Talk:Russia/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Unregistered users disallowed to edit

"Editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled. If you are prevented from editing this article, and you wish to make a change, please discuss changes on the talk page, request unprotection, log in, or create an account."

This message is shown at the bottom of the page, where such users are unlikely to look. Wouldn't it be better to move the message to the top of the page? (Stefan2 19:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC))

Citations

Many citations in the article are quite shaky. Tamokk 06:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific?--Ilya1166 13:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

New religious table should be removed

I strongly disagree with the new table Pakhomovru has created and seems intent on keeping:

Religion in Russian Federation based on 2002 Russian Census and Ethnic Group predominant religion

Religion	Population(2002)	% Population
Christianity	127,888,904	89.72%
Islam	14,340,794	9.85%
Buddhism	1,159,169	0.80%
Judaism	229,938	0.16%
Traditional Beliefs	123,423	0.23%

It is innaccurate and gives the impression that 100% of the country is religious. No other country is organised by religion this way, by categorising every person into their ethnic group predominant religion, and a large proportion of Russians are not religious adherents at all. Just because a particular ethnic group is predominately christian/islamic doesn't mean ALL people of that ethnic group are religious or can be counted as christians/muslims/etc)--Ilya1166 13:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Look the name of the table has "Ethnic Group predominant religion" - predominant not 100%

The way I see it, you're both right:

• It is innaccurate and gives the impression that 100% of the country is religious. Correct on that point; the percentages shouldn't add up to 100%, and it should be sourced (to fix the possible inaccuracy).
• Look the name of the table has "Ethnic Group predominant religion" - predominant not 100% Correct, but also incorrect. You're not naming the ethnic groups, so you can't say that 89.72% of *no* (because it isn't named) ethnic group is Christian.
• categorising every person into their ethnic group predominant religion I don't think that's what he's trying to do; that would be a kind of stereotyping, and not very informative.

I suggest the box be removed, because they are usually frowned upon, for the simple reason that one or two paragraphs would explain much more clearly and effectively (there are exceptions, but this is not one). Hope that helps sort things out. · AndonicO ^Talk 21:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This table is based on the census in 2002 and wikipedia sources for each ethnic group please have a look at the section Religion in Russia, also I think the most natural approach is based on self-identification data and this data is realy the only real source of estimation, I would agree if we could add some comments to this table some thing like "maximum possible" number of adherents and also information about etheist and their % and we could adjust this table if you have some real sources, and also information for each group like "big number of non practising" for Christianity and the Russina Orthodox Church is major part, same for Islam and secular islam and the Sunni is major part, for Juidais we could add also not practising.

Religion in Russian Federation based on 2002 Russian Census and Ethnic Group predominant religion

Religion	Population(2002)	% Population
Christianity	127,888,904	89.72%
Islam	14,340,794	9.85%
Buddhism	1,159,169	0.80%
Judaism	229,938	0.16%
Traditional Beliefs	123,423	0.23%

Christianity in Russia, based on 2002 Russian Census and Ethnic Group predominant religion

Ethnic Group	Population(2002)	% Population	Predominant religion
Russians	115,889,107	79.83%	Christianity
Ukrainians	2,942,961	2.03%	Christianity
Armenians	1,130,491	0.78%	Christianity
Belarusians	807,970	0.56%	Christianity
Germans	597,212	0.41%	Christianity
Ossetians	514,875	0.35%	Christianity
Roma	182,766	0.13%	Christianity
Moldovans	172,330	0.12%	Christianity
Greeks	97,827	0.07%	Christianity
Poles	73,001	0.05%	Christianity
Lithuanians	45,569	0.03%	Christianity
Bulgarians	31,965	0.02%	Christianity
Latvians	28,520	0.02%	Christianity
Chuvashs	1,637,094	1.13%	Christianity
Yakuts	443,852	0.31%	Christianity
Khakas	75,622	0.05%	Christianity
Altay	67,239	0.05%	Christianity
Shors	13,975	0.01%	Christianity
Gagauz	12,210	0.01%	Christianity
Dolgans	7,261	0.01%	Christianity
Georgians	197,934	0.14%	Christianity
Abkhaz	11,366	0.01%	Christianity
Mordvins	843,350	0.58%	Christianity
Udmurts	636,906	0.44%	Christianity
Mari	604,298	0.42%	Christianity
Komi	293,406	0.20%	Christianity
Komi-Permyak	125,235	0.09%	Christianity
Karelians	93,344	0.06%	Christianity
Finns	34,050	0.02%	Christianity
Estonians	28,113	0.02%	Christianity
Veps	8,240	0.01%	Christianity
Sami	1,991	0.00%	Christianity
Izhorians	314	0.00%	Christianity
Nenets	41,302	0.03%	Christianity
Khanty	28,678	0.02%	Christianity
Selkups	4,249	0.00%	Christianity
Yukaghir	1,509	0.00%	Christianity
Assyrians	13,649	0.01%	Christianity
Koreans	148,556	0.10%	Christianity
Negidals	567	0.00%	Christianity
Total	127,888,904	89.72%	Christianity

Islam in Russia, based on 2002 Russian Census and Ethnic Group predominant religion

Ethnic Group	Population(2002)	% Population	Predominant religion
Tajiks	120,136	0.08%	Islam
Tats	2,303	0.00%	Islam
Tatars	5,554,601	3.83%	Islam
Bashkirs	1,673,389	1.15%	Islam
Kazakhs	653,962	0.45%	Islam
Azerbaijani	621,840	0.43%	Islam
Kumyks	422,409	0.29%	Islam
Karachays	192,182	0.13%	Islam
Uzbeks	122,916	0.08%	Islam
Balkars	108426	0.07%	Islam
Turks	95,672	0.06%	Islam
Nogais	90,666	0.06%	Islam
Circassians	60,517	0.04%	Islam
Turkmens	33,053	0.02%	Islam
Kirghiz	31,808	0.02%	Islam
Crimean Tatars	4,131	0.00%	Islam
Chechens	1,360,253	0.94%	Islam
Avars	814,473	0.56%	Islam
Kabardians	519,958	0.36%	Islam
Dargins	510,156	0.35%	Islam
Ingush	413,016	0.28%	Islam
Lezgins	411,535	0.28%	Islam
Laks	156,545	0.11%	Islam
Tabasarans	131,785	0.09%	Islam
Adyghe	128,528	0.09%	Islam
Abazas	37,942	0.03%	Islam
Rutuls	29,929	0.02%	Islam
Aguls	28,297	0.02%	Islam
Tsakhurs	10,366	0.01%	Islam
Total	14,340,794	9.85%	Islam

Buddhism in Russia, based on 2002 Russian Census and Ethnic Group predominant religion

Ethnic Group	Population(2002)	% Population	Predominant religion
Tuvans	243,442	0.17%	Buddhism
Buryats	445,175	0.31%	Buddhism
Kalmyks	173,996	0.12%	Buddhism
Vietnamese	296,556	0.20%	Buddhism
Total	1,159,169	0.80%	Buddhism

Judaism in Russia, based on 2002 Russian Census and Ethnic Group predominant religion

Ethnic Group	Population(2002)	% Population	Predominant religion
Jews	229,938	0.16%	Judaism
Total	229,938	0.16%	Judaism

Traditional beliefs in Russia, based on 2002 Russian Census and Ethnic Group predominant religion

Ethnic Group	Population(2002)	% Population	Predominant religion
Mansi	11,432	0.01%	Traditional Beliefs
Nganasans	834	0.00%	Traditional Beliefs
Enets	237	0.00%	Traditional Beliefs
Evenks	35,527	0.02%	Traditional Beliefs
Evens	19,071	0.01%	Traditional Beliefs
Nanais	12,160	0.01%	Traditional Beliefs
Ulchs	2,913	0.00%	Traditional Beliefs
Udege	1,657	0.00%	Traditional Beliefs
Orochs	686	0.00%	Traditional Beliefs
Oroks	346	0.00%	Traditional Beliefs
Chukchi	15,767	0.01%	Traditional Beliefs
Koryak	8,743	0.01%	Traditional Beliefs
Itelmeni	3,180	0.00%	Traditional Beliefs
Chuvans	1,087	0.00%	Traditional Beliefs
Nivkh	5,162	0.00%	Traditional Beliefs
Eskimo	1,750	0.00%	Traditional Beliefs
Aleut	540	0.00%	Traditional Beliefs
Ket	1,494	0.00%	Traditional Beliefs
Tofalar	837	0.00%	Traditional Beliefs
Total	123,423	0.23%	Traditional Beliefs

I have added a lot of new and more accurate information to the religion taken from the Russian 'Religion in Russia' article, which explains the whole religious/atheist situation and the various religious groups in Russia and numbers of adherents.--Ilya1166 02:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that table he made was good. --LtWinters 15:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Reinserting comment that was accidentally removed:

The problem with the ethnic approach is that it does not take into account religious minorities among the various nationalities. Also, there are historical reasons why among non-local, immigrant minorities these religious minorities may be higher than among the people who stayed in their respective ex-republics, now independent states. So while among "natives" of the Russian Federation the proportion Christianity versus Islam will be more or less correct (the number of Christians among the Tatars is probably offset by the number of Moslims among ethnic Russians, Chuvash and Ossetians), 1) there is an obvious underestimation of the number of Jews and Buddhists, as in the past such groups have Russified more easily than Moslims (so some adherents are classified as ethnic Russians) 2) we do not know the exact number of Protestants, since many of those who identify as Latvians, Estonians, Karelians and even Finns may be Orthodox, but this is certainly more than made up by ethnic Russians converted by modern Protestant "sects" 3) counting all illegal immigrants from Kazakhstan and Kirghizstan to the Russian Federation as Moslims is probably wishful thinking on the part of Islamists, Russian anti-immigration nationalists and Russophobic intelligence services in the West (yes, nice to see them mentioned together) and probably explains why self-identification nets only 6-7 % moslims and the ethnic approach including illegal immigration yields 21%. Interestingly, I fail to see the Koreans, who may be Buddhist in Korea, but are dominantly Protestant in Russia. So, I agree there is a problem with an ethic table. --Paul Pieniezny 12:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Russian Federation not Russia!!!

I insist that whoever made this page changed the header from Russia to Russian Federation, as it is the main article about this country and by the reason of the fact that other countries name are written in full (The United States of America, People's ...of China and so on)--Xatag 19:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Insisting anything will get you nowhere. The first few words in this article state "Russia, or the Russian Federation" and so on. The entire article can not be changed, unless you wish to change every linking article as well. SpigotMap 19:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I can read! The article is named Russia no matter what it says sfter and the country official name is Russian Federation so i wonder who was that genious that made this? I didnt ask to change the entire article...only the NAME! I think its possible...isnt it?:)

If you're talking about the actual name of the article, it's not a simple one click change. All of the articles that link to this article would have to be redirected to the new article. ie, any page that links to "Russia" would have to be changed to "Russian_Federation" SpigotMap 19:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the United States article uses the short, common name of that country. So does United Kingdom and most others. The People's Republic is a special case... --Illythr 21:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

According to Russian constitution, both names - Russia and Russian Federation - are EQUALLY official. The original reason for such a strange article in the constitution was that majority of ethnic Russians preferred historical name "Russia" while representatives of ethnic minorities preferred "Russian Federation".Alexander0807 23:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. [1] Brian Pearson 13:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is article 1 of the Constution of Russian Federation [2]:

Статья 1

1. Российская Федерация - Россия есть демократическое федеративное правовое государство с республиканской формой правления.

2. Наименования Российская Федерация и Россия равнозначны

Article 1 ... Names Russian Federation and Russia are equal.

There is no reason to use longer Russian Federation name instead of Russia. While using longer name is surely gives us problem in the historical sections Alex Bakharev 04:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The The Russian Empire, Russian SFSR, USSR, and Russians articles exists despite also being "Russia". While a Ukrainian could call himself Russian if born before the fall of that empire, if he was born after 1990, he can no longer? Perhaps of more significance, Russia is the continuance of the USSR - as clearly stated in the article - yet this is not merged with the USSR article.--Dwarf Kirlston 12:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

see Russia (disambiguation)--Dwarf Kirlston 17:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. Russian Federation includes ALL the regions of the state including a large number of non-russian regions such as chechnya and others. This does not mean they are not part of the russian federation it simply means these regions have their own laws. We dont redicrect United States to America. russia may be used as a short name but russian federation is the official name o the state because it includes all russian and non-russian regions and if you look at government documents and state courts as well as russian passports russian federation is the accurate name of that country as people from non-russian regions of the state carry the same passports as the people from the russian regions. So russian federation should be the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.113.5 (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Demography graph

I think the graph under 'Demography' showing decline in population should not be used. The y axis is non linear (only shows the 140's) and because it is at too small a resolution to see the numbers this makes it seem that the Russian population has fallen by about 70%, when it's closer to 7% (I'm being rough here). I know this type of graph has its uses, and in this case the full-res version is easier to read than it would be otherwise, but as anyone skimming the article will be attracted most to images, and may not read on or look closely at the full graph, I think this image is easily misleading. -Zepheriah 23:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion vote

Please see the deletion vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Russian Americans. Badagnani 03:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

GAN

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

• 1b:I fixed MoS with a script, there was an error so I manually repaired it.

-Flubeca^Talk 00:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of blog

Does the Discovery Institute endorse Yuri Mamchur's blog? It mentions the blog on their bio on him, but that doesn't neccessarily mean they support him in his endeavour.

If it isn't official, it should probably be removed, per WP:EL. Note, please, that I have no personal interest in what way this goes; I am not attempting to stifle someone, so please keep those comments out. The preceding was not an attack, either; it has been my experience that at least one person will attempt to say that an editor is censoring so-and-so for such-and-such a reason. If you did not plan on doing so, please ignore the disclaimer. Octane ^{[improve me]} 04.09.07 2038 (UTC)

Lack of Democratic Dicsussion

I posted the NPOV because there's almost no dicussion of Putin's oppressive government and its threat to what could be a Russian Democracy. Surely this should be mentioned, even in passing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangalaiii (talk • contribs) 21:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This article lists the facts. 'Putin's oppressive government' and 'threat to Russian democracy'? We can see which way you're biased. Criticism should be left for the Vladimir Putin and Human rights in Russia articles.--Miyokan 21:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This article talks about Russia as a country first of all. If you want to critisize Putin go to the Putin article or whatever. The article lists only fact, you are the one who tries to make it not neutral. This article is not a place for anti-Putin propoganda, just like it's not the place for pro-Putin propoganda (but that it doesn't have). What you try to do is western propoganda, so just for the protocol, let me tell you something. First of all, i (and most Russians) belive that Democracy in Russia ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, because the Democratic Mafia that came instead has nothing to do with Democracy. Second, this is not the article to talk about that. Once this so-called Democracy collapses, then we'll add it. I two don't like Putin. I think he's not fighting illigal immigration like he should, he didn't return free education or healthcare like it was in the Soviet union, he didn't beat corruption, he didn't bring back the Soviet science system (and most Russians think like me!). But it's not the place to talk about that. M.V.E.i. 15:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Russia

Hi, I'm from the Portuguese Wikipedia and I just wanna say that the nominated PM of Russia is Viktor Zubkov. You can confirm on the EuroNews' website Have a nice day/evening.

82.155.223.250 22:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC) PTJoel

Yes, the Duma will consider the candidacy Friday.--Miyokan 22:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

But Fradkov remains as the Acting PM and mustn't be removed. Besides, unless he become the designate, he doesn't belong, countries can put every nominee for their position as even "quasi-official". Therequiembellishere 20:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hhh if Putin brought him, the whole gang (or government, whatever) is going to vote for him. Put him here now and you save someone work for later. M.V.E.i. 20:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That's clearly crystal balling though. Believe me, I know Zubkov is going to end-up PM just like everyone else thinks, but I case it doesn't happen, we can't put false information. Therequiembellishere 20:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wording about space program

Hey all (and mostly Miyokan). The wording which was on the page originally, and which i disagree with, said "The US and Russia are the only nations with advanced space programs". The problem with this wording is the ambiguousness of the word "advanced." In my opinion, countries like, say, canada do NOT have advanced space programs. they have developed things for space, and sent astronauts to space, but it has always been working with the US. China, however, has independently launched a person into space, and JAXA has launched probes etc on its own rockets. That seems quite advanced.

The wording i've suggested is "the US and Russia have long had the most advanced space programs." This wording could even be more absolute by saying they've always had the most advanced programs. They do have the most advanced space programs by far, and that is uncontestable. but they do not, in my opinion, have the 'only' advanced space programs, and I feel the phrasing should be changed slightly to reflect that. SECProto 04:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I think 'advanced' should be relative to the US and Russian space programs. Since their space programs are by far ahead of other countries, only theirs should be deemed 'advanced'. For example, while Japan recently sent a space probe to the moon would be considered 'advanced' if this was the 1950's or 60's (the Soviet Union launched the world's first space probe in 1959), today it would not be considered advanced. Other countries today are only starting to mimick what the Russian and US space programs did 40 years ago.--Miyokan 05:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is it is a major POV, and things here must be Neutral POV. Saying they have the most advanced space programs is somewhat neutral and true, saying they have the ONLY advanced space programs is your opinion. SpigotMap 05:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

NASA itself is starting to repeat what they did 40 years ago :) (referring to their plan to return persons to the moon). I just feel that saying they are the "most advanced space programs" instead of the "only advanced space programs" is just more of a neutral point of view - because the cutoff line for "advanced" could be anywhere. SECProto 05:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.--Miyokan 01:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

minor error

"The country is also benefiting from rising oil prices and has been able to very substantially to reduce its formerly huge foreign debt."

One "to" too much --Arne Heise 09:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sports

It was stated that Russia has won gold at almost all the Olympics and World Championships in regards to Hockey. That statement is incorrect and the Ice Hockey World Cup and the Ice Hockey in the Olympics pages on Wiki will prove that. It could be said that Russia does well at Ice Hockey and is currently tied with Canada for the most gold medals won in the Olympics. Overall Canada has done better in Ice Hockey at either the Olympics or the World Cup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miraboc (talk • contribs) 15:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll change the wording. With regards to your statement about Canada having done better in ice hockey at either the olympics or world championships, that's funny. Canada has been competing ice hockey in the winter olympics since 1920, yet the Soviet Union only started competing in the Winter Olympics in 1956, winning the gold immediately. The Soviet Union (and the Unified Team) won the gold at 8 out of 10 appearances! Yet the Canadian team has only won the gold at 7 of its 21 appearances! And Canada did not win a single gold during the years the Soviets competed! As for the world championships, the Soviets won a medal at every world championships that they competed, while the Canadian team has won a medal at only 72.1% . Between 1954 and 1990 the Canadian team won the world championship 4 times compared to 22 times for the Soviet team.--Miyokan 11:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Distribution of ethnic non-Russians

In Demographics, the article currently reads "Nearly all groups besides Russians live compactly in their respective regions." This is backed by an official Russian government source, which is a problem in itself. Particularly the word "compactly" is doubtful. The distribution of ethnicities does not strictly follow the borders of federal subjects, and there is a Russian majority ([3]) in most of them. See for example here [4]; the color "spills" outside the designated republic quite often. Urbanization also may have changed the situation. What I think was meant that in the Russian mainstream culture, the minorities do not have much visibility, and they are associated only with their native area, not the entire federation. --Vuo 16:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with the source, why would the Russian government lie about that? It says "nearly all groups" not "all groups" and "live in their respective regions" not "live in their respective borders".--Miyokan 00:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Russian government need not to overtly lie about anything. Quite the contrary, the representation "Nearly all groups besides Russians live compactly in their respective regions" appears to be essentially truthful. Yet it is a point of view, even if makes sense and appears consistent in given context. (An analogous but a more obvious example: in the article "United States", there was a statement that literacy is high in the U.S. Even though this is globally speaking true, illiteracy still exists in the U.S., which actually places the U.S. behind most developed countries. See also how methodology can influence a result in Literacy#United States.) So, what I'm actually after is a better wording, an external reference, and clarification of the status of urban dwellers. For example,

"Besides ethnic Russians, the ethnic groups and expression of their culture are associated to specific local regions and the countryside. These regions are larger and more diffuse than the federal subjects. Ethnic Russians maintain a majority in most regions and particularly in urban areas."

The status of urban dwellers need to be clarified. Do they form separate communities in cities ("Chinatowns")? Will they be officially considered "ethnic non-Russian" if they live in a city with ethnic Russian majority? Are non-Russian languages used for interaction with the government or as a language of instruction in schools in the regions? For examples elsewhere: Stockholm (Swedish capital) is the largest Sami concentration (the Sami are from the countryside and do not have their own large cities), but Brussels is actually bilingually French and Flemish (because French-, and Flemish-speaking Belgian culture isn't that different). --Vuo 11:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

1990's economic problems America's fault

Quotes: "In October 1991, as Russia was on the verge of independence, Yeltsin announced that Russia would proceed with radical, market-oriented reform along the lines of "shock therapy", as recommended by the United States and IMF, with disastrous results." and "After the disintegration of the USSR, the Russian economy went through a crisis, far worse than the Great Depression.[53][54] The "shock therapy" recommendations by the US and IMF resulted in the economy being shattered, with tens of millions plunging into poverty and a severe fall in the standard of living, and triggered an explosion in corruption and organised crime." The idea that Russia suffered severe hardship because it was so trusting and followed to the letter some monolithic "recommendation of the United States" is amusing, but not neutral and not supported by the citations (not even the Poultry Farmer's Report).

It also strikes me that parts of the article implicitly gives a lot of credit to Putin for the recent economic growth. While this may be conventional wisdom in Russia for all I know, it is a politicized conclusion, not a neutral fact. It would be the equivalent of saying the economic boom of the 90's in the US can be credited to Bill Clinton, which apparently many republicans don't believe. Looking at Russia, for instance, an observer could easily say that the Russian boom is a result of the market reforms and liberalizations of the 90's, although it hurt at the time. It was after all called 'shock therapy'. Reading the citations, it appears that after a financial crisis in 1998 there has been rapid growth, and Putin was elected in 2000. Perhaps thats what the article should say. Well-supported economic theories have their place, if clearly stated as theory, but baldly imputing the economic growth to Putin without support strikes me as non-neutral.

Prefacing the economic reform section with something like "In December 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed, the Russian economy was in a terrible state. Foreign reserves had been exhausted, impeding the country’s ability to import goods, and economic output had been in decline since the 1970s." (quoting the Encarta citation) might also improve the tone of the article by explaining why the reforms were undertaken. As the article stands, it sounds like they were undertaken as some foolish adventure that ended up destroying Soviet power, rather than as responses to the terrible state of the unsustainable centralized economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.230.234 (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Russia still has a very serious problem. Without a sustainable population, there will be another collapse. The fertility rate is only 1.39. [5] Brian Pearson 13:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Japan, Germany and other countries have exactly the same problem. Do you think they are in for collapse too? Perhaps, both these countries and Russia can simply attract more immigrants, can't they? Total fertility rate (CIA World Factbook 2008 estimates): Japan - 1.22, South Korea - 1.29, Spain & Italy - 1.3, Russia - 1.4 (increasing?), Germany - 1.41, EU - 1.5 68.122.71.201 (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Red Map Picture

Should we really have the map picture as red? Does that not send the wrong signals? Whats wrong with the traditional green wikipedia maps? 89.101.1.206 19:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The red map is used for many countries, and was created by User:Rei-artur. If you check his gallery he has pretty mcuh mapped every country on Earth. A while back there was a debate on whether to have red maps or the green and gray maps. If I remember correctly there was no consensus so everyone decided to use whatever map they felt like. The editors for the European countries started using a map with the EU highlighted, like this one, , while others kept the traditional green map. Still others preferred the red ones. You can change it back to green if you want, though if the "wrong signal" is communism then I believe that is a rather silly argument. --168.156.90.25 19:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ooh...You nearly had me until that last statement. Thanks anyways. 89.101.1.206 01:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong.

"Росси́йская Федера́ция, Rossiyskaya Federatsiya; [rʌˈsʲi.skə.jə fʲɪ.dʲɪˈra.ʦɨ.jə" is wrong. (The IPA used)

Day Watch movie???

You are crazy? To mention this movie like russian cultural heritage??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.117.80.50 (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Existence of parties decided by Kremlin

I just learned that the Kremlin can decide if a party is allowed to exist. Putin can get rid of people who oppose him in this manner. [6] Brian Pearson 13:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, no. The Kremlin can't decide if a party is allowed to exist, that would make it a dictatorship. Parties have to get at least 7 percent of the national vote to gain seats in Parliament, which it looks like only a few parties will achieve.--Miyokan 12:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Then according to the story, it is a defacto dictatorship. Brian Pearson 01:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh ? Russia isn't a dictatorship, frankly unlike in the US (which has only two significant parties who share the power) Russia has more political parties to choose from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.94.30.247 (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL. In the US there are much more parties. Yes, they are not that significant. But in this sense Russia has no significant parties at all. Colchicum 23:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The White House cannot remove parties, much less make rules to ensure that certain parties have to have a certain amount of backing before they can exist. Also, there will never be a "Prime Minister" in the United States who could conceivably be the "real" power behind the president. Brian Pearson 01:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Brian Pearson не живет в России :) Он либо писатель фантаст, либо человек знания о России которого начинаются и заканчиваются американскими СМИ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.238.72.11 (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

“This is the first time in post-Soviet history when only the Kremlin decides who can participate and who can’t,” Mr. Ryzhkov said. “The Kremlin decides which party can exist and which party cannot. For the first time in post-Soviet history, a wide specter of political forces cannot participate in this election. I call it selection before election.”

Mr. Ryzhkov’s party, the Republican Party, one of the oldest in post-Soviet Russia, was disbanded by the government this year after it was accused of not having enough support under the new rules. Mr. Ryzhkov said his party easily met the standard but said officials ignored the evidence in a sham proceeding.

First chosen in 1993, soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Parliament in its early years was a raucous center of power that often challenged the president at the time, Boris N. Yeltsin. In Mr. Putin’s first term, it sometimes retained that role, but Mr. Putin has steadily reined [The Russian Parliament] in, and these days, it is considered little more than a sidekick of the Kremlin.

[...]

Andrew C. Kuchins, [...], said the liberal opposition was vulnerable because its leaders had quarreled and failed to present a united front. He said Mr. Putin seemed to want to establish United Russia as a force that would long dominate Russia, akin to the governing parties in Japan or Mexico in the 20th century.

The New York Times is pretty reputable. However, the New York Times does this kind of thing often enough, it never says anything and rather seems to by quoting someone who does. It's the same thing as their article on WMD's.--Dwarf Kirlston 20:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you say this is fair article: Russian legislative election, 2007 Brian Pearson 03:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

ROC and other orthodox churches in Russia

From my talk page

I am not 100% sure we need to dwell on the complicated question which orthodox churches in Russia are controlled by ROC which churches have only ecumenical connection with ROC, which churches are non-canonical or have ecumenical connection through the other patriarchates maybe better serve in Religion in Russia or Russian Orthodox Church. On the other hand if we can put a short informative description regarding the control of different Orthodox Churches in Russia it might help. On the other hand Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate is not an official name of the church organizations but rather a derogative term. I do not think the edit to Russia telling that there live Moskals and other nationalities would be found helpful. Alex Bakharev 23:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that now the paragraph is linked to the article about that particular church disguised as Russian Orthodoxy in general. It is wrong. I don't care about the exact wording, but it should be corrected. Colchicum 23:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Quoting the very source that was used in reference ([7]) for the sentence you wanted to change: "Many churches and monasteries have been returned to the Church, including the St. Daniel Monastery, the current seat of the Moscow Patriarchate, the spiritual and administrative center of the Russian Orthodox Church." The same source also says "With nearly 5,000 religious associations the Russian Orthodox Church accounts for over a half of the total number registered in Russia." This source treats Russian Orthodox Church and Moscow Patriarchate as synonymous. Enumerating other denominations, the same source mentions the Old Believers, and the Old Believers only (so far for "other Orthodox denominations"). Unless we get verifiable sourced info about the number of churches and adherents the other Patriarchates have, your edit is unacceptable OR. There is the point to consider, that just saying "other Orthodox denominations" may make some people believe that the Kiev Patriarchate is meant here, and not Georgian, Bulgarian, Greek, ... Orthodox. Two points to consider before we start adding info here: the situation is rather difficult to explain (eg where I come from, a "denomination" means that you do not believe the same things) 2) the situation with control, patronage and resort is fluid, can change very fast. That is why such information belongs in its own article: here the maximum we could do is only a brief summary, as keeping information up to date in two places is difficult.--Paul Pieniezny 02:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't mean the Georgian, Greek and Bulgarian churches. I mean Russian Orthodoxy. I mean that Russian Orthodoxy is not restricted to the body of christians united under the Patriarch of Moscow (not even to the Old Believers), regardless of the exact proportions, which are not known for sure, as very few polls draw the relevant distinction (and very few of that people are churched at all; the distinction is clearly inapplicable in this case). It is wrong to consider them all summarily as parishioners of the organization described in Russian Orthodox Church. Details indeed belong to their own article, but here that particular organization shouldn't be disguised as the Russian Orthodoxy.

1) "denomination" means that you do not believe the same things

Yes, exactly, it's not just business, they do not believe the same things (i.e. not all of them are Orthodox at any rate, but it is disputed who are and who are not, and in Wikipedia we are not entitled to decide which church is the true one). Otherwise I wouldn't consider the story problematic. No, the dogmatic disagreements don't change that fast, the issue is not fluid. Colchicum 21:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"Moscow Patriarchate" is not a name of the church and Colchicum must be well aware of that. There is no such organization called "ROC of the MP" either. In fact such naming (or referring to ROC exclusively as just "MP") is derogatory and used by some rival churches.

Colchicum may be objecting to the phrase "Russian Orthodoxy" being linked to just one organization. This is a valid point, but the correct solution would be linking to an article he is welcome to write about the state of affairs within the Russian Orthodoxy rather than invent the terms such as "Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate", like he has done in this strange edit. With the dedicated article lacking, the current solution is better than the introduction of this strange term and that's why I reverted it.

Finally, Colchicum infers from my reverting him that he is being stalked [8] as he has done before [9]. Colchicum really thinks too much of himself claiming that his editing is high enough on my priorities list to follow him around. I explanied that earlier to him once [10] and again [11] and that he responds this style and resorts to such wild accusations right now, is really his problem that he has to learn how to deal with. --Irpen 03:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

POV problems with the history section

From the FAC candidacy page. These are just a sample of the POV problems here. I don't propose to waste my time trying to fix them myself given my past experience on the related History of Russiaarticle but there is no way this should be a GA (let alone an FA):

• Oppose The history section fails NPOV really badly because of similar concerns to those that led to History of Russia losing its FA status. In the light of my experience on the previous article, I doubt whether it would be worth my time trying to make this article more neutral since most of the same problems are all present and correct here too (plus some new ones). Let's just take one example from the current article under discussion: "[Lenin] was very concerned about creating a free universal health care system for all, the rights of women, and teaching all Russian people to read and write". Source? Lenin himself. But that fits with the general "nice Lenin, bad Stalin" tone of the page (a long-exploded myth). No Cheka, no War Communism, all the Bolsheviks' opponents are "anti-socialist monarchist and bourgeois forces" or foreigners (what happened to the Socialist Revolutionaries or the mass of Russian peasants who rebelled against Bolshevik control?). Another underlying canard: this article seems to follow the old Russian nationalist line that Moscow had a manifest destiny to "gather in the Russian lands". The bit about Georgia is laughably distorted (I'm not even sure why it's there in the first place). Russia's role in the Napoleonic Wars begins in 1812 and so on and so on...There's also the same reliance on 19th century Russian sources which is really unacceptable. There's no way you could put this on the front page as an example of our best work.

This isn't a matter of a few cosmetic fixes. The whole thing needs to be overhauled and rethought and valid references to up-to-date scholarly works (preferably in English) provided.--Folantin 09:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have put the POV-section tag on the Soviet Russia section. I think most of concerns can be fixed reasonably quickly Alex Bakharev 10:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Please reinstate the tag where I put it until my concerns are met. The problems run much deeper than the Soviet section. --Folantin 10:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed those concerns I understood and agree. Please reformulate your grievances once more in more comprehencible way. You can even try to fix it yourself. Alex Bakharev 10:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

One major problem I forgot to mention (it's an obvious one) is why this article (which is on Russia) devotes so much space to the history of the Soviet Union. Russia and the USSR are not completely synonymous. The Soviet history section should be cut down accordingly. --Folantin 11:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh and if you can't see the bias in the Soviet history section, I don't know what you're doing editing this. " The Red Army, supplied by Lenin's policy of war communism, triumphed in the Civil War". That's supposed to be an improvement? Hilarious. --Folantin 11:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't be condescending, what do you expect when you are so vague, I thought you were concerned that war communism wasn't mentioned and that was a way of incorporating it into the text. Be more specific - what ABOUT war communism?--Miyokan 11:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't tell me what to do after your xenophobic rants against me. I expect this article to be written by someone who actually knows about Russian history, e.g. someone who's read sources more recent than the 19th century and doesn't rely on musty old Soviet propaganda. For example: War Communism was a disaster which led to the starvation of millions of Russians. --Folantin 11:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please maintain civility. SpigotMap 12:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope this is addressed to Miyokan, given his remarks to me over the past 24 hours. --Folantin 12:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It is addressed to everyone who acts in an uncivil way. If an editor is uncivil to you, that is no excuse to repeat his incivility. Just stay calm, there is no reason to get upset or angry over another editor. SpigotMap 12:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Folantin, your suggestion isn't any better - "War Communism was a disaster which led to the starvation of millions of Russians" - the "disaster" wording does not conform to NPOV as arguably it helped the Bolsheviks to win the war. Some commentators argue that its sole purpose was to win the war, and therefore it wasn't a "disaster" but a success.--Miyokan 12:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Why I'm no longer going to bother even attempting to fix this article any longer: Miyokan's edit summary "Most peasants were pro-Bolshevik". --Folantin 15:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

ER? You do not even bother to fix this article any longer but you keep adding an NPOV flag? And all that because of one sentence that can probably be sourced (but is of course POV, yes, because it does not mention the time at which it is claimed to be so, but we should remember everybody has a POV). This attitude sounds like disruption, particularly since you came here to stop the article from becoming FA. Do I have to quote the Digwuren arbcom decision on Eastern Europe here? Please explain what your purpose is here.--Paul Pieniezny 11:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed I even have to bother explaining. But let's take the blatantly obvious. Miyokan has subsequently added these sentences:

The Bolsheviks introduced free universal health care, education and social-security benefits, as well as the right to work and free housing. Women's rights were greatly increased through new political, civic, economic and family codes aimed to wipe away centuries-old inequalities at one stroke. The new government granted women full right to vote, passed divorce and civil laws that made marriage a voluntary relationship, eliminated the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children, enacted employment rights for women equal to those for men, gave women equal pay and introduced universal paid maternity leave. Adultery, incest and homosexuality were dropped from the criminal code. Anti-semitism and racism were forbidden by law.

He gives this Microsoft Encarta article as his source [12] (he seems heavily dependent on online encyclopaedia and newspaper articles for his knowledge of history). Would any objective observer who compared the Mikoyan's version with the original say that he had represented his source accurately? I think the blatant cherry-picking is obvious for all to see. Another instance I find somewhat troubling. Encarta version: "Lenin’s lieutenant and successor, Joseph Stalin, governed in an increasingly tyrannical manner". Miyokan's version: "After Lenin's death in 1924, a brief power struggle ensued, during which a top communist official, a Georgian named Joseph Stalin, gradually consolidated power, governed in an increasingly tyrannical manner, and assumed dictatorial power by the end of the decade". My version (not referenced to Encarta): "Lenin died in 1924, and after a brief power struggle, he was succeeded by Joseph Stalin". Notice how Miyokan inserts a reference to Stalin's ethnicity. I'm concerned about this because Miyokan clearly has a major problem with Georgians [13]. Yes, Stalin was a Georgian, just as Trotsky was a Jew (compare "Trotsky, a Jew, brutally suppressed the Kronstadt Mutiny"). It's factually accurate but the question is how relevant it is to this article. Miyokan's source, Encarta, is perfectly happy to omit this snippet of information. This is just a sample of the problems here. They lie deeper than just a quick cosmetic fix. --Folantin 11:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the complaints here was that the history of the Soviet Union bit was too much "Soviet", and did not enough cover it from the Russian side. So, your comparison between Stalin and Trotsky, who was a Russian, does not work. Actually, I (temporarily, of course, like everybody else I would never infringe copy right) videotaped History of the Russian Revolution 1905 to 1919 (Arte) in which you can see Petrograders demonstrating in 1917 shouting "Long live Trotsky! Down with the Jew Kerensky!" Funny, but it obviously happened, the Arte programme used it to prove that the events of July were not (or not only) organized by the bolsheviks. Antisemitism drives were more important in Russian politics than this article makes out, so, perhaps they need to be mentioned here (on both sides, the right-wing backlash after the Potemkin Uprising in Odessa 1905 included a genuine pogrom killing at least hundreds of Jews, a fact very often forgotten). Please be careful to use Miyokan's comment there as a proof of his having something against Georgians. He's been remarkably civil, considering that you came here to disturb the nomination. Wikipedia is not a battleground. --Paul Pieniezny 12:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The other issue is this; Encarta and Britannica, along with other most other online encyclopaedias, are tertiary sources which are here being vastly overused. It's secondary sources that should be the main basis for reference, not other general-purpose encyclopaedias. Certainly no article that relies so heavily upon fellow encyclopaedias and newspaper articles, not to mention outdated 19th-century sources, should pass FAC. Moreschi ^Talk 12:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I am starting to see a problem. Sources from the 19th century should not be used. Soviet sources should not be used. Tertiary sources should not be used. I suppose that means only 20th century Western sources should be used? Oh no, wait, you cannot use Vernadsky either, because he was a Russian nationalist, at times even supporting Stalin. WP:POV anyone? --Paul Pieniezny 12:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to comment extensively as I think people can judge the evidence for themselves. Accusing me of cherry picking, that's a laugh coming from Folantin. I have never tried to censor any of the less than stellar moments in Russian history. Folantin's attempts to censor the consolidation of power and increasing tyrannical rule under Stalin [14] [15] fits in with the general theme of his other edits of Bolsheviks were always the 'bad' guys (To counteract the emergency, a reign of terror was begun within Russia as the Red Army and the Cheka (the secret police) tried to destroy all "enemies of the Revolution". - what about the White movement's White terror?), power-hungry ("their grip on power was by no means secure" [16]), opposed by almost all Russians ("...struggle broke out between the new regime and its opponents, who included the Socialist Revolutionaries, right-wing "Whites" and large numbers of peasants."- sounds like the whole country was against them, was there anyone fighting with the Bolsheviks or was it just Lenin?), and all Bolsheviks and Stalin fit in the same category [17]. Here [18] you added the sentence, The Bolsheviks introduced a one-party state under which dissent was ruthlessly suppressed and state control extended over all major industry.- I did not remove this sentence but added some of the others things "the Bolsheviks introduced", such as free health, education, women's rights, other rights. These are undisputed facts, and since Folantin can't object to this information, he is carrying on like a child who doesn't get his way. Clearly the addition of this information makes him uncomfortable, as he would only like to see the Bolsheviks being portrayed as 'bad'. As for Stalin's ethnicity, I was not the one that added that the information that Stalin was Georgian, (and the accusation that I am somehow anti-Georgian is outrageous), that sentence has been there for years and demonstrates an earlier sentence in the article that reads "non-Russians participated in the new government at all levels". As for, apparently, "my" version, "After Lenin's death in 1924, a brief power struggle ensued, during which a top communist official, a Georgian named Joseph Stalin, gradually consolidated power, governed in an increasingly tyrannical manner, and assumed dictatorial power by the end of the decade" - this version was not written by me but has been up for years. And no, my knowledge doesn't merely stem from MSN Encarta, I added that to silence someone that said some of the information "sounded as though it was written by a disappointed revolutionary".--Miyokan 12:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And no, my knowledge doesn't merely stem from MSN Encarta, I added that to silence someone that said some of the information "sounded as though it was written by a disappointed revolutionary. Um, so you didn't actually read the source you used as a reference, which doesn't actually support the things you've added to the article? The whole point of references is that they are supposed to back what the article says. The Encarta article describes the USSR as "the original Communist dictatorship" and refers to "Lenin and his zealots". It also goes on to undercut all the wonderful things the Soviet Union is supposed to have introduced according to your version. (BTW, so you didn't add the sentence about Stalin, but you fought tooth and nail to reinstate it). Incidentally, funnily enough, The Bolsheviks introduced a one-party state under which dissent was ruthlessly suppressed and state control extended over all major industry is backed by the Encarta reference (it's common knowledge anyway). That's what Communist dictatorships do. --Folantin 13:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read the Encarta source and it backs up what the stuff it was supposed to. The Encarta article describes the USSR as "the original Communist dictatorship" - isn't it funny how I was the one who added the sentence, "the Communist regime that they established eventually turned into a bureaucratic dictatorship.". "It also goes on to undercut all the wonderful things the Soviet Union is supposed to have introduced according to your version" - No it does not, show me where it questions the free healthcare, education, social benefits provided, or the women's rights or other rights introduced. "(BTW, so you didn't add the sentence about Stalin, but you fought tooth and nail to reinstate it)" - is that supposed to be an argument? "Incidentally, funnily enough, The Bolsheviks introduced a one-party state under which dissent was ruthlessly suppressed and state control extended over all major industry is backed by the Encarta reference" - No, it doesn't. It says the after the Bolshevik-led October Revolution there was a soviet democracy, but then eventually turned to a communist dictatorship. And no one was questioning that dissent was suppressed and that the state eventually controlled all business, what was the point of that? PS-Note how the source says "people became disillusioned with the Provisional Government".--Miyokan 13:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

First page: "A point of pride was the government’s free provision of health care, education, and social-security benefits. Even here, though, problems of quality, availability, and equity simmered beneath the surface. Hospital treatment may have been without charge, but it was revealed in the 1980s that only every second hospital had an X-ray machine and only 20 percent of rural hospitals and clinics had hot running water. The sick often had to purchase therapy and medication through illegal gratuities. The Soviet elite, by contrast, received superior medical care in secret facilities closed to the masses. Underfunding of welfare programs, growing stress and alcohol consumption, and a worsening of environmental pollution caused a noticeable deterioration in health indicators in the late Soviet era. The infant mortality rate, which had plunged from 80.7 per 1000 live births in 1950 to 22.9 per 1000 in 1971, rose to 27.3 per 1000 in 1980, dropping somewhat to 25.4 per 1000 in 1987. Life expectancy for men, 66 years in the mid-1960s, sagged to 62 years by the early 1980s." --Folantin 13:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What does the quality of the services provided have to do with anything. You were saying that the Bolsheviks didn't introduce free healthcare, education, and social benefits, not the quality of those services - "all the wonderful things the Soviet Union is supposed to have introduced" - They DID introduce all those things.--Miyokan 13:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

People, try to stay civil here. Have some tea. Please, "carrying on like a child who doesn't get his way" and "fought tooth and nail" are contrary to "Wikipedia is not a battleground". Please check the following, for I am sure it applies here as well (even though that link on Russian gas reserves I cited below says "Eurasia"): [19] Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Pieniezny (talk • contribs) 13:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(Continued> Equality of rights - but civil rights were equally worthless: "The initial justification for the abrogation of civil rights was that a brief interlude of dictatorship was a necessary precondition of the socialist paradise ahead. As that paradise receded into the indefinite future, the Soviet leaders felt free in essence to rule as they pleased. Neither the RSFSR constitution of 1918 nor the USSR constitution of 1924 made reference to the dominion of the Communist Party. That veil was removed in the Soviet constitution of 1936, which, while listing all manner of citizens’”rights,” explicitly said the Communist Party was the “leading core” of the state." --Folantin 13:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

How is this relevant to anything we've been talking about, I already know it eventually turned into a one-party state where dissent was suppressed.--Miyokan 14:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

On welfare: "Government-provided social services, such as health care, registered some successes in the USSR; they also suffered from overuse, corruption, and unequal access. Pensions and other income maintenance programs were extremely popular, but the sums provided were often insufficient. Partly in recognition of limitations on its resources, the regime in the 1930s reconsidered its earlier coolness toward the nuclear family and passed laws affirming the importance of marriage and of family responsibility for children and elderly parents. Even after income support was made more generous in the 1950s and 1960s, many Soviet citizens relied on their relatives to give them shelter and financial aid in their old age or at times of illness." --Folantin 13:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, during Stalin's rule many of the women's rights were repudiated. Homsexuality was re-criminalised in Stalin's time also. It does change change the fact that before Stalin, the Bolsheviks greatly increased women's rights and other rights, as the article says.--Miyokan 13:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So where can I find references to all these women's and gay rights in the Encarta article given as a source? --Folantin 14:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not in the Encarta source, you should be able to find it elsewhere easily enough.--Miyokan 14:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You gave that source as a reference for that information. That's a serious violation of basic policy and further confirms my doubts about the usefulness of this whole exercise. You've been caught misrepresenting sources. What would happen if we checked up on all the others? This is totally unacceptable in an ordinary article, let alone an FA. --Folantin 14:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not misrepresent anything. For some reason you assumed that I was talking about the Encarta source when I said "as the article says", even though there is no Encarta source next to that information in this article. When I said, "It does change change the fact that before Stalin, the Bolsheviks greatly increased women's rights and other rights, as the article says", I was referring to THIS article, as in Russia.--Miyokan 14:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Economy

According to the portuguese wikipedia Oil, natural gas, wood, are 80% of the exports? Could I get a source that it isn't? And what was the GDP in 1994?--Dwarf Kirlston 02:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

CIA Factbook - "Oil, natural gas, metals, and timber account for more than 80% of exports". I added it to the economy section.--Miyokan 02:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

from 1973 oil crisis "by 1980 the Soviet Union was the world's largest producer of oil" - I had believed it's oil production was more recent...--Dwarf Kirlston 23:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You are partially right: they were only the largest producer of oil at the end of the eighties. Oil and diamant were used to keep the Soviet Union afloat during the turbulent years of perestroyka (what Putin is supposed to be doing is an old trick). After 1991, production went down again, but from 1997, Russia+Kazakhstan+Azerbaijan again surpassed Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, our Wikipedia articles on oil usually do not even mention the Soveiet Union or Russia. Have a look at this. Only problem there (they mention it themselves, actually): the source they are using for estimated reserves overestimates the reserves in the Middle East, and underestimates reserves elsewhere in the world (perhaps not applicable to Canada, where tar sands are taken into consideration). I am sure reserves in Russia's Arctic are underestimated. But the successor to Putin will have no problem collecting money from energy exports, bacause of the immense gas reserves of Russia. --Paul Pieniezny 13:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. gravmag.com is impressive.

The article currently states that petroleum is a very small part of the economy. My understanding is that the increase in oil prices is the only cause of the upswing of the Economy of the Federatin of Russia.

I am hoping to fix the Economy section's lack of depth somehow. The Economic section as it is calls attention to the level of education which was inherited from the Soviet Union, the oil industry which was inherited from the USSR, the Financial crisis which was because of the USSR economic structure, yet does not say it!

--Keerllston 14:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the increase in oil prices is the only cause of the upswing of the Economy of the Federatin of Russia. - then your understanding is wrong, and you need to do some more research. The economy section is fine, and covers all the necessary bases. While high oil prices and a cheap ruble initially drove GDP growth, this stopped being the case since around 2003. Did you read the economy section?-

"Since 2003, exports of natural resources started decreasing in economic importance as the internal market has strengthened considerably, largely stimulated by intense construction, as well as consumption of increasingly diverse goods and services"

"Oil and gas contribute to 5.7% of GDP and the government predicts this will drop to 3.7% of Russia's GDP by 2011"

"Since 2003, exports of natural resources started decreasing in economic importance as the internal market has strengthened considerably, largely stimulated by intense construction, as well as consumption of increasingly diverse goods and services"

"Growth [in 2006] was driven by non-tradable services and goods for the domestic market, as opposed to oil or mineral extraction and exports"

"Russia's macroeconomic performance in recent years has been impressive. High oil prices and large capital inflows have contributed importantly to this success, but a principal factor has been the combination of strong growth in productivity, real wages, and consumption."

This sentence you wrote - The Economic section as it is calls attention to the level of education which was inherited from the Soviet Union, the oil industry which was inherited from the USSR, the Financial crisis which was because of the USSR economic structure, yet does not say it - this sentence makes no sense, what are you trying to say.--Miyokan 16:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, since I may have started this: I DID write "what Putin is supposed to be doing". There is no doubt that if for a number of years, the massive funds garnered by oil and gas are spent on pensions and wages for state employees, there will be an upsurge in internal domestic growth (Keynes still works here) but the question is whether, in contrast to the perestroyka years, Russian industry will be able to provide the goods that were still deemed luxury in 1999 - but that more and more people now think they should have. If it cannot deliver, the money created which before Putin largely went abroad with the oligarchs, will again go abroad as people will buy eg apartments on the Montenegrin coast to cover the danger of an insufficient pension later, or spent their money buying "luxury goods" produced abroad. Prices for more primary goods will increase, which they are already doing. So, there is a problem in the long run, when Keynes no longer works. Note that one also hopes that there will be other good side-effects of higher wages, like a reduction of corruption (particularly the militsya), better education and people living longer (demographic result). Note that the West's lack of knowledge about Russia is so great that we probably need to mention the simple, but wong idea (Putin uses the oil money to bribe the voters) as well. A nice example of ignorance: an important Belgian newspaper recently claimed that Russia would never let Chechnya go, because it provided 85% of Russia's oil. The newspaper refused to print the Russian embassador's denial. --Paul Pieniezny 17:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I like what you said about Russia not producing "luxury goods." These are the good it would be exporting or substituting as imports, these are the exports other than the 80%? non-commodities?

On the (hopefully) effects of success: Is the corruption in the militsya is significant? education levels are already rather high, how do you mean that they would improve or improve in sectors in which it is lacking?- life expecancy is rather low currently.

The (western) ignorance about Russia? (Do you mean that russians aren't ignorant or that the chinese aren't ignorant?) I think it's rather a kind of anti-totalitarianism, pro-democracy, that plays out rather "double edged". On one hand it's not very democratic, on the other it's not quite a dictatorship. Opposing it like a dictatorship would not make it stop being a dictatorship, and rewarding the democratic elements would not make those stronger. Oh, have there been articles on the idea that Putin bribes voters?

I am not entirely sure what the significance of the Russian ambassador's denial is or would have been. He is not responsible for the direction of Russian politics, nor does he necessarily understand the reasons for policies of the government, he is just a person paid to make russia look good. If the news article criticized his country he would obviously deny it.--Keerllston 22:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Meta-wiki: Thankyou for your comment - no, you didn't start this, this is normal for this article, Miyokan has a problem with anyone who wants to mess up this article (he made most of it, and he's done an impressive job getting it to where it is). I do want to change it- and economy of russia as well.--Keerllston 22:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"The economy section is fine" it's not brilliant, it's not wonderful, just fine. Well... then let's get it better.--Keerllston 22:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Miyokan

Why does this guy seem to control this article? Why is it always his opinion which you all follow? Why don't you just outvote him? If he breaks a rule, then get him kicked. -Bob72943 15:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Very odd comment from a user whose other comments are "hi" on user pages (spam?).

Miyokan controls this article, or in any case seems to, because he is dedicated to this article. He is the one that works hardest on it.

Truth cannot be voted on. Miyokan is not a Troll despite his message on his userpage. His opinion is valuable. Unlike that of a sockpuppet.

Wikipedia is against banning people in general if their contributions are not made in bad faith.--Keerllston 22:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposals for size reduction

As I have proposed to Miyokan himself, I suggest the merger of the "Armed Forces" section into the "Government" section, as well as "Foreign Relations." Most of the FAs I've read here of different countries do not seem to emphasize such sections. I feel that both these sections contain information that is not pertinent to the general description of Russia. I think the "History" section can be reduced in the same way - merge and reduce the first three sections and focus instead on the Imperial, Soviet and modern eras, which is more pertinent to general Russian history. An example is at user:Miyokan/Sandbox (the size there has fallen from 115k to 98k). I also feel that multiple citations should be removed, for the sake of the size. K a r n a (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Section called "Society"

Under it have Demography/Religion/Ethnicities/LAnguages/Health/Culture/Traditions in any way that you please, but I making a section on Society would work well.--Keerllston 15:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is set out how all the other FA articles are. As far as I'm aware, no other country article has a so-called "Society" section.--Miyokan (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Culture Section

Russia's culture is distinct from that of other european countries. It's Culture can be divided into [[russian literature|literature]], [[Russian architecture|architecture]], [[Russian cuisine|cuisine]],[...] [[Russian humor|humor]]

I propose that the culture section should not leave anything out in a manner continued from the above. Comprehensiveness and succinctness can both be achieved.--Keerllston 01:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

A slight POV wording in the culture section

In 1932, Stalin made Socialist Realism the state policy; this stifled creativity but many Soviet films in this style were artistically successful, including Chapaev, The Cranes Are Flying and Ballad of a Soldier.[153]

Any discussion on what is creative and what is not, would have to be POV, IHMO. Some people think that currently Hollywood is not creative, but that is their opinion,and I don't think it should belong in the Hollywood article. Same thing applies to the Soviet movie industry.So I propose to remove that part of the sentence. Any thoughts? PolkovnikKGB (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please remove the following from this article:

Geography: "I AM AWESOME LIKE A POONZAR". History: "I POON NOOBS".

These appear to have been inserted by user "Coldsnort". This user has already been warned for repeated vandalism.

Ramtash (talk) 05:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Reduction in "History" size

I am going to attempt to resolve the size problem here with the "History" section - (1) removing the specifics, deferring them to the respective articles, (2) giving a balanced summary of all the time periods - the Soviet and Imperial eras are of an obnoxious length, while the prior sections seem overemphasized. Please bear with me to examine what I am doing - the size problem is very pressing, as there will be many people unable to load this page because of the 110-115kb size. Shiva_eVolved 14:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Important - the size of the "History" section also diminishes the importance of the other sections, which are equally, if not more important. Shiva_eVolved 14:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Classic example - Napoleon made a major misstep when he declared war on Russia after a dispute with Tsar Alexander I and launched an invasion of Russia in 1812 with 600,000 troops, twice the number of the standing Russian army. The campaign was a catastrophe. Obstinant Russian resistance combined with the bitterly cold Russian winter dealt Napoleon a disastrous defeat, from which more than 95% of his invading force perished.

Is this a neutral analysis? No. Is the analysis of Napoleon's campaign necessary here? No. Leave it to the relevant article - this is a summary of Russia's history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiva Evolved (talk • contribs) 14:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

user:Shiva Evolved asked me to evaluate his recent edits, and I think they're fine, though going edit-by-edit I was a bit worried for a while that Napoleon's invasion was going to go completely unmentioned. Shiva Evolved has fixed that, and it looks like a good start to bring the article size down. Ahead, speaking to everybody interested in contributing to this article, there are one or two politically contentious subjects in modern Russia - gas diplomacy/heavyhandness, depending on your viewpoint, and crime&corruption, are the two that come to mind immediately, and these need to be written carefully as we all strive for a neutral point of view. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Map Language

I would sign in if I could remember my Password but I believe the Map at the Top of the Article should be in English not Russian as it is on the English Wikipedia. 71.176.153.111 (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

size reduction

the size of this article is now 104kbs long and it will surely grow further. The tag is needed to put over there in order to remind editors to improve the article. Coloane (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You must realize, that Wikipedia is not made for the editors, but for the readers. Size is only relevant, as it may slow down the browsers of some viewers (< Internet Explorer 6). Please explain to me, what is sense the in informing readers that article they have already downloaded is over the advised limit, and in the process defacing the article and further increasing the size.

There is no need for haste. Discuss the overall topic structure with other editors. Determine whether the topic should be treated as several shorter articles and, if so, how best to organize them. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage; certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information.

— WP:SIZE

Regards, Bogdan ^що? 03:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure readers can handle more than 3 paragraphs. AllenHansen (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Culture, again

Why world-reknowned only? Seems very arbitrary. Surely it should represent significant figures in Russian culture. It also seems strange not to mention any of the films or filmmakers from the 60s and 70s. I'm not going to insist, as I've really no right to, but do reconsider. AllenHansen (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that you had better vote OPPOSE as this article also ignored many guidelines. This article is currently on FAC page. It seems to me there is no improvement comparing to the last nomination. Coloane (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need here for voting like that. AllenHansen (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I also wonder, why the snobbery against Ilf & Petrov? Is it because of the comedy in their novels? They are highly regarded and beloved in Russia, quoted on a daily basis. There are many phrases and terms which come from their books, such as a funtnik, a dummy-head for for any illegal enterprise, or a hooves-and-horn outfit, that is a straw-company. There are monuments to them and their characters in many cities, such as Odessa, St. Pete, Pyatigorsk, Elista, Vasyuki, to name but a few. The 12 Chairs and The Golden Calf are scathing satires of the NEP Soviet bureaucracy, not just funny books. The mastery with which the scenes depicting Fyodr's failure, and Kisa's madness were written should convince anyone of that. I can almost gaurantee that if you were to go out on any Russian street and asked 20 passers-by to name some great Russian writers of the 20th century, Ilf & Petrov will spring to mind a lot more readily than Pasternak. AllenHansen (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Yesenin not considered one of the greats of the silver age? AllenHansen (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Am I being ignored here? Would Miyokan deign to answer? Why are Ilf & Petrov excluded, yet Olesha (a fine writer, I agree) included? Why is Bulgakov removed? Chekhov, IIRC, is not strictly considered part of the 'golden age'. Seems to me like this is very biased, and not that reflective of Russian culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AllenHansen (talk • contribs) 19:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Российская Федерация = Federation of Russia, NOT "Russian Federation"

Please translate the name accordingly. This is preposterous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.240.200 (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• The translation is correct. Федерация России means Federation of Russia. Российская Федерация means (The) Russian Federation.--GrahamColm^Talk 11:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV in post soviet history section

Article implies that Yeltsin caused economic crisis and collapse, and completely ignores economic collapse during last years of USSR. --Doopdoop (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There was no economic collapse during the last years of the Soviet Union. The economy was stagnant. 99.240.27.210 (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"foreign intervention" vs occupation

Why are you so against including the fact that Moscow was occupied by Poland? This is factual and relevant. Saying this was just "foreign intervention" is the equivelent of saying WWII was a minor skirmish. We have information about the nazi failure to take Moscow, and a picture of napolean retreating, why not have information about the Polish occupation? Seems like removing this because WP:DONTLIKEIT. Please, no 1612 (film) version of history. Ostap 07:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned with adding it strictly in the interests of size. Of course I am not against the publishing of the fact itself, it is part of Russia's history and people can clearly see this fact in the Time of Troubles article. If we start to go into details then we should give a more complete picture of the Time of Troubles rather than just, "during which the Poles occupied Moscow".--Miyokan (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am concused by the size requirements, some articles seem to be much bigger yet other shorter ones are tagged for length. I will not re-add it and start an edit war or whatever, though it is an important incident in the history of Russia and especially in the context of relations with Poles. If you have the time and interest, you can clarify the paragraph on the time of troubles and do whatever you want. Did you see "1612" Miyokan? Not a good film. Ostap 08:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Writers

Zamiatin was not one of the leading writers of the Soviet era. He deifinitely doesn't fit Miyokan's self-imposed criteria "12:15, 10 January 2008 Miyokan (Talk | contribs) (107,421 bytes) (This section is about world-renowned writers and film; Ilf and Petrov are not in the same echelon as these writers;" I am not going to argue who was better, but if Zamiatin, a fairly obscure writer, heads the list, then where is Bulgakov and why can't we accept Ilf and Petrov, as well as Yesenin? AllenHansen (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I was of the impression that I added Bulgakov. Either I forgot to or he was deleted in another edit, nevertheless I added him now. The list of writers are from the source provided [20]. Zamiatin is mentioned on this page [21].--Miyokan (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I had written a substantial reply, but it didn't go through when you edited your comment, so I lost it. Do take a look at these too http://www.pushkinskijdom.ru/Default.aspx?tabid=1258 http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/ent/A0860853.html

What I really want to say is that we need consistency. Either only go with the 2 or 3 household names, or allow those who aren't as well known in the West, but who were very important in Soviet Russia and it's culture. You could say that Ilf & Petrov aren't known in the West, and you'd be right, but that is because when they are translated, about 2/3rds of the humour is lost. To claim that they are not in the same 'echelon' is a bit of a pretentious claim, which is fairly meritless. On purely literary grounds, they blow Solzhenytsin right out of the water. Their books are better crafted, make more and better literary allusions, as well as coining new phrases and terms. Don't get the wrong idea, I'm not denigrating Solzhenytsin's importance, but he wasn't much of a writer. His subject matter is what redeems him. Ilf & Petrov's books satirise many levels of Soviet life, but especially the NEP, bureaucracy, and greed. They don't make you want to shout out in anger aboput Stalins purges and the Gulags, but this is because they were written in the period before those. They probably are even more relevant in today's Russia than Pasternak and Solzhenytsin are. I would also ask that you try to respect the input of other editors a bit more, and post your objections or concerns here first, like others ought to, before you revert. AllenHansen (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Which writers do you suggest be in the lists? I added Ilf and Petrov to the list.--Miyokan (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

detail+many disambig

Some of the titles of the pictures have full stops at the end, others don't.

The following links need disambiguation:
1952 Olympic Games
Alexander III
All the Russias
CIS
Chukotka
Chuvash
Indo-Europeans
Russian Orthodox
Russian Orthodoxy
Vyacheslav Ivanov
Randomblue (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Done.--Miyokan (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Doopdoop's edit

The dynamics of the Soviet economy are too complicated to explain in one or two sentences. Similarly it is not WP:NPOV to characterise the Soviet economy through only its negatives. I'll also note that shortage of groceries was always a problem in the Soviet Union, not just in the final years, and inflation was no where near the level reached in post-Soviet Russia. People give many reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union but economic problems were not the overriding reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union, most people agree the main reason was glasnost. The best decision in the interests of NPOV and size would be to leave the dynamics of the Soviet economy to the Economy of the Soviet Union article.--Miyokan (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the statement is relevant. It did not characterized the whole Soviet Economy but the later-years economy of the SU, I guess late 80ies and the very early 90ies. Indeed removal of the control of money supply (coupled with the limiting of alcohol sales, dropping oil prices, growing obnalichivanie) at the fixed prices led to the empty stores and deficits while at the free prices (after Gaydar's reforms) the same factors led to hyperinflation. I think it is important and relevant Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I agree.--Miyokan (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Abdication of Nicholas sentence

What do you think about changing the sentence:

"The abdication marked the end of imperial rule in Russia, and Nicholas and his family were imprisoned and murdered."

to the following sentence:

"The abdication marked the end of imperial rule in Russia, and Nicholas and his family were imprisoned (they were murdered in 1918).".

I think it would be more proper to indicate 1918 events as such in a section that deals with the pre-1917 period. --Doopdoop (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Shock therapy - Russian Federation

I'm restoring relevant information about the details of economic reform. To Miyokan: Government in a wider sense refers also to central bank. Second source is for 34% figure only. GDP decline in 1990-1991 refers to Soviet period and is irrelevant here. --Doopdoop (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources do not say that the government failure to reduce budget deficit was responsible for the GDP drop and such a view is POV anyway. There are those that argue the reforms didn't go far enough and there are those that say Russia got a dose of "shock" and no "therapy" and that Russia should have undertaken economic reforms in a much more gradual way (Boris Yeltsin said this is one of his last interviews before his death. He said shock therapy was a mistake and that it was ludicrous to switch from a centrally planned economy to a market economy in a couple of years and that it should have been spread over at least 10 years). Your 34% figure is from 1992-1995. The Soviet Union was officially dissolved in 1991, not 1992. And while it was officially dissolved in 1991, the collapse of the Soviet Union is often recognised to be from 1990, which is why the 50% drop is relevant.--Miyokan (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Union was dissolved in December 1991, so full year 1991 is irrelevant. --Doopdoop (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Re budget deficits and GDP. Previous version refered to the "collapse of the economy". Budget deficits were responsible for the collapse of the economy due to their hyperinflationary effects (although some might argue they also had some positive expansionary effects for GDP). I think both deficits and also hyperinflation (which erased savings of the people and they were plunged into poverty) should be mentioned. --Doopdoop (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

more disambig

Russian music and Samara need disambig. Randomblue (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute in History of Russian Federation section

There is a NPOV dispute in History - Russian Federation section (see this diff). There are three disputed issues:

1. Hyperinflation resulted in the loss of personal savings. What caused it? - was it the bad monetary policy or was it the unfreezing of price controls.

2. Shock policy announcement of October 1991 - was it caused by the opinion of the leadership of Russia or was the pressure of the USA and IMF responsible for the announcement.

3. Strong economic performance in 1999-2007 - did the weak currency help it only initially or during the whole period?

Dispute about the first issue:

Arguments for monetary policy. Peer reviewed journal articles support this version. Editor consensus in the hyperinflation article indicates that hyperinflation becomes visible when there is an unchecked increase in the money supply and that price controls alone cannot stop hyperinflation. Recent experience in Zimbabwe also supports this version - price controls that were implemented by the government of Mugabe did not influence hyperinflation at all.

Arguments for unfreezing of price controls. Britannica follows this version (maybe the author of Britannica article did not have a background in economics, maybe unfreezing was a widely publicized event and statistics about the explosion of money supply are harder to find and notice).

Dispute about the second issue:

Arguments for the position "Influence of USA and IMF was not important in 1991". - IMF started activities in Russia in the middle of 1992 only. There are no sources that indicate that opinion of Yeltsin and Gaidar was influenced by the US officials in 1991. To mention IMF in the article is would be the violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight.

Arguments for the position "Recomendations of the USA and IMF caused the October 1991 declaration". - Some people think that IMF are the "bad guys" and so should be mentioned in as many places possible as a warning. There are plenty of sources that indicate advice of IMF and US in 1993 and later (these sources do not prove that without this advice reform would not have happened).

Dispute about the third issue. The source includes Fig. 5 with a chart that indicates the weakness of the currency in 1999-2000 only, and there was a strong appreciation of the ruble afterwards.

Maybe the edit/undo cycle should be stopped, and NPOV dispute tag should be placed on the top of the section until the dispute is resolved on the talk page? --Doopdoop (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The sourced POV must be the one, which shows this article. For exemple this is perfectly correct : "There are no sources that indicate that opinion of Yeltsin and Gaidar was influenced by the US officials in 1991. To mention IMF in the article is would be the violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight." But I'm sure we can find sources saying the opposite and so we could quote the two different POV. Anyway the role of USA and IMF was, in this case, nothing compared to the errors of the governement during the process that transformed the old economy in the current market economy. Mrpouetpouet (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispute is over. Mrpouetpouet (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

See also [22] about IMF's role. --Doopdoop (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

New section

Race/Ethnicity _ Chart In Russia 2005 Russia is a big country and has a lot of difrent races and ethnicitys this is a Chart/Pole of the people in russia. This is a presentage chart/pole, this pole is as acurate since 2005, things may have changed for the past three years.

Caucasian Black/African Asian Hispanic/Latino 8.02% 11.05% 9.09% 0.30%

Middle Eastern Pacific Islander Other (Includes Russian's, Kasakh'Uzbek's) 7.12% 0.31% 64.01%

Red Army soldier with stolen watch.

If you look at the picture of the Red Army soldier hoisting the Soviet flag over the Reichstag you can clearly see that his comrade has a watch on both his wrists. I have seen other versions of this picture which have been doctored to show him with only one watch. Does anyone have further info on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macnos (talk • contribs) 09:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Modified by Staline. Looting didn't match with the picture of Su he wanted to show. Just let the original one.Mrpouetpouet (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not sure whether these were indeed two watches, some have suggested that some military compass or other device was involved. But Stalin did indeed see two watches, and ordered a modification.

In fact, because this version was not published at the time, it is still copyrighted and should in fact not be used. The bad news: because of a new Russian retroactive law on copy right, we will also have to delete the doctored version, see discussion. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Russia is not the same country as the Soviet Union

I think we all agree with that even if some could consider Russia as the "leadership state" of the SU. The main opposite argument is that Russia was recognised as Successor state by United Nation after the collapse of the SU. However Succesor is a international legal word which just indicates that Russia is bounded by the treaties ratified by SU according to the international principle "Pacta sunt servenda" (The treaties must be respected) and NOTHING MORE. For exemple Soviet Union had not the same people that Russia (Russia was only about half of the total population). Stalin himself was Georgian not Russian.

I underline the fact that German and French wikipedias agree with this version;

• http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russie
• http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russland

The Russian version recognise only 862, which isn't difficult to understand. Anyone knows how it is difficult to have a NPOV about his own country.

• http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%8F

That's the reason why I think these dates to be the better for the infobox:

• 862 => 1922 = Russia (kingdom, empire, soviet etc...)
• 1922=> 1991(independance declared/finalised) = Soviet Russia in the Soviet Union
• 1991=> current = Russia again (Russian federation)

This seems perfectly neutral, legally and historically right for me. Any kind of propaganda wich declares that Soviet Union was just a name to design a "modern Russian empire" is clearly opposed to one of the main policy of wikipedia WP:SOAP. Just consider that it's the POV of the Nachis and Zhirinovsky, which don't seem to be very objective sources ^_^.14:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Mrpouetpouet (talk)

You do not know what you are talking about. Russia is not considered the SUCCESSOR to the SU, which implies that it is a different government, it is recognised as continuing the legal personality of the Soviet Union. The international community has recognized Russia as continuing the government of the USSR. This means that, from an international legal point of view, Russia and the Soviet Union - are the same government (as opposed to the notion of a "successor" and, by implication, the replacement of one another State). In this way Russia continued the implementation of all international rights and the implementation of international commitments USSR. Among them are particularly important status as a permanent member of UN Security Council, membership in other international organizations, the rights and obligations under international treaties, assets and liabilities. The infobox simply says when the Russian state was founded, please stop disrupting this article.--Miyokan (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What about the views of the Russian parliament (and the declaration of Russian sovereignty): "Russia Day is a holiday of national unity celebrated in Russia on June 12. On this day, in 1990, Russian parliament formally declared its sovereignty. The holiday changed its name twice. Initially it was named Independence Day then in 1994 was renamed to Day of the adoption of the Declaration of Sovereignty of the Russian Federation and finally on 1 February 2002 was officially renamed to Russia Day (in 1998 Boris Yeltsin offered this name socially). While the holiday has been officially recognized since 1991 when it was established by Boris Yeltsin, 2003 was the first year that it was celebrated in a major way, when promoted by Vladimir Putin." --Doopdoop (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with how it is now, please stop making unilateral changes to a longstanding text, all that is in the infobox is when the Russian state was founded, nothing more. The Russian state changed and was called many different things throughout its history, we are not going to include all of them in the infobox.--Miyokan (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[...]In the latter case all the constituent republics of the former Soviet Union adamantly and unambiguously asserted that the international legal personality of the Soviet Union had been extinguished; indeed, their very assertion of their independence rested on the claim, first articulated in the Minsk declaration of 8 December 1991,27 and subsequently repeated in the first Alma-Ata declaration of 21 December 1991,28 that the Soviet Union, as a subject of international law, had ceased to exist.[..]Apparently, at some point between 21 and 24 December 1991, there developed a recognition of this problem and of the resulting implications for Soviet membership in the UN in general, and in the Security Council in particular. It would seem that this belated realization also prompted the dispatch on 24 December 1991 (some 24 hours before Soviet President Gorbachev's resignation32) of Soviet Ambassador Vorontsov's letter asserting, on behalf of Russian President Yeltsin, that Russia was `continuing' the Soviet membership in the UN.33 This claim of the Russian Federation - made some three days (and possibly sixteen days) after the dissolution of the Soviet Union - that it was `continuing' the legal existence and hence the UN membership of the latter, must thus be considered - irrespective of its obvious political merits - as being seriously flawed from the legal point of view.http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol3/No2/art8-02.html

— European Journal of International law

"SUCCESSOR to the SU, which implies that it is a different government" Sucessor only means that Russia and Su are two different countries, I never heard about an compulsory governement change. We speak about different international personalities not governement. A sucessor state can have the same PM that the extinguished state there is no problem with that.

The words "continuing the legal personality of the USSR" means in fact sucessor. This is about nothing but a sucession of states. Just look at the European Journal of International law : "This claim of the Russian Federation that it was `continuing' the legal existence and hence the UN membership of the latter, must thus be considered as being seriously flawed from the legal point of view." What happened is that the other countries took the Russian declaration as a declaration of sucession which was perfectly legal. However Russia had not to ratify the UN charter again in consideration for its rank (as a nation), as it is normally the case for sucessor states. But these is only some kind of legal details. That's the reason why Russian officials declared the independance and also the reason of this : "Russia Day is a holiday of national unity celebrated in Russia on June 12. On this day, in 1990, Russian parliament formally declared its sovereignty." The russian assertion of continuing the legal personality of the SU was noting but a political action to be sure that Russia will receive the permanent seat at UN security council so the others states such as Georgia couldn't dispute it. Legally this is nothing but a declaration of sucession. This is why the legal personality of the SU extinguished (the 21 december for the 11 Republics of Alma-Ata according to the good faith) the 26 december according to SU (demission of Gorbachev). In conclusion Russia is not the same country than the defunct Soviet Union. However legally this is its "main" sucessor and in consequence Russia received all the international legal rights and obligations among them the seat as permanent member of UN Security Council, membership in other international organizations etc.... The Soviet Union no more exists or we would have an article only for Russia and Soviet Union here on wikipedia. Saying the opposite is just in opposition with WP:HONESTY.

That's the reason why it's so important to have these dates in the infobox:

• 862 => 1922 = Russia as a sovereign state (this is an historical POV not a precise legal one).
• 1922=> 1991(independance declared/finalised) = Russia as part of a state, the Soviet Union
• 1991=> current = Russia as a sovereign state again (Russian federation)

From a historical POV the most important things are the people and the culture. Between 862 and 1922 most of the historians agree that it's the same country. But between 1922 and 1991 there are some major changes. I re-underline the fact that half of the SU population was not Russian. And they were some different culture in the country itself (Turkmens and Ukrainians for exemple).

These dates seems important enough to be added to 862. I really don't see the problem. I don't assert that Russia is a new country which appeared in 1991. I just want to be sure that the reader could see that Russia was part of Soviet Union between 1922 and 1991 as these dates are very important for Russia. That's it.

Mrpouetpouet (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

As I see Miyokan don't want to try reaching a consensus any more and that he wants to show me as a disruptive editor instead of finding something wrong in my arguments. I requested the mediation comitee. Mrpouetpouet (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it would be helpful if Miyokan had discussed issues in the talk page instead of describing you as disruptive. Your interpretation about independence is supported by the fact that there is an official holiday in Russia related to this event, and this holiday was called Independence day before being renamed to Russia day. --Doopdoop (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No one is questioning that Russia became independent from the Soviet Union when it dissolved. It is clearly written in the "Soviet Russia" section - The USSR soon splintered into fifteen independent republics and was officially dissolved in December 1991. . However, placing only the Soviet Union period in the infobox would violate WP:RECENTISM, overwise you would have to put every single Russian state in the infobox and that would be just ridiculous. The Russian state didn't just begin in 1991, which is what the infobox implies.--Miyokan (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok first we now agreed Russia is not the same country than Soviet Union, good.

In the infobox we must write when there is major changes. Russia disappeared as a sovereign state between 1922 and 1991. That's clearly important enough to be placed in the infobox of the article Russia. Four dates are not exessive. I note the fact that it's the solution chosen on Ukraine, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Georgia etc...

"overwise you would have to put every single Russian state in the infobox and that would be just ridiculous" To avoid such edits let's create a consensus on 862, 1922, and 1991. These dates are nothing but very important in Russia history. With only 862 in the infobox it looks like if Russia was a country and a sovereign state between 862 and 2008, which isn't true. The Russian state didn't just begin in 1991, which is what the infobox implies. No the infobox says : founded in 862 by Rurik.

I think you have a very, very large interpretation of WP:RECENTISM because this is an advice for article about very recent thing and does not to concern our case. Anyway : "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.". Mrpouetpouet (talk) 12:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My arguments remain valid, if you include the Soviet era in the infobox you would have to include every single Russian state and that would be unnecessary and excessive.

In the infobox we must write when there is major changes. Russia disappeared as a sovereign state between 1922 and 1991. That's clearly important enough to be placed in the infobox of the article Russia. Four dates are not exessive. I note the fact that it's the solution chosen on Ukraine, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Georgia etc...

None of these are featured articles and are much worse quality than this article, they are not examples to go by.

WP:RECENTISM does not only apply to recent events, that is simply false: Long-term Recentism: Subjects with a long history may be described in purely contemporary terms, even though they were actually more significant in the past than they are now. Even when they are still significant, or have grown in significance, articles can cover the subject as if the most recent events were the defining traits. For large scale topics, such as Slavery, Marriage, or War, a recent time scale can encompass centuries, though the subject matter of the article can have a history of millennia.

There is no problem according to the title of this talk topic, "Russia is not the same country as the Soviet Union" - No where does it say that Russia is the Soviet Union.

This is your only contribution to this article, please help to improve it rather than making a single WP:POINTy edit. --Miyokan (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is a very good one ;) I prefer editing poor articles. I know I'm a bit strange =_=. The reasons I absolutely want to add these in the infobox are;

1) Now it looks like Russia was a sovereign state since 862, which is wrong because it not includes the soviet period. 2) All the other articles about former soviet Republic included 1991 and most of them 1922. Russia was the main part in the SU. It looks very strange for the reader. 3) Nationalist propaganda in Russia (as this political prostitue, to be polite, of Zhirinovsky) often says that SU was just a Russian empire, which is wrong. It really disturbs me to read only 862 in the infobox even if it's not your POV. 4)These dates are very very important for Russia and so for every reader of this article. If someone says that the current Russian state was born in 1991 in an exam .... =_= 5) Building a consensus on these 4 dates avoid futur conflict about putting for exemple 1917 in the infobox. I'm sure we will once have a discussion about that with communist wikipedians ^_^

I really don't know why you absoluetly want only 862 in the infobox. With a consensus about these dates it will be better for anyone. Each one of them is a major legal change of the international personnality of Russia and the date of the foundation is still present with the commentary "founded" just as before ;) If there is something in these dates you really cannot tolerate. No problem we can talk about it . But if you are just affraid of putting 4 instead of 1 date in the infobox just have a look at Lithuania ;) Again, a consensus on the infobox's dates will be better for everyone. The reader, the future editors, Doopdoop, you and me. Mrpouetpouet (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not all of your points are coherent and I can't understand all of your English.

1) Now it looks like Russia was a sovereign state since 862, which is wrong because it not includes the soviet period.

The Russian state today is a continuation of the state that was founded in 862.

2) All the other articles about former soviet Republic included 1991 and most of them 1922. Russia was the main part in the SU. It looks very strange for the reader.

As I said before, none of those are examples to go by. Each Soviet republic different and has a different history. Russia has the unique position of being the leading constitutent and never de facto losing its sovereignty.

3) Nationalist propaganda in Russia (as this political prostitue, to be polite, of Zhirinovsky) often says that SU was just a Russian empire, which is wrong. It really disturbs me to read only 862 in the infobox even if it's not your POV

I will repeat it again, no where does it say that Russia is the SU. Your title of this talk topic, Russia is not the same country as the Soviet Union, shows that you have made it a point to say that "Russia is not the same country as the Soviet Union" and I have pointed out that no where does it say this in the article. This is your only contribution to this article, please help to improve it rather than making a single WP:POINTy edit.--Miyokan (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"Now it looks like Russia was a sovereign state since 862, which is wrong because it not includes the soviet period." I meant that Russia was not a sovereign state between 1922 and 1991. It was just part of SU. "I will repeat it again, no where does it say that Russia is the SU" The current infobox seems very clear for the reader. 862 until present => Russia and we both agree this is wrong. That's why it necessary to add the 1922 and 1991 dates. I made it a WP:POINT because the current infobox with only 862 in it is totally confusing for the reader! I really don't understand why you absolutely don't want to add 1922 and 1991 in the infobox Please just give me a good reason ! You wrote that Russia and SU were legally the same state. Now we both agree that this isn't correct. Then you said that you didn't want to add too many dates in the infobox. I explained that we'll make a consensus about 862, 1922 and 1991, which avoids future conflict on that point. Now you just ask for me to improve the article rather than correcting an unclear infobox... Erf :| Mrpouetpouet (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is over, your points have already been rebutted but I'll repeat it again.

The current infobox seems very clear for the reader. 862 until present => Russia and we both agree this is wrong. - No, we don't both agree this is wrong. The current infobox simply says when the Russian state was founded.

I explained that we'll make a consensus about 862, 1922 and 1991, which avoids future conflict on that point. - There is no concensus for your change of the longstanding text.

Placing only the Soviet Union period in the infobox would violate WP:RECENTISM, overwise you would have to put every single Russian state in the infobox and that would be excessive and ridiculous. The Russian state didn't just begin in 1991, which is what the infobox implies. I will repeat it again, no where does it say that Russia is the SU. Your title of this talk topic, Russia is not the same country as the Soviet Union, shows that you have made it a point to say that "Russia is not the same country as the Soviet Union" and I have pointed out that no where does it say this in the article. This is your only contribution to this article, please help to improve it rather than making a single WP:POINTy edit.

Your most recent edit you changed The Russian Federation was founded following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, but is recognized as the continuing legal personality of the Soviet Union. to The Russian Federation was founded following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, but is recognized as the Soviet Union's successor state. Thus Russia continued the implementation of all international rights and the implementation of international commitments USSR. - again, you show your lack of knowledge on this subject. Russia is not the SU's successor state but recognised as continuing the legal personality of the SU. This is referenced. See reference 89, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office - The Russian Federation (Russia) is recognised in international law as continuing the legal personality of the former Soviet Union (USSR) which was dissolved on 31 December 1991. [23] - showing you do not know what you are talking about.--Miyokan (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just read my full explanation again. The legal term is sucession. "Continuing the legal personality" are just words in a diplomatic note to declare that. These are quote from wikipedia's articles with the definition of internation legal word. They are not perfect according to the international customs (I re-read my doctrine a few days ago) but most of the articles are correct:

Succession may refer to the transfer of rights, obligations, and/or property from a previously well-established prior state (the predecessor state) to the new one (the successor state). Transfer of rights, obligations, and property can include overseas assets (embassies, monetary reserves, museum artifacts), participation in treaties, membership in international organizations, and debts. Often a state chooses piecemeal whether or not it wants to be considered the successor state. A special case arises, however, when the predecessor state was signatory to a human rights treaty, since it would be desirable to hold the successor state accountable to the terms of that treaty, regardless of the successor state's desires. In an attempt to codify the rules of succession of states the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties was drafted in 1978. It entered into force on November 6, 1996. [1] THIS IS MY SOURCE ;) A difficulty arises at the dissolution of a larger territory into a number of independent states. Of course, each of those states will be subject to the international obligations that bound their predecessor. What may become a matter of contention, however, is a situation where one successor state seeks either to continue to be recognised under the same federal name of that of its predecessor or to assume the privileged position in international organisations held by the preceding federation. A difficulty arises at the dissolution of a larger territory into a number of independent states. Of course, each of those states will be subject to the international obligations that bound their predecessor. What may become a matter of contention, however, is a situation where one successor state seeks either to continue to be recognised under the same federal name of that of its predecessor or to assume the privileged position in international organisations held by the preceding federation. International convention since the end of the Cold War has come to distinguish two distinct circumstances where such privileges are sought by such a successor state, in only the first of which may such successor states assume the name or privileged international position of their predecessor. The first set of circumstances arose at the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1991. One of this federation's constituant republics, the Russian Federation was declared the USSR's successor state on the grounds that it contained just under 60 % of the population of the USSR and a larger majority of its territory. In consequence, it acquired the USSR's seat as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. (See Russia's membership in the United Nations.)

— Succession of states

Russia's membership in the United Nations after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, was the succession of the Soviet Union's seat, including its permanent membership on the UN Security Council. The succession was supported by the USSR's former members and was not objected to by the UN membership; Russia accounted for about half the Soviet Union's economy and most of its land mass; in addition, the history of the Soviet Union began in Russia. If there was to be a successor to the Soviet seat on the Security Council among the former Soviet republics, these factors made Russia seem like a logical choice. Nonetheless, due to the rather inflexible wording of the United Nations Charter and its lack of provision for succession, the succession's technical legality has been questioned by some international lawyers.

— Russia and the United Nations

If you are not convinced by these. I suggest you to read article about this subject in http://www.ejil.org and http://www.asil.org/resources/ajil.html. I add part of the Russian declaration of 25.12.1991.

[...]the membership of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the United Nations, including the Security Council and all other organs and organizations of the United Nations system, is being continued by the Russian Federation (RSFSR) with the support of the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States. In this connection, I request that the name 'Russian Federation' should be used in the United Nations in place of the name 'the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics'. The Russian Federation maintains full responsibility for all the rights and obligations of the USSR under the Charter of the United Nations, including the financial obligations. I request that you consider this letter as confirmation of the credentials to represent the Russian Federation in United Nations organs for all the persons currently holding the credentials of representatives of the USSR to the United Nations.

— Ambassador Y. Vorontsov, September 25, 1991

This is very very clearly a declaration of sucession ;) The text of Foreign Office about Russia stating that: Russian Federation (Russia) is recognised in international law as continuing the legal personality of the former Soviet Union (USSR) which was dissolved on 31 December 1991. is a country profile NOT a legal text.

I think that you are perhaps mistaken with the XIX^e century which, I belive but I'm not sure, was about sucession of governements (which is a totally different subject) but this is no more the main signification of the legal words "Sucessor and sucession".

Now, if you have still a good reason to oppose to my edits just add it and I will discuss of them with you but if you reverted my edits without any good reason. I'll resquest the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee as last resort. I'm sorry if my english is poor but I'm used to speak about law in french =:= Mrpouetpouet (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You have to be joking. Both the Succession of states and Russia and the United Nations are Wikipedia articles, they are not sources! Besides the first source being a wikipedia article, giving simply the definition of sucessor state is Wikipedia:Original research, specifically "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" - Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research..

With regards to the third source, it even says the membership of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the United Nations, including the Security Council and all other organs and organizations of the United Nations system, is being continued by the Russian Federation (RSFSR). Please stop deleting sourced text and disrupting this article.--Miyokan (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok I had been patient enough. I quote these wikipedia's articles just to try finding a peaceful consenus. However I gave you sources website. American and European journals of international law. Didn't you look at them. Sorry but I cannot find

• http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol7/No4/art1-04.html#TopOfPage
• http://www.ejil.org/journal/Vol3/No2/art8-02.html#TopOfPage
• http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/3_2_1978.pdf (Most of this convention was considered as international custom law before it entered into force in 1996. Most of the internation community however, still regonise it only as custom law, which is not a problem in our case as the second article widely accepted is very clear)

• (b) “succession of States” means the replacement of one State by another in the responsibility for the

international relations of territory;

• (d) “successor State” means the State which has replaced another State on the occurrence of a

succession of States;

• (g) “notification of succession” means in relation to a multilateral treaty any notification, however

phrased or named, made by a successor State expressing its consent to be considered as bound by the treaty; =>

[...]the membership of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the United Nations, including the Security Council and all other organs and organizations of the United Nations system, is being continued by the Russian Federation (RSFSR) with the support of the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States. In this connection, I request that the name 'Russian Federation' should be used in the United Nations in place of the name 'the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics'. The Russian Federation maintains full responsibility for all the rights and obligations of the USSR under the Charter of the United Nations, including the financial obligations. I request that you consider this letter as confirmation of the credentials to represent the Russian Federation in United Nations organs for all the persons currently holding the credentials of representatives of the USSR to the United Nations.

— Ambassador Y. Vorontsov, September 25, 1991

This is nothing but a general notification of succession.

Russia is a successor state of SU, which continued all its rights and obligations nothing more. There is none international status that is "continuing the legal personnality". It's just a kind of sucession. I concede, my sentence was perhaps not perfectly clear legally. I can add "continuing the legal personnality" to it. But don't say that I'm making a WP:POINT when you getting angry just because of something like that. Successor is the legal word.

However you didn't answer my question about your problem with the dates(862, founded/1922 part of Su/1991 Back as sovereign state). Have you any real wikipedian problem with those ?

Now. I have really a problem with the modifications you made on Russia and the United Nations article. You just accused me of deleting sources : "Please stop deleting sourced", which is wrong. If you had looked to my edits better you would have seen that is just added the template

twice. However you wasn't so neutral as you DELETED all a section which you considered wrong without any discussion on talk, any resquest for source etc... You said it was original reserch. How do you know that ??????? At least ask for source from the editor. Do you think he wrote a full paragraph only with his imagination? This is clearly a violation to WP:SOAP as this is nothing but some kind of propaganda.

Please anwswer my questions about the dates with some good argument (I mean something new). I really cannot do more to reach a consensus. I added "founded" next to 862, I added "continuing the legal personnality..." and so on. I think my edits are really not a betrayal to your POV. If you opposed my edits just because you don't like my name or because you like this article very much just add them yourself I don't care. But be constructive and stop trying to avoid discussion by attacking me please. Uncle Scrooge (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You need SOURCES that say that Russia is the successor state to the Soviet Union, which you still haven't provided. Providing mere definitions of successor state is not valid and is a violation of WP:OR - "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" - Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Please read this. Cite authoritative sources which say Russia is the successor state to the Soviet Union.

[...]the membership of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the United Nations, including the Security Council and all other organs and organizations of the United Nations system, is being continued by the Russian Federation (RSFSR) with the support of the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States. In this connection, I request that the name 'Russian Federation' should be used in the United Nations in place of the name 'the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics'. The Russian Federation maintains full responsibility for all the rights and obligations of the USSR under the Charter of the United Nations, including the financial obligations. I request that you consider this letter as confirmation of the credentials to represent the Russian Federation in United Nations organs for all the persons currently holding the credentials of representatives of the USSR to the United Nations.

No where does it say that Russia is the successor state to the Soviet Union, please stop misrepresenting sources. In fact, it even says is being continued by the Russian Federation.

In fact, if you take a closer look at the source you provided, [24] it says - "The first category consists of the Russian Federation, a State which claims to be the continuation of the former USSR". Even the source you provided says continuation! The second source, [25] is just an essay from a journal challenging the established rule (that Russia is considered the continuation).--Miyokan (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Cite authoritative sources which say Russia is the successor state to the Soviet Union." =============>>>>>>>>>>>

The Attitude of Successor States

USSR

The most complex case of all is that of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. From the point of view of STATE SUCCESSION, the USSR dissolved into four categories of States.

"The first category (of successor states) consists of the Russian Federation, a State which claims to be the continuation of the former USSR. Unlike the similar claim made by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, this claim has been widely accepted by other States. One important reason for this was that the former constituent parts of the USSR have all consented to this proposition, including Russia's continuation of the membership of the USSR in the United Nations and its permanent seat in the Security Council."

"[...]the membership of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the United Nations, including the Security Council and all other organs and organizations of the United Nations system, is being continued by the Russian Federation (RSFSR) with the support of the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States. In this connection, I request that the name 'Russian Federation' should be used in the United Nations in place of the name 'the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics'. The Russian Federation maintains full responsibility for all the rights and obligations of the USSR under the Charter of the United Nations, including the financial obligations. I request that you consider this letter as confirmation of the credentials to represent the Russian Federation in United Nations organs for all the persons currently holding the credentials of representatives of the USSR to the United Nations."

European Journal of International Law

This is nothing but a general notification of succession. I repeat that the status "continuing the legal personality" is not a legal international status. This is only some kind of succession. Russia is a successor of US, which accepted to continue all the rights and obligations of its predecessor state. Just look better at the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties:

• (b) “succession of States” means the replacement of one State by another in the responsibility for the international relations of territory;
• (d) “successor State” means the State which has replaced another State on the occurrence of a succession of States;
• (g) “notification of succession” means in relation to a multilateral treaty any notification, however phrased or named, made by a successor State expressing its consent to be considered as bound by treaties;

As I said there are several definition of the word successor in international context. This is the legal one which is exactly the same as in the texts from EJIL accusing me of WP:OR is totally irrelevant. This is nothing but the legal international definition. I think these sources are relevant, aren't they ?

After the December 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation became its successor state, inheriting its permanent seat on the UN Security Council, as well as the bulk of its foreign assets and debt. By the fall of 1993[...]

— US Departement of State (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3183.htm)

Uncle Scrooge (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You're rehashing the same arguments that I've already debunked. The only valid point there is the last quote, however the Foreign & Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom, which specifically deals with foreign affairs says - The Russian Federation (Russia) is recognised in international law as continuing the legal personality of the former Soviet Union (USSR) which was dissolved on 31 December 1991 - unlike the country profile from the US Department of State, and your sources from the "European Journal of International Law" points out that Russia considers itself as continuating of the legal personality of the Soviet Union. The "European Journal of International Law" source is an essay challenging the established rule (that Russia is recognised in international law as continuing the legal personality of the former Soviet Union). This discussion has gotten completely sidetracked off my point of WP:RECENTISM. Please read WP:Disruptive editing and WP:POINT. Please don't revert it again because it will simply be reverted back to the original text, the onus is on you to gain concensus on talk before controversially, unilaterally changing a longstanding text.--Miyokan (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't followed this discussion, but a quick reading of presented sources and common knowledge says the state of Russia is not the same as the Soviet Union. Russia was no sovereign state but part of an ideological bloc of countries. In Communist ideology there weren't even supposed to be countries at all, only areas administered by Soviet councils. So claiming that the present Russian Federation and its entire government is the same as a seperate Soviet (council) part of a Union of Soviets (councils) is just wrong. Wiki1609 (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Placing only the Soviet Union period in the infobox is completely unnecessary and would violate WP:RECENTISM, it is an attempt by Uncle Scrooge to make a WP:POINT that, as his thread title of this talk topic says, "Russia is not the same country as the Soviet Union", which as I have pointed out, no where does it state this anywhere in the article. The Russian state didn't just begin in 1991, which is what the infobox implies. The infobox now is fine, it simply states when the Russian state was considered to be founded, and is not "confusing", as Uncle Scrooge said, because the detailed history of Russia is written in the "History" section. It would be more "confusing" for readers to simply put "1992: Russia loses sovereignty" "1991: Independence" because Russia de facto never lost its sovereignty, as is explained in the "History" section.

Answer to irrelevant argument - No one is questioning that Russia became independent from the Soviet Union when it dissolved. The point is not whether Russia is a successor state or a continuation. It is clearly written in the "Soviet Russia" section - The USSR soon splintered into fifteen independent republics and was officially dissolved in December 1991. However, it is recognised in international law as continuing the legal personality of the Soviet Union, as both the UK Foreign Ministry source and Russia itself says in the source MrPouetpouet(Uncle Scrooge) provided. Even the Russian wikipedia says this - Russia is not considered the sucessor to the SU, which implies that it is a different government, it is recognised as continuing the legal personality of the Soviet Union. The international community has recognized Russia as continuing the government of the USSR. This means that, from an international legal point of view, Russia and the Soviet Union - are the same government (as opposed to the notion of a "successor" and, by implication, the replacement of one another State). In this way Russia continued the implementation of all international rights and the implementation of international commitments USSR. Among them are particularly important status as a permanent member of UN Security Council, membership in other international organizations, the rights and obligations under international treaties, assets and liabilities.--Miyokan (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I really cannot do anymore. Look at your owns words:

"because Russia de facto never lost its sovereignty" "No one is questioning that Russia became independent from the Soviet Union when it dissolved. The point is not whether Russia is a successor state or a continuation. It is clearly written in the "Soviet Russia" section - The USSR soon splintered into fifteen independent republics and was officially dissolved in December 1991."

Except if you really knows nothing about international law, you just cannot follow good faith. Only an independant state can have the international sovereignty. Russia, as an entity, had no sovereignty between 1922 and 1991. It seems very clear.

"The point is not whether Russia is a successor state or a continuation"

No because Russia is a succesor state which continued the personnality [...]. It's both of these.

Now WP:RECENTISM is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. And concern recent events. The events we are talking about are 20 years old........ Anyway WP:RECENTISM is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it....

You have no source saying that Russia is a contionuation and not a successor state continuing the legal personnality [...]. I modified my edits to be the nearest of your POV. Now I cannot do anything more as you have no source and no argument except accusing me based on advice or opinions texts, which are totally irrelevant in this case. Just look at WP:POINT definition : "Gaming the system means using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith, to deliberately thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship." You are doing that since two weeks quoting severeal WP guideline which are irrelevant in our case just to prevent me finding a peaceful consensus. Two others wikipedians gave their POV, you just ignored them. This is enough. I'll request an exterior help as I cannot do anything to find a consensus anymore.

I may ask for a mediation. However I need your support. Please accept my request. The only other option is the arbitration committee and I don't think it's the better way ;) If you says nothing I have to consider my request as refused. Thank you Uncle Scrooge (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets not get into an edit-war about this, but I also read the recentism article, and it doesn't seem to mean you cannot mention an important period in time from a hundred years ago into an article. I understand it would be weird to state Russia exists only since 1991, but it is equally strange to say Russia has just been Russia since 800 and especially in the 20th century. When comparing articles: Austria seems to exist only since 1955, but previous austrian states are still mentioned. The Germany article considers the Federal Republic of Germany to be something else than the German Empire (and probaby also other than Nazi Greater Germany) while the same Germans may have lived in all three German states. France article states the treaty of Verdun as its foundation but also shows they are at the fifth republic right now. At the very least, regardless of the fact whether the Russian Federation officially/legally/practically took over the parts of Soviet Union or not, it is misleading to not show Russia was part of the USSR from 1922 to 1991. To me there's nothing recent about 1922 so can we add "part of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 1922-1991" to the infobox? About Uncle Scrooge wanting to make a point, Russia is simply not the same country as the Soviet Union, like the Kingdom of England is not the same as England under Cromwell. If the Russian Federation was the same state and a continuation of the Soviet Union (which is impossible) or the Russian SFSR (unlikely as it was a non-sovereign entity comparable to a province, with significantly different state apparatus than the Russian Federation) why does Russia not still have one of these two names? Actually I cannot see what the infobox information by Mrpouetpouet and others adds other than some extra information that's based on truth. Wiki1609 (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Mrpouetpouet and Uncle Scrooge are the same person, he just got a name change.

At the very least, regardless of the fact whether the Russian Federation officially/legally/practically took over the parts of Soviet Union or not, it is misleading to not show Russia was part of the USSR from 1922 to 1991.

I point out again, it is shown clearly in the history section - Following victory in the Civil War, the Russian SFSR together with three other Soviet republics formed the Soviet Union on December 30, 1922; The USSR soon splintered into fifteen independent republics and was officially dissolved in December 1991.--Miyokan (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly important enough to be added to the infobox ;)

I'm asking again ? Do you accept to ask with me for a mediation ? Or have I to resquest unilateraly an arbitration ?

Uncle Scrooge (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Last chance. If you do not agree with my mediation proposal I'll request the Arbitration Committee. I think a three days silence would only signify that you refuse. Uncle Scrooge (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel that mediation would not achieve anything as we would just repeat the same arguments and it would distract me from improving this article (a problem, which of course, you do not have to worry about as this is your only contribution to the article), but if you insist I can repeat the same arguments. While you ask for mediation, you have continued your controversial unilateral reversion of the longstanding text, which does not make me hopeful about mediation.--Miyokan (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"(a problem, which of course, you do not have to worry about as this is your only contribution to the article)". That's exactly what am I trying to do for 2 weeks. Correcting and improving this article so the reader can see that Russia was not sovereign between 862 and 2008, which the current infobox implies. Same for the precision about the international legal status of Russia. However we made a good step ;) Sign here to accept the request. Uncle Scrooge (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I was clearly referring to the fact that this is your only contribution to the article so you do not have to worry about being distracted from improving this article, while I make other edits to this article besides this issue. I do not know whether you did not understand because it was a language problem but if it wasn't such comments makes me question your logic.--Miyokan (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You ask for mediation but you keep reverting the longstanding text before any agreement has been reached, I will not particpate in mediation under such a climate until this belligerent behaviour ceases.--Miyokan (talk) 06:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"I was clearly referring to the fact that this is your only contribution to the article so you do not have to worry about being distracted from improving this article, while I make other edits to this article besides this issue." We don't care about the other edits. There is no problem with them. If I'm distracting you I'm really sorry but editing this article to show truth (for exemple that Russia was not a sovereign state between 1922 and 1991 in the infobox) seems me much more important than taking 5mn of your time each day to revert "some extra information that's based on truth". And don't worry the time spent on this talk page trying to reach a consensus and all the administrative procedures are also really distracting me from editing wikipedia articles and creating templates ;)

The article already shows this "truth", you have no argument - Following victory in the Civil War, the Russian SFSR together with three other Soviet republics formed the Soviet Union on December 30, 1922 The USSR soon splintered into fifteen independent republics and was officially dissolved in December 1991. - your edit is adding no new information, it is unnecessary and creates ambiguity because Russia was de facto still a sovereign state, which is all explained in the history section.--Miyokan (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I put my edits in italic so everyone can see the controversial facts. Including the mediators ;) Uncle Scrooge (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is not WP:SANDBOX, mediators can see the different versions in the history.--Miyokan (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's much more easier in italic. Please assume good faith. You didn't want them in italic because you don't want them in the article during more than one day. But if you want to reach a consensus this is the solution. If you continue refusing the mediation I can only ask for an arbitration =_= Uncle Scrooge (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It's much more easier in italic - spurious justification, there is no concensus for changing the longstanding text and there is no problem with mediators looking at the history diffs. However, I created a sandbox with the same text here so there should be no problem anymore.--Miyokan (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

=_= Please stop making fun of this and sign the mediation act. I'm really tired of this. If oyu don't want a mediation let's request the mediation committee and see what will happen. This is not a problem for me. 3 weeks without any sign of good faith form you, I have been patient enough. Uncle Scrooge (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've watched this go on for the past three weeks, and I must say your patience is amazing. Mediation is the only way to go. I suggest you just stop reverting the article and get help from administrators. Ostap 21:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have pointed out that I created a sandbox with the same text for mediation here, which you said was allegedly for mediators to see the different versions. By reverting again when I have you have proven that you were lying when you said that was your reason for having your version. As I said, controversial change to a longstanding text is only made once concensus reached on talk. I will accept mediation once this behaviour stops, the longstanding text stays until concensus on mediation is reached. In addition, I have added a large part footnote that says exactly what your edits say but in a better and more succinct way, so your version in unnecessary, please take a look at it. Best regards,--Miyokan (talk) 07:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

false information

Russia was not founded in 862. Ostap 01:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

See the footnote.--Miyokan (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Finnish tribes

I am always getting stuck with "assimilating Finnish tribes peacefully" section...interesting, or is it an irony? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.92.83.254 (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be wrong at least on accord of other notes on the histories of nations within these areas. Including repression and attacks, lands were purged from the natives by Russian soldiers. At other times Finno Ugrics joined those Russians considered enemies to defend themselves.

-Finno Ugric —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.35.243.185 (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Chechen-speaking countries or territories

Russia has a sizeble Chechen-speaking population, and it is one of the biggest Chechen-speaking countries. Therefore, given the logic at Talk:Ukraine#category:Russian-speaking_countries_and_territories, it should be in this category. Ostap 19:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a Chechen-speaking country. Chechnya is a Chechen-speaking Republic of the Russian Federation (and the only Chechen-speaking entity in the world, actually lol) --SergeiXXX (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This entry is a bit stale. By following the link provided by Ostap above, you may notice that this section is an attempt at making a WP:POINT against adding the "Russian speaking country" category to the Ukraine article. However, Ostap failed to continue the original quote to the "30% native speakers" part to actually make its logic valid here. Anyhow, since the template is applied only official languages, the whole argument is closed and this section can be deleted (or archived). --Illythr (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver Island??

The map of Russian Land and thier Sphere of Influence says that the Russians owned Vancouver Island in 1866... Anyone have any information on this. Because the British got the land in the 1840s?

TheArtOfTheWarrior (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably was back when we also owned Alaska... --SergeiXXX (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Counter Clockwise?

It is a semi-presidential republic comprising 83 federal subjects. Russia shares land borders with the following countries (counter-clockwise from northwest to southeast): Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania (Kaliningrad Oblast), Poland (Kaliningrad Oblast), Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia and North Korea

Why does this article use the term counter-clockwise, when the term anti-clockwise is the preferred term for the majority of the world? This use of the term only serves to add to the North American bent that Wikipedia is already suffering from.121.210.30.69 (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:ENGVAR.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Change Government Info

Putin is no long the President of Russia, as is listed in the facts section on the right hand side of the article.

Fiveshooter01 (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

He'll remain in office till May. --Illythr (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Two different claims from the same source

In the demographics section, it says:

"In 2007, the population shrank by 237,800 people, or by 0.17% (in 2006 - by 532,600 people, or by 0.37%)."

Then further down, "In 2007, the federal statistics agency reported that Russia's population naturally shrunk (births minus deaths) by 477,700.[122] This is down from 687,100 in 2006."

Which is it? Krawndawg (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The first figure is how much the population of Russia fell by in 2007 (it includes migration, some 200 thousand odd migrants from CIS states entered Russia in 2007), while the second figure is births minus deaths in Russia (ie if no migrants arrived in Russia in 2007, this is how much the population would have fallen by).--Miyokan (talk) 07:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahh I see, my mistake. Krawndawg (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

why do not give good infor mation

why dont u give goood info i know you want to you know share but share more give us places where we can just can go and dont have to worry adout if we are getting the write kind of info thankyou and please try

Soviet part in "History" section

First of all, the article is horribly wrong which is the main obstacle here to promote it into FA status. The image of Lenin and Gagarin are unnecessary. I agree they are historically significant persons, but in this article, i.e. a country page, if we include every single image of all notable persons... no.

• "The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk concluded hostilities with the Central Powers in World War I." -- I have added a reference for this fact. The reference clarify the fact that this treaty "concluded hostilities with the Central Powers".
• "The Bolsheviks introduced free universal health care" -- this is not elementary fact and reference has been given.
• "The Bolsheviks introduced education" -- another fact for which reference has been given.
• The entire sub-section need two paragraphs -- one for Lenin and Stalin, other for post-Stalin. We need to mention only the historically significant fact as concisely as possible. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The merits of including Lenin and Gagarin are obvious, no one is suggesting that we include images of all notable persons, nor has anyone attempted to do this. Thousands of possibilities for image selection on every country article, this is a good selection and has been longstanding.

Dividing the Soviet section into "rulers" is unnecessary and does conform to the rest of the history section.

Read the topic I created below with regards to excessive referencing.--Miyokan (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How you think this article will be promoted to FA status with all those images? How to reduce article size? Only the history section has more than 10 images. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

One image is enough for every subsection in the "History" section. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Excessive referencing

Per well-established Wikipedia policy, inline citations are required for direct quotations or for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Please be aware that the notion that every paragraph in every Wikipedia article requires an inline citation or more just for the sake of appearances is based neither in policy nor in common sense. Please familiarize yourself with our policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability.--Miyokan (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is true that references are needed for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. There are some material which cannot be challenged, but there is nothing wrong to provide reference for some of these facts. I am just adding a reference for the fact that "Treaty of Brest-Litovsk ended the hostilities". This is not elementary fact. How is this over-referencing? These references will be helpful for promoting the article into FA status. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"Adding more references doesn't hurt" - Please be aware that the notion that every paragraph in every Wikipedia article requires an inline citation or more just for the sake of appearances is based neither in policy nor in common sense. The Treaty of Best-Litovsk is linked to its own article, users can click on the link and find out about it, and no one will or has challenged it when it has an article dedicated to it.--Miyokan (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Since when does [rəˈsʲijə] sound like the English pronunciation of "Rossiya"? Unstressed "o" becames closer to an "ah" sound in modern Russian pronunciation, just check the sound file (e.g. "Talstoy", "Garbatchyof"). Rsazevedo ^msg 14:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

it's pronounced "RUHSEEYA". Unstressed "o" can sound different depending on where it is in a word, ie. "МОЛОКО" = "MUHLAHKO". Regardless, I don't think that matters anyways. There are set rules for translations, and I believe "Rossiya" is correct according to those rules. Krawndawg (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And where could I find these "set rules" for Russian? Rsazevedo ^msg 15:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Here. I think you should probably revert your changes for the moment since you seem unaware of them. Krawndawg (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Even wikipedia has a Rossiya page. I'm pretty positive that it's the correct translation. "Rassiya" comes up with next to zero results in youtube, google, wikipedia etc.. Krawndawg (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Krawndawg, I knew that page but I did not know they were "set rules" for the Wikipedia. Since I'm outnumbered I'll revert my change, adding, however, that I don't see much point a "transliteration" that's different from the actual pronunciation of the word. Rsazevedo ^msg 17:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It just makes more sense to do it this way, because there are many different accents in any language. There are still places in Russia where it is pronounced Rossiya, and this was probably the original pronounciation. See: Okanye Esn (talk) 05:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute in History of Russian Federation section 2

There is a NPOV dispute in History - Russian Federation section about the shock policy announcement of October 1991 - was it caused by the opinion of the leadership of Russia or was the pressure of the USA and IMF responsible for the announcement.

Arguments for the position "Recomendations of the USA and IMF caused the October 1991 declaration". - Some people think that IMF are the "bad guys" and so should be mentioned in as many places possible as a warning. There are plenty of sources that indicate advice of IMF and US in 1993 and later (these sources do not prove that without this advice reform would not have happened).

Arguments for the position "Influence of USA and IMF was not important in 1991". - IMF started activities in Russia in the middle of 1992 only. There are no sources that indicate that opinion of Yeltsin and Gaidar was influenced by the US officials in 1991. To mention IMF in the article is would be the violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight.

This [26] source indicates that there are two viewpoints - one held by Russian public, and another viewpoint is held by IMF itself. We should represent both or remove both. --Doopdoop (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you'd have to be pretty crazy to think that the US and the west didn't greatly influence their rapid change to capitalism. It doesn't matter if they caused the reforms, because that's not the claim being made in the article. As long as you mention that they influenced the reforms (with recommendations as the article said), with sourced facts to back the claim up, There's absolutely no legit reason to exclude it.

Whether or not the IMF denies it is of no importance, of course they'll deny having anything to do with helping a country collapse. Just use common sense. Krawndawg (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is your opinion, and there is IMF's opinion. We should either have them both or remove both. --Doopdoop (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That link you posted doesn't deny their involvement in economic reforms, and in fact confirms that it did give advice and recommendations, exactly as was suggested in this article. It could even be used as a source for the claim. Further, removing content because it's "pov" is against policy. although it's not POV to begin with, since they don't deny their recommendations like you're suggesting they did. Krawndawg (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE can be a reason to delete. IMF source says IMF involvement is exagagerated and thus supports WP:UNDUE. --Doopdoop (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

So what if they say its exaggerated, their involvement isn't exaggerated in the article by merely mentioning its existence, which is factual and not disputed. Krawndawg (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is exaggerated, because only IMF and USA are mentioned as influencing the decision, thus violating WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. --Doopdoop (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of Russians and many others believe that western intervention had great influence, therefor it's totally justified in mentioning in the article.UNDUE has nothing to do with this, the view is wide-spread, by no means is it a fringe theory. Krawndawg (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This source [27] says "In short, the West did almost nothing to affect the outcomes for democracy and market reforms in Russia, despite all the high-minded rhetoric to the contrary." --Doopdoop (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Krawndawg, that link you posted doesn't deny their involvement and it confirms that these gave advice and recommendations, exactly as this article says.--Miyokan (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Link says involvement is unimportant in the context of Russian history and so should not be mentioned in this article. --Doopdoop (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That is their claim, of course they'll deny having anything to do with helping a country collapse. Of course it is important because as Krawndawg pointed out, it is widely believed that western intevention had great influence, even they admit this.--Miyokan (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Doopdoop is right with respect to WP:NPOV policy; he also justified his opinion by sources per WP:Source, unlike others. We should not promote Russian propaganda however widespread in Russia it might be.Biophys (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No justification to remove the text, no matter how much you want to argue. Facts speak for themselves. Fact: IMF made recommendations. Fact: Russia took that advice. End of discussion. Krawndawg (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Doopdoop explained very clearly what is the problem in the beginning of this discussion. It is not the facts, but the way the facts have been described to suggest that USA and IMF are guilty of Russian troubles. But only Russian leadership was completely responsible for all decisions, not USA or IMF.Biophys (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No justification to remove the text, no matter how much you want to argue. Facts speak for themselves. Fact: IMF made recommendations. Fact: Russia took that advice. End of discussion. Sbw01f (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So, you just repeated word to word the arguments by Krawndawg. This is a classical example of Ad nauseam. Biophys (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The information is well-sourced and pertinent. That link you posted doesn't deny their involvement and it confirms that these gave advice and recommendations, exactly as this article says. Please don't delete it just because you don't like it.--Miyokan (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed doopdoop I must say that your removal of sourced information is rather disruptive and unhelpful. There is nothing POV about saying the IMF made recommendations; that is a fact that even the IMF confirms themselves. Whether or not it had an effect on the outcome is irrelevant. There is no justified reason to remove the text. Please let it go and don't turn this into a pointless edit war over a simple sentence. And once again, I must point out that removing text because it's "POV" is against policy, so stop.Krawndawg (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

According to IMF source their recommendations are not relevant for this article. --Doopdoop (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That's just your opinion that the inclusion of their recommendations is not relevant to this article. According to the IMF article you linked, their influence was only exaggerated, not non-existent. Since it's not exaggerated in this article, there's no problem. Krawndawg (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sachs source says West did almost nothing to affect market reforms in Russia. Article makes it appear that Western influence was important. --Doopdoop (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a quote from that article "Although this paper does not attempt to analyze the quality and relevance of IMF policy advice..."

BUT you just said.. "According to IMF source their recommendations are not relevant for this article." ... Now I'm going to assume good faith here and assume that you aren't being dishonest, and just didn't read that part. Regardless, you have no argument. Krawndawg (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

:-) You misunderstood what IMF has said. IMF source did not write "this paper does not attempt to analyze the relevance of IMF policy advce for the purposes of Wikipedia article about Russia". Relevance in the sentence you quoted means quality of IMF's advice and suitability of advice to the economic conditions at that time. --Doopdoop (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't misunderstand anything. In no way is the word "relevant" synonymous to the word "quality". They used both words for a reason. Quality and relevance. That means it doesn't attempt to analyze how well the advice worked, and how much of an impact it had. You can't twist that any other way, it's quite clear what it means. We're not deciphering biblical text here. I'm not arguing anymore and will ignore any attempts to drag this dispute on any further, it's resolved. Don't expect me not to revert any attempts to remove the text either.

:-) Krawndawg (talk)

You misunderstood what IMF has said. Relevant is sometimes synonymous with appropriate and suitable. Also please read this paragraph: "This paper uses the second approach. It does not attempt the first approach,

namely, an analysis of the quality and relevance of IMF policy advice. Much of the debate about economic policies in Russia, especially among non-Russian commentators, has been about this issue.2 There has been much less discussion about the impact the IMF actually had, which is the focus of the second approach. The third approach—assessing the quality of IMF efforts—is also not used here in a systematic way." --Doopdoop (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Doop, stop trying to push your POV, you are clutching at straws. That link you posted doesn't deny their involvement and it confirms that these gave advice and recommendations, exactly as this article says. Please don't delete it just because you don't like it. Furthermore, read the other sources in the article -

"The International Monetary Fund and the U.S. government are undermining their own aims of promoting a market economy and a democratic government in Russia and in the other republics by imposing as a condition for aid dogmatic directions for shock therapy"

"Why are these shock therapy prescriptions doctrinaire, misguided and self-defeating?"

"Interference by the IMF staff and Washington in Russia's domestic affairs is a tactical error of great magnitude."

A basic fallacy of the IMF-U.S. approach to Russia as well as to other countries needing assistance is that they fail to take into account the social and political consequences of the economic measures they impose as a condition for their aid.

--Miyokan (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV requires that all major POVs (both those held by the Russian public and those held by IMF and Sachs) should be fairly presented. Would you support a compromise version "In October 1991, Yeltsin announced that Russia would proceed with radical, market-oriented reform along the lines of "shock therapy", as designed by Yegor Gaidar and advised by the United States and International Monetary Fund."? --Doopdoop (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you read? Why are you bringing up "all major POVs should be fairly presented? There is no POV in the current statement, it is merely stating fact. That the IMF recommended reforms is a fact, not a POV. Once again, it is not stating that the IMF was responsible for the economic chaos, it is stating that they recommended reforms, which is supported by multiple sources including the IMF itself, your POV argument has no basis. Gaydar was not the one who made the decision to carry out the reforms, that decision was taken by Yeltsin, as the sentence currently says.--Miyokan (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think IMF's influence was more important than Gaidar's? --Doopdoop (talk) 07:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This dispute is over. Furthermore, you have broken the 3RR, be glad that I haven't reported you.--Miyokan (talk) 09:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Dispute is over when a consensus has been reached. So far it did not.Biophys (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Really sorry about 3RR, it was not intentional, I just didn't notice one of my edits in the history log. Next time I'll be more careful. Please note that the purpose of my edits were to encourage the discussion in the talk page (I did not change the article text, I have just tagged it). Also you may have violated the 3RR too (you reverted my tags three times and you have also reverted Krawndawg's edit once during the same 24h period). Technically you should self-revert, then I should also self revert (since after that article would return to the present state, these self-reverts probably aren't needed). Also please note that the dispute is not really over. --Doopdoop (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Blaming perestroika

Current version tells the following:

During its last years, the restructuring of the economy (perestroika) had unforeseen results that resulted in shortages of goods in grocery stores, huge budget deficits and explosive growth in money supply leading to inflation.[60].

No, the shortages of goods and budget deficits began due to low oil prices, inefficiency of Soviet economy and arms race, according to research by Yegor Gaidar. Perestroika has nothing to do with it (please see Yegor Gaidar Collapse of an Empire: Lessons for Modern Russia, Brookings Institution Press (October 17, 2007), ISBN 0-815-73114-0, Chapters 4.7 and 4.8., pages 190-205 in Russian edition (ISBN 5-8243-0759-8). To the contrary, Gorbachev tried to save the system that already began to collapse but could not.Biophys (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's sourced, sorry.--Miyokan (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's right. My statement is sourced. This is a scholarly secondary source, not the cited CIA nonsense probably produced by their "analysts" who have no idea about Russia.Biophys (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can write a book and say whatever they want in it. Doesn't mean they're right, and chances are, if they're alone in their views, they're probably not right. Sbw01f (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a book by a notable scientist, Yegor Gaidar. It was translated from Russian to English and published in several countries. It qualifies as a reliable secondary source per WP:Verifiability. This is not self-publishing. Of course, it also cites a lot of other sources that can be used; but we better use a reliable secondary source per WP rules.Biophys (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Liberal democracy?

Does it really belong in the liberal democracy category? Josh (talk) 06:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. That's about as accurate as the founding date given in the infobox. Ostap 01:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this is not a liberal democracy. This system is often described as a "KGB state" or an "FSB state". This is a unique political system where all political powers and most important economic assets are owned by a group of former state security officials ("siloviks") according to many political observers. The system was established under leadership of Russian president Vladimir Putin .

The privatization of Russian state and economic assets has been allegedly accomplished by a clique of Putin's close associates and friends who gradually became a leading group of Russian oligarchs and who "seized control over the financial, media and administrative resources of the Russian state" and restricted democratic freedoms and human rights.

Political analyst Andrei Piontkovsky considers this system as "the highest and culminating stage of bandit capitalism in Russia”. He believes that "Russia is not corrupt. Corruption is what happens in all countries when businessmen offer officials large bribes for favors. Today’s Russia is unique. The businessmen, the politicians, and the bureaucrats are the same people."

Andrei Illarionov, a former advisor of Vladimir Putin, describes this system as a new socio-political order, "distinct from any seen in our country before". In this model, members of the Corporation of Intelligence Service Collaborators [Russian abbreviation KSSS] took over the entire body of state power, follow an omerta-like behavior code, and "are given instruments conferring power over others – membership “perks”, such as the right to carry and use weapons". According to Illarionov, this "Corporation has seized key government agencies – the Tax Service, Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Parliament, and the government-controlled mass media – which are now used to advance the interests of KSSS members. Through these agencies, every significant resource of the country – security/intelligence, political, economic, informational and financial – is being monopolized in the hands of Corporation members." The ideology of chekists is Nashism (“ours-ism”), the selective application of rights", he said.

Political scientist Irina Pavlova argued that chekists are not merely a corporation of people united to expropriate financial assets. They have long-standing political objectives of transforming Moscow to the Third Rome and ideology of "containing" the United States

Former KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy, when asked "How many people in Russia work in FSB?", replied: "Whole country. FSB has everything, including Russian Army and even own Church, the Russian Orthodox Church‎ ... Putin managed to create new social system in Russia" [28].

Russian politician Boris Nemtsov and commentator Kara-Murza define Putinism in Russia as "a one party system,censorship, a puppet parliament, ending of an independent judiciary, firm centralization of power and finances, and hypertrophied role of special services and bureaucracy, in particular in relation to business"

Columnist George Will said that "Putinism is uprooting the shallow seedlings of democracy across Russia's 11 time zones. Putinism is becoming a toxic brew of nationalism directed against neighboring nations, and populist envy, backed by assaults of state power, directed against private wealth. Putinism is a national socialism without the demonic element of its pioneer..." [29].

According to Soviet historian Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov, the secret political police has always been an "absolute power" of the Soviet society: "It is not true that the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party is a superpower (...) An absolute power thinks, acts and dictates for all of us. The name of the power — NKVD — MVD — MGB. The Stalin regime is based not on Soviets, Party ideals, the power of the Political Bureau, Stalin’s personality, but the organization and the technique of the Soviet political police where Stalin plays the role of the first policeman.", he wrote

However, former Securitate general Ion Mihai Pacepa believes that although chekism in Russia is nothing new, the current situation is different: "In the Soviet Union, the KGB was a state within a state. Now former KGB officers are running the state. They have custody of the country’s 6,000 nuclear weapons, entrusted to the KGB in the 1950s, and they now also manage the strategic oil industry renationalized by Putin. The KGB successor, rechristened FSB, still has the right to electronically monitor the population, control political groups, search homes and businesses, infiltrate the federal government, create its own front enterprises, investigate cases, and run its own prison system. The Soviet Union had one KGB officer for every 428 citizens. Putin’s Russia has one FSB-ist for every 297 citizens." Vladimir Putin himself admitted that "There is no such thing as a former KGB man" and that "A group of FSB colleagues dispatched to work undercover in the government has successfully completed its first mission.".

So, how about including some of these sourced views in the article?Biophys (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah please keep your conspiracy theories and your detached-from-reality point of view out of this article, thanks. The KGB has been gone now for a good 20 years. Russia is more a liberal democracy than it is a "KGB state", and it's definitely not a liberal democracy.

Also, please remove that copy-pasted section of an article and post a link instaed. There's no need to clutter this already stuffed discussion page with irrelevant speculation. Krawndawg (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

People say that same junk about America too. It's fun to talk about, but lets not mix fiction and fact, this is an encyclopedia. If you live in America, you might want to consider getting yourself a guest spot on Coast to Coast AM - they enjoy this sort of stuff. Sbw01f (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please justify your words about "junk" and "conspiracy theories" by providing at least as many sources as I did? If you can not, this text represents a majority view per WP:Verifiability.Biophys (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how wikipedia works, Biophys. Krawndawg (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on the content, not a contributor per WP:NPA.Biophys (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. All of your edits revolve around conspiracies about how Russia is evil and how terrible and evil their leadership is. Your edits are anything but neutral, and anyone can glance at your edit history to see that for themselves. All of your provided sources are nothing but a collection of opinions, most of which are not notable, none of it is based on verifiable, factual information. Please keep your silly, fringe theory edits out of this exceptional article which is based on factual, verifaible information. Krawndawg (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources per WP:Source to justify your personal opinion. All fourteen sources above satisfy WP:Verifiability. So far, you provided zero sources that would refute my sources, and you provided no valid arguments that my sources are not reliable. These are sourced views by notable experts all of whom have BLP articles in WP.Biophys (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you know the difference between an opinion and a fact? It would seem not. Go start your own encyclopedia and write all about it there in my opinion. Stop trying to ruin this article. Krawndawg (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The cited publications describe a lot of facts although I mostly cited their conclusions. If you think this should be described in a more factual manner, that maybe a valid point. Let's do it.Biophys (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Now you have made it obvious you are desperate. As Krawndawg said, you don't know the difference between an opinion and fact - whether Russia is a "KGB state" is an opinion, not a fact. Similarly, the people who say the same junk about America point to "facts" like the curbing of civil liberties with the Patriot Act, the suspicious circumstances of Florida in the 2000, etc, and conclude that America is a "fascist state". See how easy it is?--Miyokan (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Krawndawg, don't feed the troll. Biophys, that is logical fallacy, if someone writes that there exists a flying spaghetti monster people are not going to write articles saying that there doesn't exist a flying spaghetti monster. I suggest you seriously consider Sbw01f's suggestion and try and get a guest spot on Coast to Coast AM to share your conspiracy theories.--Miyokan (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Everyone, please try to stay on topic and keep out the personal vendettas. Should Russia be in the category or not? Ostap 01:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I already removed the potentially controversial category more than a day ago to prevent future conflict, it does not matter as it is simply a category.--Miyokan (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see, thank you. Ostap 02:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Mass media and Internet

The article still lacks (quite important) information on Mass media and Internet in Russia. I tried to add some on Internet, but it was removed. --ssr (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the internet information you added a while ago because it was lacking in substance. Sentences like In the beginning of the 21st century, there are scores of websites offering Russian language content including mass media, e-commerce, search engines and so on., With the penetration of the Web into Russia's regular life, many social and cultural events found reflections within the Russian Internet society.,Russian web design studios, software and web-hosting enterprises offer variety of services, and the results form a sort of national digital culture. Commercial giants such as Google and Microsoft have their Russian branches., etc., can be said about any country and don't really tell you anything.--Miyokan (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Russia Religion

Russia religiosity
religion			percent
Christianity			72%
Irreligion			16%
Islam			10%
Others			2%

I suggest we keep it this way please add your comments to the page

The sources do not correspond with the information (and links to wikipedia articles are not sources). Estimates of religious adherance vary between sources and other sources within the religion section contradict this table.--Miyokan (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Why look 72% totally correspond to the (Approximately 100 million citizens consider themselves Russian Orthodox Christians, Protestants make up the second largest group of Christian believers, with 3,500 registered organizations and more than 2 million followers, The Catholic Church estimated that there are 600,000) this is execatly 72% from 142 M and to the (63% of respondents considered themselves Russian Orthodox, and 12% said they believe in God) and this is the latest data so at least 63% are christians and who believe in GOD they also can be Christians and Muslims that is why Muslim part is also corret —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakhomovru (talk • contribs) 13:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious you are not a native speaker so I cannot make much sense from your statement. The US Government source you used to create your table is directly contradicted by the the Russian Public Opinion Research Center source which says that, 63% of respondents considered themselves Russian Orthodox, 6% of respondents considered themselves Muslim and less than 1% considered themselves either Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant or Jewish! Furthermore, these sources give different figures for Muslim adherants [30] and [31], this source says that the number of Muslim adherants is 7 to 9 million, and says Silantyev said he met estimations between 5 and 50 million Muslims in Russia.. Source 158 says that the number of atheists is as high as 48% There is no definitive figure, estimates vary between sources.--Miyokan (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Again look "72% totally correspond to the ("Approximately 100 million citizens consider themselves Russian Orthodox Christians, Protestants make up the second largest group of Christian believers, with 3,500 registered organizations and more than 2 million followers, The Catholic Church estimated that there are 600,000" quotation from the report) add 100 M + 2 M + 0.6 M this is execatly 72% from 142 M!!!

Also (63% of respondents considered themselves Russian Orthodox, and 12% said they believe in God so here you have 12% additional for believers they can be both Christian or Mulsim or any other, you had several options in this research Christian, Muslim, Believe in God, Other, or No relligios) and this is the latest data so at least 63% are christians and who believe in GOD they also can be Christians and Muslims that is why Muslim part is also corret, its arond 10% still if you look at all other source.

These two reports are latest and they do not contradict with each other ! Pakhomovru (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Also what you were doing you redo not just the table but other things as well so may be we agree that we just so far remove only table and other text keep as it is I think its quite ok, also if you do not like the numbers please tell me your numbers with reference and then we can discuss which source is better not just you do not like this numbers! Pakhomovru (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The US State Department source you says 72% are Orthodox while the Russian Public Opinion Centre says that 63% considered themselves Russian Orthodox, stop adding on the 12% who said they believe they believe in God to the Orthodox section. Your table lists Islam adherents as 10% while the Russian Public Opinion Centre lists it as 6%! Even the State Department source doesn't give a definitive figure says the number of Muslims ranges from "Fourteen to 23 million". And this is just these two sources. Estimates of religious adherents vary between sources, there is no definitive source. The Phil Zuckerman source says that the number of atheists in Russia ranges from 24-48%, directly contradicting your table. These sources claim give different figures for Muslim adherants ranging from 15 to 20 million [32] and [33], this source says that the number of Muslim adherants is 7 to 9 million, and says Silantyev said he met estimations between 5 and 50 million Muslims in Russia. There is no definitive figure, estimates vary between sources. The point is that we cannot create a table because estimates vary, the text perfectly explains the various estimates.--Miyokan (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the reference to the "Zuckerman, Phil (2005). Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns, chapter in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. by Michael Martin. Cambridge University Press. " is at least older then the reports that I am mentioning from 2006 and latest one from 2007, then what we can do we can use the latest report we have which is and we can say that this table is based on this report somethin like this, and put number there but I think it will look almost same as this table what we have here. I think latest report is the fair, status! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakhomovru (talk • contribs) 14:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? Even your two "recent" reports contradict each other. They are not published by the same people, they cannot be considered the "most recent reports" because they never agreed with each other in the first place. Obviously you did not read it or ignored it so I will repeat it again. The US State Department source you says 72% are Orthodox while the Russian Public Opinion Centre says that 63% considered themselves Russian Orthodox, stop adding on the 12% who said they believe they believe in God to the Orthodox section. Your table lists Islam adherents as 10% while the Russian Public Opinion Centre lists it as 6%! Even the State Department source doesn't give a definitive figure says the number of Muslims ranges from "Fourteen to 23 million". And this is just these two sources. Estimates of religious adherents vary between sources, there is no definitive source. The Phil Zuckerman source says that the number of atheists in Russia ranges from 24-48%, directly contradicting your table. These sources claim give different figures for Muslim adherants ranging from 15 to 20 million [34] and [35], this source says that the number of Muslim adherants is 7 to 9 million, and says Silantyev said he met estimations between 5 and 50 million Muslims in Russia. There is no definitive figure, estimates vary between sources. The point is that we cannot create a table because estimates vary, the text perfectly explains the various estimates.--Miyokan (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I read so I suggest we use the latest report from 2007 from USA, and we ignore from 2006 which is older. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakhomovru (talk • contribs) 16:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Also we are not to discuss the data inside the report, "because you do not like it" we are to put the latest data with nice reference to very reliable source, this department is making all kind of statistics each year, for this topic and is being reference in many places on WikipediaPakhomovru (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The dynamics of religious adherents in Russia has not changed within 10 years let alone 2. Furthermore, they are not published by the same people, they cannot be considered the "most recent reports" because they never agreed with each other in the first place. Sources do not get discarded the instant a slightly newer report from a different source comes out, especially in a topic such as this where estimates of believes widely fluctuate. This source from 2007 says that the number of Muslim adherants is 7 to 9 million, and says Silantyev said he met estimations between 5 and 50 million Muslims in Russia. Are that mean we are going to create 20 different tables, one with a 7 million muslim figure, one with a 9 million muslim figure, one with a 15 million muslim figure, one with a 20 million muslim figure, one with a 5 million muslim figure, one with a 55 million muslim figure, etc? No, of course not, that would be silly. --Miyokan (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes so lets keep this Pakhomovru (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Russia's population

Why is Russia's population declining?? Anywhere at Wikipedia that talks about the reason?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the Demographics and Health sections.--Miyokan (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nu, Pogodi!: Russia's Cartoons

Inspired by the "France" article that mentions Asterix, I believe we should mention Russian animation and cartoons. Especially Nu, Pogodi!: A nationally-recognized cartoon in Russia and the former Soviet states. Because of this, I added Image:Nu Pogodi 19.jpg to the section Russia#Motion pictures (being the closest thing to this topic). — NuclearVacuum 02:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I really liked what was done in this section, amount of job as well but some vandals like User:Miyokan keep on removing what they do not like can we stop him some how, this is not the first time I see he just deletes something what was done by other people without even discussing taking his opinion as prior to any thing else, I think we should put this section back Pakhomovru (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Table of contents of Russia-related material on Wikipedia

The set of Lists of basic topics is one of Wikipedia's Table of contents systems.

The List of basic Russia topics has just been created as an addition to that system.

The goal is to provide a list of links as a cheat sheet or basic overview of Russia and Wikipedia's coverage of Russia.

It needs persons familiar with Russia and Wikipedia's coverage of Russia to look it over, provide feedback, and/or refine it.

It's not yet complete. Please help.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 06:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Russian Sport

We have to add information to this part, as sport is one of the biggest achivments Russia has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakhomovru (talk • contribs) 08:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Cartoons and comics: a new section?

I already added this section. But because it was deleted (I am not going to say if it was vandalism or just), I believe I should explain why this SHOULD be on here. I already mentioned that I was inspired by the section of the "France" article with the same topic. I mainly wished to show an image of Nu, Pogodi!, because it's a popular cartoon in Russia. But because I'm knowledgeable in animation in both Russia and abroad, I believe it is very organized and appropriate.

As for the topic "Russia aint well known for its animation-created," I disagree. Russia cherishes its animation and cartoons, simply because they only had to have a few during the Cold War. Even today, with the end of the Cold War, Russians are beginning to love Anime (even more then Americans do). Also, I never said that Russia was well known for animation, I am only mentioning that the people and country love animation in their own right. Also think about it... have you ever heard of anything cartoon or animation from France? France isn't anything cartoon as well, so this section isn't as far fetched as it sounds.

I added a newer version of my previous edition, so please state your issues of it here, and please don't delete it unless it's the RIGHT thing to do, not just because it isn't (in your opinion) wrong. — NuclearVacuum 16:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I argee with Vacuum this section must be there, it is well prepared and gives interesting information about Russia, this article is great.Pakhomovru (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This user Miyokan is still vandalizing this page - i.e. with this article he just keeps on removing it - just like this! Can anybody stop him? Pakhomovru (talk) 09:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of 'Russia'

I don't remember Russia being pronounced [ˈrʌʃə]. When did this happen? What else have you been keeping from me?! Seriously though, I have never ever heard Russia end with a schwa, I have always heard it pronounced with the same vowel as the 'u' (ʌ, I guess). Comments/sources? PS: I've removed it. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Superpower

I've seen the new comments being made that Russia is a superpower and United States is no longer a superpower and stating Russia is far more powerful than the USA. ROFL in all the time I've been on Wikpedia I don't think I've ever heard something so crazy which someone seriously believed. This is not just a ridiculous Russian nationalist fantasy, it's sickening. Fanatical Russians clinging to the idea their finished state is actually still something for the world to fear because their country is only held together by the idea that it should wreak war on others, and America hating sympathisers who look for and support any possible states or entities that could rival the United States, no matter how brutal and disgusting they may be, whether it be such likes as China or Al-Quaeda. Russia is an absolutely finished state with a rapidly falling population that is now even smaller than Pakistan's, it's economy sits in a pathetic 11th position in the world which has been claimed many times is too low to be in the G8, its military spending in a poor 7th position with only a tiny number of its roting military still functioning, internal conflicts and borders falling apart with its regions such as Chechnya breaking away and technically became independent states with their own presidents.

How can Russia even for a second be seriously considered a superpower let alone be more powerful than the US when it can only just scrape in to claim to be a great power considering most other great powers such as the UK, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, and China out perform Russia in economic rankings and military spending rankings. Infact all great powers mentioned above have larger economies than Russia and only Italy spends less on its military, and not by very much.

Russia may very well have large reserves of oil and gas and tries to claim these make it oh so powerful of a country because it has reserves in similar size to that of Iran. Thing is reserves of oil and gas in similar size to that of Iran's have not made Iran a superpower, infact Iran isn't even a great power. Russia has a medium economic growth rate traditionally around 5% a year. The United States has an economic growth rate traditionally around 4% a year. When does Russia's economy expect to by pass America's? 2800? 5% economic growth is actually pretty poor for a developing economy, with such likes as China and India growing at around 9% or more, and it's only 1% higher than America's and America is fully developed. In fact how can the Russian economy even try to compare to the US economy when it's not even a developed economy?

It gets even more ridiculous when you try to compare numbers between Russia and the United States. Russia's $1.2 trillion economy versus the United States $13.7 trillion economy. That's around 13 times larger. The US economy equals 25% of the world's GDP. Russia's $40 billion military spending versus the USA's $583 billion military spending. The USA's military spending is 50% of the world's military spending. Russia's rapidly declining population of 142 million people versus the USA's rapidly rising population of 304 million people. When Russia's economy equals 26% of the world's GDP, its military spending equals 51% of world military spending, and a rapidly growing population of 305 million people THEN AND ONLY THEN is it a superpower more powerful than the United States

In case even all this still has't proved how pathetic Russian power is as of 2008 I've laid out Russia's rankings in important areas associated with power

Data for 2008 has improved the Russian position to 8th place at Market prices (GDP) and 7th or 6t at PPP (Purchasing Power Parity), and its Military expenditures to 5th place in the World.

• Economy

2007 List by the International Monetary Fund

Rank Country GDP (millions of USD) — World 54,311,608 — European Union 16,830,100 1 United States 13,843,825 2 Japan 4,383,762 3 Germany 3,322,147 4 China 3,250,827 5 United Kingdom 2,772,570 6 France 2,560,255 7 Italy 2,104,666 8 Spain 1,438,959 9 Canada 1,432,140 10 Brazil 1,313,590 11 Russia 1,289,582 12 India 1,098,945 13 South Korea 957,053 14 Australia 908,826 15 Mexico 893,365 Military Rank Country Military expenditures (USD) Date of information — World Total 1,200,000,000,000 2007 (projected est.) — NATO Total 849,875,309,000 1 United States 583,283,000,000 2008 — European Union Total 311,920,000,000 2007 2 France 74,690,470,000 2008-2009 3 United Kingdom 68,911,000,000 FY 2008-09 4 China 59,000,000,000 2008 5 Germany 45,930,000,000 2008 6 Japan 41,750,000,000 2007 7 Russia 40,000,000,000 2008 8 Italy 32,600,000,000 2008 (est.) 9 Saudi Arabia 31,050,000,000 2008 10 South Korea 28,940,000,000 2008 11 India 26,500,000,000 2008-2009[36] 12 Brazil 25,396,731,055 2008 13 Australia 20,727,710,000 2008 14 Canada 17,150,002,540 2008 15 Spain 15,792,207,000 2007 Population Rank Country/territory/entity Population Date % of world population Source — World 6,671,226,000 July 1, 2007 100% UN estimate 1 People's Republic of China 1,438,015,000 November 1 2024 21.56% Chinese Population clock 2 India 1,386,600,000 November 1 2024 20.78% Indian Population clock 3 United States 338,671,000 November 1 2024 5.08% Official USA Population clock 4 Indonesia 231,627,000 3.47% UN estimate 5 Brazil 186,917,074 May 27, 2008 2.8% Official Brazilian Population clock 6 Pakistan 214,409,000 November 1 2024 3.21% Official Pakistani Population clock 7 Bangladesh 158,665,000 2.38% UN estimate 8 Nigeria 148,093,000 2.22% UN estimate 9 Russia 142,008,800 January 1, 2008 2.13% Federal State Statistics Service 10 Japan 127,720,000 March 1, 2008 1.92% Official Japan Statistics Bureau estimate 11 Mexico 106,535,000 1.6% UN estimate 12 Philippines 88,574,614 August 1, 2007 1.33% 2007 Official NSO Census Results 13 Vietnam 87,375,000 1.31% UN estimate 14 Germany 82,244,000 November 30, 2007 1.23% Federal Statistics Office estimate 15 Ethiopia 77,127,000 July 2007 1.16% Ethiopia Central Statistics Agency

Signsolid (talk) 08:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

But at PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) which is considered more accurate to measure a national product and it is used by the C.I.A. in its famous CIA Factbook, Russia´s GDP has surpassed already the United Kingdom and France and it is sixth in the World. Not so bad... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.53.111.55 (talk) 05:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

that's cool, this is not a forum to post your opinions, by the way Russia's economy is one of the fastest growing in the world and they're soon to overtake the UK as the second largest european economy by PPP, hope this helps Nightmare X (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't understand your reaction to Signsolid's post, Nightmare X. The question whether Russia is a superpower or not is relevant and he just responded to the claim that it is (posted here in May 2008 by Versace11 - see above) and provided us with convincing arguments (including numbers) which proved that Russia cannot be classified as a superpower. That's all. I know that it can be a bitter pill to swallow for some people but Wikipedia is about facts - not about inflating one's ego. I couldn't find anything inappropriate in his post. Just facts and numbers. Tomasz J Kotarba (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum for you to voice your communist sympathy towards Russia in hope that the Soviet Union will return one day. Sorry to disappoint you but Russia's never going to be a superpower again. Hey at the rate their population is falling, their territory being lost, and military rotting they might just be as poor, small, weak, and crappy as Chile soon? Signsolid (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You just attacked editor Nightmare X, who by the way was not the user who posted the "Russia is a Superpower" topic. Nightmare X just came in here to remind you that this is not a general forum, to stay civil, be polite, and refrain from personal attacks. Too bad you didn't listen to him because you've just violated Wikipedia policy twice in a row.--71.112.145.211 (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Russia is probably less Communist than any other major European state at the moment. Are you perhaps a Putinist agent aiming to provoke people into defending this country by making ridiculous statements? --217.172.29.4 (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Superpower Russia vs the US

I doubt that anyone would consider Russia to be a 'superpower' in the cold war sense and one wonders why it would ever choose to want to do so. On the other hand, many consider Russia a 'Superpower' in other areas because of its wide cultural, political, scientific and technological influence in the world, which is far greater that what one would expect given the size of its population. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, Russia has in many respects gained more international influence, esp throughout Latin America, and it trades with a wider array of countries than before. It reserves the right to support and come to the aid of ethnic Russians who found themselves living in other countries after the demise of the Soviet Union, and I doubt that anyone in their right mind is going to challenge that. Direct comparisons of GDP figures between countries such as Russia and the US have always been misleading at best because the Russian currency has greater purchasing power within Russia than does the US currency in the US. Quantity of goods produced and the ability of people to save or invest funds after cost of living expenses have been removed from their earnings are better indicators of wealth, and Russians would on average save relatively more of their earnings than people in the US. To classify the US as a superpower is, on the other hand, also very misleading. It is a military superpower (although one should also note that Russia exports more military hardware than the US, and to a wider array of countries, in key fields such as arms, tanks, fixed and rotary wing aircraft etc) and estimates place as much as 40% of the US employed workforce being linked to the military in some manner, either directly or indirectly, a far higher proportion than any other country. However, the US consistently finds itself unable to respond to or cope with natural disasters and civil defense emergencies such as flooding, hurricanes, fires etc (Katrina and California forest fires are just some recent examples), and it has a raft of social, health, and transport infrastructure attributes more akin to that of a third world country (its longevity figures, and infant and teen mortality rates are amongst the worst of the developed world in spite of its huge - but largely ineffective - health budget. A person born in Cuba for example, has, on average, almost twice the chance of surviving the first 10 years of life and will live many years longer into old age than a person born in the US). Aspects of the US infrastructure are decades behind that of Europe (it was once said that the US is the last great country where the electric train has yet to be invented, and diesel fuel outlets in huge parts of the country are unknown), and it continues to burn fossil fuels for all its transport needs at an alarming rate. It consumes and wastes more resources and produces more waste and greenhouse gases per person than any other country. Finally, it has about 30 million people living below the poverty line, a proportional figure well above any other developed country. All of these detract from any supposition that the US can somehow be considered a 'superpower' in anything but military spending.

124.183.76.112 (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Russia's economy is growing by 8-10% every year. It has the worlds largest resource base, is technologically advanced and has a sizable well educated population that will stop shrinking by 2010, leveling out at around 140 million then rising again. It is also untouchable by any outside power thanks to it's nuclear arsenal, and large technologically advanced military compared to 90% of other states in the world.

It's only direction is forward, not backward. Russia will be a global power and global player as long as it maintains control of so much territory and natural wealth. With it's nuclear arsenal, which is just as capable as any other, and which does include the largest number of warheads stockpiled, that is easy.

The biggest enemy to russia comes from within. Same to usa, same to china. Internal mismanagement and instability. George Bush is doing a fine job of ruining America's economy. A few more george bushes and we have obvious consequences for America. But it hopefully won't come to that. You guys really have to stop looking for foes, work together and prosper. Trade, build up your economies, and look for enemies in space or something.

That is exactly what we do. All you've named, except for looking for enemies. The economy grows for the last 10 years. And we do not look for enemies - not in Korea, nor in Iran and Iraq, or Kuba. Not, of course, in Europe and US. We let others be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.85.148.66 (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia..a super power..what a joke, It's economy is only 1.2 trillion in GDP, its average capita is most Western nation's poverty line- it dose have a decent military, but it's still no match for countries like America, and perhaps China now. It's political influence is hardly stable, it invaded Georgia and that ruined its influence and political reputation.

Russia is no more a super power- than perhaps a state within the EU. The days of the Soviet Union is over. The Russian federation is a shell in all aspects.

Now, lets compare it to the only known superpower, and what some consider a new superpower.

America spends around 480 billion a year on its military. compared to the Russian federation that spends only 32 billion

The average American family makes 43,000- 48,000 USD a year. Teachers make far less. The average Russian family makes 11,000-15,000 USD a year.

The American GDP is 13.8 trillion The Russians GDP is 1.2 trillion

Why is Russia described as a superpower?

More important is GDP at PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) and at PPP Russian GDP is over $2 Trillion, similar to the UK and France, and its Defense spending similar also.

China´s GDP is already over 50% of the U.S. at PPP and its Defense spending over $100 billion.

I think the term 'super power' should be removed in the description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jade Rat (talk • contribs) 16:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

<comments by confirmed sockpuppet of banned user Fraberj (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)>

All this is very interesting but you must live in Russia to judge its advantages and possibilities.

According to my dates US' GDP is counted not as it is in Europe. For example, when Jack gives Sam twenty bucks for cleaning his car, American GDP increases for this sum, but when Franz gives John twenty euros for the same, EU' GDP doesn't change. So it's unclear how large US national wealth is. neplox

P. S .: I'm russian myself and live in St. Petersburg the whole life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.94.16.147 (talk) 06:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

<comments by confirmed sockpuppet of banned user Fraberj (talk · contribs) removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)>

dont forget the large arsenal of intercontinental rockets with mass destruction weapon (NUCLEAR power)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.227.61 (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia's nuclear reserves alone qualify it as a superpower; there is little to debate. While Russia's actual political, economic, and cultural influence abroad has fluctuated and can be debated as to degree, there is little doubt that if it chose to place a dominating hand in any sphere, the world would be forced to listen. You simply cannot ignore a nation with the capability to destroy the entire world many times over. The only power with even a chance of negating such a threat would be the United States (thanks to our own nuclear reserve and our missile defense technology). Note the world's response to Russia's involvement in Georgia; despite general condemnation from the West, Russia withdrew on its own timescale and no one elses, much like the U.S. situation in Iraq.

The point is not to project one's feelings about Iraq onto the Georgian conflict or vice versa, the point is that when Russia wants to push itself into global affairs, it does it, and everyone else is left to either bury their head in sand or to preach rather ineffectively.

Moral judgements aside, Russia is still very much a superpower, albeit one that has been rather quite for some time.

If nothing else, the continued U.S. embargo against Cuba is proof enough that the United States believes Russia to be capable of a great deal. Cuba in isolation is hardly worth the effort of an embargo. In fact, a return to Stalinist measures would have easily stopped the breakup of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union's collapse was largely a sign of the maturity of its political regime, and their decision to let go of their former strong-arm tactics is what allowed the criminal element to explode and precipitate the economic landslide of the 90s. The relative stability of Putin's reign is due to his return to strongman tactics. Do not be fooled into thinking that they could not revive their Iron Fist if they believed it necessary. Give Russia credit for attempting to normalize their behavior, and do not doubt their power.

Russia is very much a shadow of its former self, and the U.S. is very much the dominant power in the world today (even if it is losing that title rapidly). But it would only take a few American tanks on Russian soil to show exactly how much of a superpower Russia still is. 67.171.67.235 (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because the United States is "better" then Russia does not deter its superpower status. Russia is great in the space program, sports, military, and many other subjects just as the US is. LOL, we probably need a chart. RoyalMate1 18:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree at many points but you are showing so much hatred and disgust that it looks like you are just another victim of American patriotism and propaganda. --Red w (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Occupation of Afghanistan

I edited the comments about the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s for reasons of historical accuracy. The original comments suggested that the Soviet army was withdrawn from the war because of casualties inflicted on it by the Afghan mujihadeen. This is inaccurate. Soviet casualties in Afghanistan were relatively light. There was no Soviet military defeat on the ground. In truth, Gorbachev withdrew his army from Afghanistan as part of a broad range of domestic and foreign policy changes that were forced on the USSR because, in the 1980s, its economic foundations were beginning to collapse. Due to this unfolding economic meltdown, the USSR could no longer afford to confront the United States across the globe in the Cold War, which meant in turn that local conflicts such as Afghanistan had to be shelved. Kenmore (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, I believe a discussion about the Soviet military operation in Afghanistan belongs on the page about the Soviet Union. A mention might be appropriate on Russia's page, but certainly not a full-blown article about it. --Ericdn (talk) 23:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The point, though, is how the subject should be mentioned in the Russia article. Even a one or two sentence mentioning needs to be historically accurate.

Kenmore (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)