This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 3 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Russians was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments, especially about reintroducing an image gallery of notable Russians into infobox, being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting about that topic.
She shouldn't be included in this article, since this article is about the Russian ethnic group. Catherine the Great was not Russian. She was born a Prussian/German. Leading Russia does not make her Russian in the sense used in this article (ethnically). She converted from Lutheranism to Eastern Orthodoxy, and become fascinated with Russian culture - that's correct, but she wasn't Russian.
I found this topics extremely controversial, especially when it comes to big nations like Russians, etc. Everyone start to draws water to his own mill "No he's not X, he's Y", "He has 0,00000001% of Nigerian blood". That's pathetic. If we dig deep enough we can question also are these 80% Russians in Russia are actually of Russian ethincity? You know, there is no question about ethnic background in Russian census. They questioned only nationality. I'm of Ukranian ancestry but I call myself Russian. I'm not anthropologically different from some Russian. Am I Russian, or still Ukranian? What we should do, check up haplogroups of all who perceive themselves as "Russian", also dug up all graves and check them? I think that every article on ethnicity should be rewrited as article on nation and create much smaller separate articles on ethnicity without all these great figures, farts and whistles.126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
There IS a question about your ethnic group in Russian census. They ask you about your национальность which for people in Russia means ethnicity. And people reply accordingly: Tatars say they're are Tatars, Yakuts say they're Yakuts, Russians say they're are Russians. Just look at the results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexxzz123 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@Al Khazar: What exactly is "unconstructive" about the infobox? You are aware that nearly all ethnic group articles have one, right? I fixed the persons depicted in chronological order, removed some that weren't actual Russians, added famous people missing, and it came out really good and should be kept. --Steverci (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@Al Khazar: If you will not defend your reverts, I'm going to restore my edits. --Steverci (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't negotiate with people who abuse sock puppets. You've caused a lot of trouble on other topics in Wikipedia and have been topic banned as a result. Don't let this one be another topic ban. Khazar (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
They all appear to be. Like I said, I don't have to defend anything since sock puppetry is not tolerable here on Wikipedia. Bring this up again and you'll find yourself at the center of a sock puppet investigation. Khazar (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Steverci, past misdeeds are overlooked unless you make it evident that you haven't actually learned anything from those mistakes, and are resuming the same behavioural problems. At the moment, it certainly looks as if you're becoming disruptive here and on the Romanians article, pushing for an image gallery there, also. Why are you obsessing about something there's been consensus to remove because it's proved to be a time and energy sinkhole for editors? What, according to you, makes it so important? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Iryna, accusing someone of WP:POVPUSH is uncivil. You clearly have no idea what is going on here and are exhibiting bad faith. Al Khazar has been reverting my edits without any reason and is now making accusations and personal attacks, and I've been very patient in trying to discuss this. And yet you accuse me of behavioural problems? --Steverci (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Iryna is well aware of the faults of having a collage in an Ethnic group info box. It's simply a waste of time and is like having flags in the infobox. The only difference is that the officials at Wikipedia haven't been as quick to pick up on how wasteful the former is like the latter. Khazar (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Steverci, you are being WP:DISRUPTive here, and on the Romanians article. As Khazar notes, I am very, very much aware as to what is going on. You've still not been able to make any arguments as to why a gallery/collage is advantageous. I've already spent my valuable time trying to establish why you want it back on the other article; now you expect me to engage with you further on non-arguments for the reintroduction here. Your to and fro-ing in trying to wear other editors down is now becoming downright WP:POINTy. Please present a solid argument based on policy and guidelines. If you can do so, then we'll all have something worth discussing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I just briefly read the above discussion; can someone kindly explain why it is seemingly redudant to create a gallery of pictures of notable Russians here? Russian is both an ethnicity and a nationality in the strictest senses of the words, but this infobox is obviously ment for the ethnicity Russians,'aka Slavic Russians, aka natively East Slavic Russian speaking Russians.
I think this is all pretty common logic no? So could someone tell why the pictures are removed from the infobox?
I'm also curious about that issue. kazekagetr 08:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Please feel free to go through the talk page archives regarding this issue. A gallery has never been a parameter in the the 'ethnic group' infobox. It is still not a parameter, but something that someone had the bright idea of introducing to the infobox of one article for an ethnic group at some point. Other ethnic group articles decided that they like it because WP:ITSIMPORTANT and followed suit. With the number of articles the average Wikipedian has on their watchlist, it is an energy sinkhole spending half our time undoing changes to the gallery after various one-off contributors have come through and put their personal favourites into galleries, followed by edit warring between a number of users over who, what, why belongs in the gallery (but most prominently, never actually discussed).
Personally, I'm fed up with having to check whether the person added to the Latin American whatever ethnic group's gallery actually is of that ethnicity. As has also been discussed on the Romanians article, other long time editors agree that it's WP:NOTVALUABLE to waste editor time on articles that rarely see any real content development, but merely have their galleries played with because Wikipedia can is a resource anyone can edit... and do... constantly... frequently... irritatingly. We've had enough of the 'neglected article' syndrome, and the 'interested parties with their own ideas as to what constitutes an ethnicity' syndrome to call it a day on some articles. I'd like this to be applied across the board, but that's not likely to happen. If we're sick to death of content introduced to the article as not being worth the grief, effort, or importance, it reverts to being a WP:PAGEDECIDE issue. Editors maintaining the page have reached consensus that it's been given an adequate period of time to prove itself to be a liability. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Iryna Harpy, get what you mean, and I can find myself in that rationale. If that's what the consensus demanded, then that is how it will be. I'd recommend adding that it's been discussed in a note under the Banner Shell though, so that we can avoid getting the same questions over and over. - LouisAragon (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Cheers, LouisAragon, for an excellent idea! I've become acclimatised to contributors not even bothering to look at the talk page, much less bother reading the talk page messages under the banner shell, that it didn't even occur to me. Not all regular editors, new contributors, or passing IP's are as diligent as you in actually paying attention to talk pages (I'm sure you're utterly stunned and amazed by this revelation )! I've now added a 'circular argument' template.
While I can also appreciate that such image galleries have the potential to be interesting and informative for readers, by their very nature they call for WP:OR decisions in establishing who constitutes a member of the ethnic group and who does not (how do you define an ethnic group: through DNA; self-identification by those who lived in a previous era that wouldn't recognise the concepts being applied; by how a more contemporary individual defines themselves?). The concept of ethnicity is far more complex to unravel than might superficially be imagined. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy I'm happy that we're once again having the same idea about how it should be. Even more perfect that other numerous users agreed as well :) Thanks a lot for adding the note already under the banner shell btw!
I concur with you about the concept of ethnicity placing on Wiki as well. It's a very fluid concept in general, even sometimes in modern day/every day life, when discussed. Especially for such "continental" nations like Russia, it's rather difficult. Of course everyone knows that the Russian ethnic group is something that exists for a long time, but I guess this way is just for the best. Maybe some day when someone else will bring it up and many users will say they want a gallery back, then we can do that.
I think we should perhaps apply this same rationale for the galleries of Ukrainian people/Belorussian people as well, given how closely they and Russians are and were historically related (I don't think I need to waste a single word about this, especially for someone who's Ukrainian herself, haha) and the fact that there was no such country as Ukraine/Belorussia until just several decades ago. As you indeed say, the concept of "ethnicity" is a complex thing that can easily be adjusted given what conditions are prevalent.
In our era however, we can see that ethnicity is, to a noticeable degree, determined by (often ungrounded) nationalism.
I'd love to be able to apply the same principle to Ukrainians, etc... but the problem of identity issues are as equally entrenched there as on the majority of articles surrounding ethnicity. I've always avoided discussion regarding who is 'Ukrainian' and, therefore, 'appropriate' for the gallery there even if I consider entries there to be inappropriate. As with many of these articles, however, there are contributors/editors who do !vote for representative notables, therefore it's difficult to bring up a discussion as to its being OR (or wishful thinking). Considering that Eastern European articles fall under ARBEE sanctions, even bringing the topic up is perilous. I don't want to be the centre of an edit war, nor to be accused of having other POV ulterior motives. At the end of the day, so long as the regular editors for that article !vote for who is and isn't included, it's a challenge. It would be a positive move to initiate more community-level discussions as to who and what is actually being represented, but it would also be extremely problematic. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)