) didn't prepare anti-Nazi cooperation.
The Katyn massacre proved that the SU wanted to preserve the division of Europe. Xx236 (talk) 10:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Majority of archives captured well beyond publication date and were dead links, or redirects to top level of site. Replaced with correct archives, or marked as Cbignore where appropriate. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

multi-party representative democracy,[edit]

A joke?Xx236 (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC) Russia is a federal presidential republic. The executive power is split between the President and the Prime Minister, but the President is the dominant figure. http://russiapedia.rt.com/basic-facts-about-russia/political-system/ Xx236 (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC) https://www.kuwi.europa-uni.de/de/lehrstuhl/vs/politik3/Dokumente/lehre/Rogozinska_-_Russia_back_to_authoritarianism.pdf Xx236 (talk) 06:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC) http://www.ilaw.cas.cz/tlq/index.php/tlq/article/download/150/138 the Russian Federation is a semi-presidential republic with some special features Xx236 (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

As you're referring to the infobox, please note that the same broad understanding is applied to political systems on all country articles (i.e., Belarus). The infobox depicts general information about the nation-state, not critiques of the system. Any such criticisms are potentially for the body of the article if they're understood to be WP:DUE in the context of a broad scope article per the WP:TITLE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The article says multi-party representative democracy, with the federal government composed of three branches. It's completely wrong:
  • one party dominates politics;
  • the president dominates legislative and judiciary;
  • one person has been ruling Russia since the 2000, even as a PM.Xx236 (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Very reliable source! Yes, the president is very dominant figure especially for RT.com. The Constitution of Russia says "The executive power in Russia shall be exercised by the Government of the Russian Federation" [3], only by the government, not by the president. But in reality... --TarzanASG (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Let's respect the sincerity of the RT.Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
ru:Россия presents two POVs supported with many references:
  • presidential republic
  • Semi-presidential system.Xx236 (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Obviously you're not just discussing the infobox. I think that this discussion belongs on the relevant article's talk page. What is represented here really only acts as a WP:SUMMARY of the main article. Currently, it agrees with it (as it should). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm discussing Politics#Governance which cliams the Separation of powers in Russia. I aggree that this discussion should go to the main article talk, but as far noone cares about the main article, the last comment being Putin/Russia wants Crimea back, March the 7, 2014. Xx236 (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Freedom House, an international organisation funded by the United States, ranks Russia as "not free", citing "carefully engineered elections" and "absence" of debate.[131] Russian authorities dismiss these claims and especially criticise Freedom House. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has called the 2006 Freedom in the World report "prefabricated", stating that the human rights issues have been turned into a political weapon in particular by the United States. The ministry also claims that such organisations as Freedom House and Human Rights Watch use the same scheme of voluntary extrapolation of "isolated facts that of course can be found in any country" into dominant tendencies.[132]

I feel that this phrasing is somewhat biased towards the Russian point of view on this matter. Specifically, the description of Freedom House as "funded by the United States" seems to be a little off-topic, and possibly even violates the neutrality policy. Additionally, the citations given here cannot be considered reliable in my opinion, given that the only two citations are links to news sources controlled by the Russian government. The absence of any citations supporting the Freedom House point of view also tends to support this. GeneralKutuzov (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC) GeneralKutuzov 20 September 2015

Edit request[edit]

The link for Autonomous Oblast goes to a disambiguation page. It should go to Autonomous oblasts of Russia. 155.213.224.59 (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Done.Xx236 (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Economy[edit]

http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/russia/publication/rer Xx236 (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-23/putin-s-miracle-dissolves-as-russian-middle-class-faces-crunch Xx236 (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Nielsen - 104 million middle class. What is the definition? My source gives 40% of the population.Xx236 (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

http://carnegie.ru/publications/?fa=59655 day middle class 20% (plus possible additional 30%). Xx236 (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"Population"[edit]

It's written after the the number of population of the infobox that crimea is not included, I guess it should written about crimean population — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trabant1963 (talkcontribs) 12:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)