Talk:Russians/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Reasoning for 125-135 million change

Whether being "racy" or not, it is a fact that many of Russia's minority groups frequently register as Russians, and in addition to that many are overreported due to Russian estimates (it's not easy to take a census in Siberia). Here is some evidence online, though there are many better sources offline stating the same:

According to this publication, the percentage of the population that is ethnically Russian has declined from 81.5 in 1989 to 71.7 in 2002.


According to the census of the Russian Federation, the number of ethnic Russians was 104 million out of 144.2 million of the overall population in Russia. Considering the fact that demographic figures in Russia have always been considered to be a national security issue, then proceeding from Soviet/Russian practice of demographic overstatements, you can say for sure that the number of 104 ethnic Russians is set too high and it's already been quite a while since the real number of ethnic Russians sank under the psychological mark of 100 million.


Please do not be foolish and stop reverting the edits. Thank you Antidote 23:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

If so, add to the articles that official estimates are being criticized but do not remove them as a whole. --Irpen 23:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not? I'm still putting that 135 million is a possible statistics -- why do "official statistics" hold dominance over more obvious ones. The "official statistic" of English in America is 25 million, but CLEARLY that is an underestimate and so it is not presented.

Somebody reverted my edits that were alotted to me in the main text. This shows clear nationalistic bias. Any further edits of the like will be seen as "vandalism" or "coverup" and taken to the wikipedian authorities for analysis, for there is no reason why both are not allowed to be presented. Antidote 20:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Your first quote from the article you said is on this website : says nothing about ethnic Russians being 71 % of Russian population instead of 80 %. Only some guesswork about official info being false. Your second article : is obviously very biased. Its is written by a Chechen and is taken from extremist web-site Kavkaz org. As soon as you find a credible reference I'll agree to have both estimates here. There are to factors I think you don't realize here : 1) Ethnicity is based on people's self-identification and culture not just on genes and blood. 2) Illegal immigrants/temprorary residents are not counted in any census/official statistic. Fisenko 21:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You're simply "dismissing" all sources that do not fit your view. I clearly quoted where it talked about the 71% on the first publication above. The second being bias or not is only your opinion. Your assumption that Russian-reported statistics aren't bias is as foolhardy as one can get. The fact that sources exist to the contrary of the 80% mark, and that people bother to publish analysis on the subject is good enough proof as it is. I will not step down until these facts are given a primary mention in the article. Antidote 22:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again the promblem is 1)Your first link re-directs to main CSIS website not to the article you quoted. 2)Your second article is taken from the same website as proclamations of "Holy War" by Basayev and other terrorists who think its nice and dandy to take hostage/rig with boms schools with Russian kids, etc. Fisenko 01:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The first link is a PDF; that means you right click save as.

That's what I did. The same result. Fisenko 04:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Whether the second link is made by terrorists that does not automatically refure their it or not.

Yes it does. Fisenko 04:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Can we please come to a consensus? I hate revert wars. Is there any way you will include differing numbers in the population statistics? If no, then we will have to take this up the ladder. Antidote 15:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't confuse "statistics" with "guessworks". One cannot sit in Berkeley and count Russians. If there is a reputable reseacrh, ie., published in books or peer-reviewed articels, not just in someone's blogs or in Chattanooga Chronicler, you are welcome to present the opposing views. But this can go only as a separate section. mikka (t) 22:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Images of Russians in colour photography

Is it truly necessary to have those on this page? It's not like anyone doesn't know what Russians look like. Plus we already have an image of Russians in traditional dress. Antidote 00:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'd like to have more, better pictures in the various ethnic pages to help people get an understanding of the various physical features of ethnicities. I'm really interested in that kind of thing and I've always considered the Slavic people to be highly attractive in general, but it's hard to tell now because you can't find good enough pictures of the average Russian or Pole without finding a glamour shot of a model. We need more good pictures of the average people on all the ethnic pages, and more than one.

Demographics Evolution

Demographics Evolution

>>>>>Until the late 19th century, Russia was a relatively underpopulated nation, especially when compared to the size of the territory on which it resided. In 1800, Russia had a population a little over 35 million, of which about a fourth included foreign nationals. By 1850, Russia's population doubled mainly due to the annexation of new lands from Catherine the Great's warfare gains. By the 20th century, Russia had the biggest population in Europe, as Tsarist Russia included many lands of Central Asia, the Caucasus, Eastern Europe, and Siberia. However, Russia's historically relative low population has revealed itself today in a new form. The fall of communism swung many Russians into poverty leading to a significant disparity between Russia's life expectancy and other Western countries'. In almost every area of Russia, death rates outcount birth rates, especially for ethnic Russians. The problem assessed today suggests a possible drop of almost a third of Russia's population in the next several decades.<<<<<

There is a number of problems with this new expansion of the article.

1) several historic inaccurancies , for example Russia could not possible double in size between 1800 and 1850 "mainly due to the annexation of new lands from Catherine the Great's warfare gains", for the number of reasons one of them is the fact that Catherine the Great died in 1796.

One of the best things I have read in a while! :)))) Nikola 10:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

2)second problem the article talks about demographic situation in the Russian Federation, USSR, the Russian Empire in general and not about ethnic Russians.

I'm glad you like it Nikola, I figured it needed to be added. Anyway, the user who analyzed this was right. It was not Catherine the Great, but in fact, her successor, Alexander the first. I was not paying attention to the dates, as there have been many great land gains under many reigns. Secondly, the article does talk about ethnic Russians, though that is not as pronounced. It is still appropriate here because it reflects the population statistics. HotelRoom 03:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Please provide academic references for your population statistics. Some of your claims are very questionable. For example major territorial expansions of Russia were in 16th, 17th and 18th centuries not between 1800 and 1850. Fisenko 21:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Here's one source for the numbers: [1]
  • Here's a map showing territorial gain from 1800 [2] to [3] showing gains JUST on the European side.

There's plenty more. HotelRoom 23:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The only population-wise significant gain for the Russian Empire between 1800 and 1850 was central Poland around Warsaw. That's about it, most major expansions of Russia were between 16th and late 18th century. Between 1800 and 1850 Russian population grew mostly because of Russian birth-rates not conquests. Fisenko 05:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was to withdraw the proposed move --Lox (t,c) 17:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

RussiansRussian people : To follow pattern of other articles about peoples. David Kernow 14:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This is misleading, as a quick look at Category:Ethnic groups in Europe shows. Michael Z. 2006-01-18 23:38 Z


Please add  * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "~~~~"
  • Oppose - There is no pattern, there are articles about Ukrainians, Belorusians, Serbs, Bulgarians, Romanians, Poles etc. until there is a consensus to move every single article about an ethnic group simultaneously the article should stay under this name. Fisenko 15:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment : Good point, Fisenko. I've moved Bulgarians, Romanians and Poles and requested moves for Ukrainians and Serbs. I created a typo moving Belorusians, so have had to request a move to have it corrected. I'm happy to begin searching for and moving (or requesting a move for) other articles, perhaps with your help?  Best wishes, David Kernow 19:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support This is tricky, but since English people, French people and Spanish people all exist as articles, I support this move. --Lox (t,c) 17:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Philip's comment below, that suddenly makes sense! --Lox (t,c) 14:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Only need to use people if it is necessary for disambiguation with language hence "English people", "French people" and "Spanish people" and "English language" etc.
The pages you have moved did not need this as Poles etc speak Polish etc. See WP:NC "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." These pages do not need disambiguation so they should stay under national names most frequently used in English. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment : I'm thinking of greater consistency within Wikipedia as well as "giv[ing] priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognise". I believe an "XXX people" template would provide that. Thinking of disambiguation, "Poles" is an unfortunate example. Thanks for your interest! David Kernow 12:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment : While I think that bringing more structure and reciprocity into the ethnic article space is a worthwhile undertaking, I'm note sure if the proposed change is not going to create more confusion. My initial comments on Talk:Germans were based on semantic concerns, since I believe that adding people to a name of a national group might condition readers to associate it with an ethnicity. I've witnessed these tendencies in Turkic people vs. Turkish people, Germans vs. Germanic people etc. I think part of the problem is the definition of these groups. Many contributors from these countries assume that these articles pertain to their nation (see nation state), which does not always equate to an separate ethnicity, although ideally it should. If disambiguation is a problem then adding (people) in parenthesis might be more appropriate, we could convert e.g. English people into English (people), Polish people into Poles (people). See (Volk). Jbetak 15:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The assertion in the request is misleading: a quick look at Category:Ethnic groups in Europe shows that most articles are not named this way, and the change will cause confusion between articles on a people and articles about several peoples. Michael Z. 2006-01-18 23:38 Z
  • Oppose. Russians is much less ambiguous. --Lysytalk 21:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Maria Sharapova as one of the four most famous Russions?

Someone must be kidding. What kind of jokers work is that? Well if a woman should be included then surely Catherine the Great. --Lucius1976 20:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but she was German. Antidote 23:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Wait, wasn't she Austrian? ;-) Jbetak 00:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
No, even worse, the was Prussian :-) and protestant. --Lucius1976 14:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
See Genealogy of the House of Romanov#Ascanian House for complete info about her nationality Kmorozov 10:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Lucius. That's freaking ridiculous at best. Take it off and replace it with something about Anna Kournikova.(joking) but seriously change it. 00:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sharapova is the Russian whose name is mentioned by Western media most often. I'd replace her with Yuri Gagarin. --Ghirla | talk 00:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Sharapova is probably not among four greatest Russians of all times, but I'd like her to stay to represent the beauty of Russian women ;) Voyevoda 00:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't believe that image aims at representing the most "famous" Russians: otherwise, where is Lenin? Sharapova may be not the greatest, but certainly one of the most representative: a) of modern Russians; b) of Russian women; c) of numerous great Russian sportspeople. Additionally, she is a familiar face to all those MTV-watching cheeseburger-chewing Yankees (ok, Westerners) who form the target audience of this project.--Ghirla | talk 00:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Lenin is not an ethnic Russian, is he? His grandfather was an ethnic Chuvash. He also has Kalmuck, Jewish and German admixtures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

I suggest taking her off and replacing her with Mikhail Gorbachev. Surely he's more important...ahem he pretty much changed the face of eastern europe.

What about expanding the number of images from four to eight? --Ghirla | talk 00:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Works for me :)

1. The image was not created in order to represent "most famous Russians" 2. Mikhail Gorbachev is a very controversial figure deeply unpopular with many Russians I would not recommend to include him. Ghirla summarized best my reasons for incuding Sharapova in the picture. Fisenko 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Practically all Russians hate Gorbachov, and they have a reason for that. He took everything they had and brought the whole country into poverty. Gorbochov and YTeltzin are two that in Russia are considered traiters. M.V.E.i. 11:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you say. But don't you find it slightly offensive that the picture of "Russians" shows Sharapova (who is great and all but not historically significant) among Peter the Great? I mean that's what it comes off as and it's silly. I think it's best to simply include more photos.

Believe me there would be more people offended by a picture of Gorbachev ...Fisenko 02:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

He and Yeltzen are the two most hated people in Russia. M.V.E.i. 11:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually I agree it is not the point to include the most famous, or infamous persons. Rather the more positive people who made great achievements during history. I do not think that the tennis player did that. In hundred years no one will remember her. Well it is true that Catherine the Great was German, but so was William of Orange and he is included under the four greatest Dutch. Thats because he became a national hero of them. I find the suggestion of Juri Gagarin great. Do it. But i still believe Catherien the Great should be included as well. But, I believe the Russians on here should decide that. But, Sharapova is a joke. Sorry to say that. Might be eye candy, but apart from that. Otherwise Paris Hilton, god forbid, must be included under the four greatest Americans.

Don't compare. Sharapova is in sports, she does somthing, Hilton is usless. P.S. I dont think we have place for a woman there, but if a woman should enter is Sharapova, she's a great tennis-player i don't see the problem with that. M.V.E.i. 11:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

--Lucius1976 14:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Otherwise Paris Hilton, god forbid, must be included under the four greatest Americans.

I laughed hard to that one. ;) Anyway, I agree with removing Sharapova - but perhaps she can be replaced with another woman, a Russian artist maybe? Antidote 20:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If any changes should be made at all is replacement of Peter the Great with for example Mikhail Lomonosov then we will have a more diverse range of statesman from the middle ages, one scientist/educator from the 18th century, one writer from the end of 19th century and one modern female and sportsman. Two political leaders in the picture is the only downside I can see to a picture. The inspiration to this image was this one from the page on Serbs : File:4Serbs.jpg. Although I think the picture looks good as it is. Presenting a charismatic image of the Russians to the English-speaking public is more important than presenting image of Russians with greatest achievment...and of course Catherine the Great's image would not be suitable becuase the article is about ethnic Russians. Fisenko 00:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Peter the Great should stay.

I would leave the picture as it is. Sharapov may give way to Yuri Gagarin. Lomonosov is of secondary, not world-wide importance. --Ghirla | talk 10:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Lomonosov maybe is forgoten in the world-wide-fame subject, but he gave great contributions to world science, and Russian culture. read this and you'll understand how importent he is to the world. M.V.E.i. 17:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe change Sharapova with Anna Pavlova? If more pictures allowed m/b add Gagarin, Pushkin, Akhmatova, Kovalevskaya, Lobachevsky, Tsolkovsky? abakharev 11:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's get of this thing of inserting a woman in any cause, right now there just ain't no place. M.V.E.i. 11:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I can only say, "wow"! I've come across this image from a Portal:Russia announcement , and I mean, come on, this image is nothing but a joke! I thought it was a case of vandalism! (Although from this discussion, it appears that it's not.) Seriously, you don't put painted portraits of Russian rulers and writers next to a western photograph of an ethnically Russian tennis player in order to represent Russians! People just won't understand! Masses are just going to revert the "vandalism", I'm surprised no-one has done that for good so far. MureninC 01:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Pushkin and Leo Tolstoy have been removed from the main image, as the former is not of ethnic Russian ancestry (a fact that he himself acknowledged), whereas the portait of the latter mostly consists of his beard, which conceals his Russian facial features. Instead, Alexander Nevsky and Anton Chekhov were added. Alexander Nevsky is supposed to represent the rich history of the Russian ethnicity and its historical roots, much in the same manner as the image of Elizabeth I is used in the article on the English. Anton Chekhov was chosen among the writers of the 19th century, as he is sufficiently famous throughout the world and has a very Russian appearance, which is quite evident in this particular portrait.

The size of the images has also been slightly modified.Humanophage 16:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Tolstoy and Pushkin are Russians. A little of their blood is not Russian, yes, but that's how it gous with all noble families. But they have seen themselves as Russians, most of there blooad was Russian, i think it's a sin Not to consider themselves as Russians. M.V.E.i.
Tolstoy is certainly Russian. However, it's pointless to post his portait there, since his face is completely covered with a beard. Besides, 4 portraits is enough. I've noticed that it's mainly small ethnicities with a lack of confidence in their ethnic pride who post huge tables with like 16 faces. Pushkin is simply not a good example of an ethnic Russian. Why include a 1/4-Arab if there's a plenty of better examples? Seriously, it's an article about an ethnicity. Humanophage 17:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
You cant have an image without Chaikovski, Tolstoi and Pushkin. Maybe they were not 100% ethnic Russians, but all aristocrats were mixed. Besides, most of their blod was Russian and they considered themselves Russian. Nevski doesnt fit, he might have fought against Tebtons but he was in favor of tatars against other Russian princes. Puter killed to much to enter here, just like Hittler couldnt enter the Germans image. AND WHY MOST HAVE 8 PEOPLE IMAGES, AND WE NEED TO HAVE 4? read back this conversation most supported the 8 people idea. Small ethnic groups?? are English, Italians and Ashkenazi Jews are "small ethnicities with a lack of confidence in their ethnic pride who post huge tables with like 16 faces"? All Ethnic Groups now created themselves high-level photos, uploading a weak photo and argument it as "were good anyway" is not serious. Being great and yet having a good photo is not a contrast you know. Pushkin was not 1/4 arab but 1/8 ARAP (which means slave), and the etnicity he was 1/8 was the black-African etnicity Eritrean. Why him? Because he's considered the greatest Russian poet?? And he was MOSTLY ethnic Russian. And you can't NOT put Dostoyevski, one of the greatest novelists. The trick is not to say "we are great so lets do a lousy photo", but to put a good photo! M.V.E.i. 22:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The article is about an ethnic group. The pictures should represent ethnic Russians, and should be based on their ethnicity, as opposed to their role in the history of the Russian state. You can easily have an image without Tolstoy and Medeleev, because any Caucasian man with a large beard would look absolutely identical to them. Nevski has the classical Russian look. Besides, he is supposed to reflect the rich history of the ethnicity, whereas the current selection makes the Russians appear as if they didn't exist before the 19th century. Nevski is also well-known outside Russia because of the movie, and he's venerated as a saint. He's also used in the Russian wikipedia. Speaking of Peter the Great... if you're against butchers, why put Zhukov up there? Speaking of admixtures, there is a difference between being a German-Russian or a Polish-Russian (both are common), and a close relative of an exotic slave who was brought to the state as a curiousity. By the way, Pushkin isn't that well-known outside Russia. Now, I adore his poetry, but I'm against including him here. As far as aesthetic value is concerned, the larger the image size, the less lousy the overall impression. Besides, Mendeleev's tiny black-and-white portait is certainly not something to be used there... Well, it's practically impossible to make out their features on those tiny, square images. But if, for some reason, you believe that the image is supposed to represent some ethnic Russians from the list of great Russians, I'll make a new version with 8 portaits. The size shall be based on the Polish version, since it looks pretty decent for an 8-picture image. I would be interested in your opinion on the new version, just don't use all that caps-lock stuff and nervous questions, it's distressing. Humanophage 16:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the picture is too small to represent great Russians. Alexander Suvorov belongs there as he is undoubtedly the greatest Russian military commander of all time. A great naval commander would be also good. Some women are needed, and perhaps a great sports hero. I personally think Peter the Great should be put back there. 22:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
We can't add all great Russians could we, and i judged by contribution not by sex in creating the photo, i think the paranoia for hacing woman (even if there contribution is minor) is redicilous. Jukov is much mor known then Suvorov. Offcourse we could do a 12 people photo adding Lomonosov (He deserves it), Sovorov, the first woman in space (dont remember her name now), Popov (inventor of the Radio) and Zworkin (inventor of the Television), but i thing that it will be to much already and the current 8-people photo is just fine and it should be left as it is. M.V.E.i.
The new image has been uploaded. Although I wholeheartedly disagree with your sentiments regarding Aleksandr Nevsky and Peter the Great, I removed them from this new version. However, I believe that including Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and Chekhov on the same picture is a bit too much, and it's an overrepresentation of Russian prose. Instead, I added Viktor Vasnetsov, who is supposed to represent Russian art. The Russian poetry is now represented by Sergei Yesenin, who is about as famous as Alexander Pushkin, but is an ethnic Russian. I managed to find an excellent Wikipedia Commons picture for Yuri Gagarin, which is not protected by any of those ridiculous copyright laws. I also enhanced the design, as the old images used to be of different size. All the sizes were taken from the Polish version, which looks rather decent. All in all, the image just needs the most photogenic of famous ethnic Russians that would represent the most common phenotypes among the nation, and point towards its wide array of achievements at the same time. There's no point in posting all the famous Russians you know there, there is a separate list for that purpose.Humanophage 18:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I returned the previous one. Russian literature is considered to be the best in the world, so it's not to much. You cant take out Mendeleyev, because his table was listed no1 in thi list of 10 greatest inventions released in an american newspapper that i don't remember it's name.. You cant not have Puwshkin, the one who started the whole thing of strong Russian literature. Dostoyevski and Tolstoy are the greatest novelists in the world, you can't take anyone from them out. About Zhukov or domskoy we still need to decide. But i have a seggestion, chose the one you like: 1. We create a 10 people photo (2 rows, 5 in each). 2. We create a 12 people photo (the more i think of it, the more i like the idea. 3 rows, 4 people in each). 3. We make a 15 people photo, 3 rows, 5 people in each. Your photo was really nice, but it was also to big, we need a size more nice for the eye (this one looks even nicer). M.V.E.i. 18:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, your choice is not bad. As to me, I'd add Suvorov instead of Zhukov. Beatle Fab Four 19:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
But the article is not about the history of culture in the Russian state, it's about ethnic Russians. There is a wide variety of famous ethnic Russians to represent the ethnicity, and there is no need in providing a picture with those who are in some way not representative of the Russian ethnicity. So please, let's keep Pushkin out of this, and let's not confuse ethnicity with nationality (as in citizenship). I'm not that sure about Donskoi myself, I would actually prefer Nevsky, as he is extremely famous (and not for his cooperation with the Golden Horde). However, you can offer some other medieval ruler, if you want. Or maybe a saint, like Sergiy Radonezhsky, though his appearance is inconspicious, whereas it would certainly be proper to underline the rugged nature of Medieval Russians. The size of the image is slightly larger than the one used on the English page, identical to the Polish one, and smaller than the Italian one. So it's okay, I think. Speaking of Mendeleev, the picture is simply not good. Besides, his periodic table isn't used in English-speaking countries, so he's not that famous abroad. At any rate, there is a huge variety of important Russian inventors, but I believe that Mikhail Lomonosov is an adequate representative of the whole Russian scientific community, a Renaissanse man as he was. I'm opposed to increasing the number of pictures on the image. It's an illustration, after all, and not a hall of fame. And we'll have to make the portraits really narrow, whereas at the moment they properly correspond with the proportions of an average human face. Will it be okay if I simply replace Vasnetsov with Dostoevsky?Humanophage 20:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, man, Pushkin was not ethnic Russian? Are you sane? Beatle Fab Four 19:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, man, read his biography. He even complained to his peers about his not fully European appearance. Would you include Viktor Tsoy in this selection, had he been alive 200 years ago? Let's not start this discussion about people belonging to the Russian ethnicity just because they 'feel Russian'. There's more than enough Russians to include here without touching that peculiar theme. Seriously, leave the poet be. Humanophage 20:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Man, you are wrong. One of his grand-grandfathers was black. So what? Even if someone biologically(?) is half-Russian, he is RUSSIAN. Beatle Fab Four 20:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Tzoy is a saint. M.V.E.i. 11:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Uh-h, no? The page is about the Slavic group, not the amorphous identity. Humanophage 21:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Just prove please that Pushkin was not Russian. I don't see your rationale at all. Yeah, again, one of his grand-grandfathers was black. So... what? What about other grandmas and grandpas? They can't be counted? Or what? :) Beatle Fab Four 20:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Russian ethnicity physically manifests itself, among other things, in various European phenotypes, the most typical of which are the Baltid and the Nordid phenotypes. The selection is supposed to show that. European traits are recessive, therefore, a single black grandparent would severely influence several generations of his descendants. That is what happened to Pushkin, who retained specific traits that are extremely uncommon among Russians, and which he himself did not ignore. His African ancestry is widely referred to in Russian culture, for instance, take a look at this: . In other words, a significant part of his ancestry does not have anything to do with the Slavic Russian ethnicity, which is described on this page. It is not plausible to use Pushkin's portrait to illustrate this ethnicity. In fact, it is pointless to use portraits of famous persons of noticeably mixed ancestry in any articles describing ethnicities, unless the said ethnicity was formed as the result of such a mixture. Which is definitely not Pushkin's case. Humanophage 21:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Man, when someone starts measuring the size of Pushkin's skull, then he is just an illiterate fool at best. I'm sorry. Beatle Fab Four 20:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
God forbid me from not liking Pushkin's poetry, but that doesn't mean that we should confuse the terms. Praise diversity, eh. Humanophage 22:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not surprised that you proved nothing and gave only vague speculations like "a significant part of his ancestry does not have anything to do with the Slavic Russian ethnicity". What percentage of arian blood is needed to be Russian? Yes, he was ... black on ... 1/8(sooo much!). What about the remaining 7/8? Look at my previous message again. Beatle Fab Four 21:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
What was so vague about the answer? Yes, being 1/8 Black is more than enough not be cited as an example of a European ethnicity. Humanophage 22:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, what you just said is absolute rubbish. Nothing personal. Beatle Fab Four 21:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
He was mostly Ethnic Russian, he's still European. Look, with me you have reached a consencus, simply because i understand we all have to give up on somthing, but as you can see, other users protest against not puting Pushkin in, and all use the same arguments. M.V.E.i. 11:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, as i know, Maria Sharapova is tatarian. So she could represent tatarians;) 06:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

3 million of Russians in USA ? Reports people of Russian "ancestry" as more than 3 million people living in the US. To anyone familiar with the Russian-speaking community in North America it is clear what much smaller number would identify themselves as ethnic Russians in the USA. U.S. Census Bereau in this survey does not even have a separate ancestry category as "Jewish". It is rather clear what this survey labeled most immigrants and their ancestors from Russia and former Soviet Union as having Russian ancestry. Russian Jews followed by people of mixed ancestry who reported one of their often multiple ancestry origins as Russian would make up the largest group in this survey. I restored the old estimate reported here and will look for a more specific reference about ethnic Russians in USA. Fisenko 16:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I can argue against this statistic since U.S. Census Bureau uses different criteria in its "ancestry" data than other countries those ethnic statistics used in this article. For example statistic provided for Russia is based only on people's ethnic self-identification as Russians in recent census. US Census Bureau uses different criteria which includes both ethnic self-identification on survey and your ancestors place of birth, it also accepted multiple ancestry entries. [4]. That's why there is 3 million of people with Russian ancestry in USA but only 700 000 for example speak Russian language at home [5]. Even this 700 000 strong Russian-speaking community would be divided into ethnic Russians, Jews, Ukrainians, Tatars etc. in other statistic entries given for example for Kazakhstan or Latvia. Fisenko 23:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again US Census Bureau accepts multiple entries in its ancestry date therefore person whose ethnicity would be "Jewish" or "German" in Russian or Kazakh census would call himself "Russian Jew" or "Russian German" in US Census would be entered separately under both Russian and for example Jewish ancestry numbers. Obviously it is well known fact ethnic Russian community in USA numbers in hundreds of thousands rather than millions. However, if you add to this all the people with partial Russian ancestry and all the people who would identify themselves as Russian Jews etc. and you have up to 3 million people. Fisenko 03:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Living in North America, I can tell you the Russian community in the US is large, much larger than you think, and there is definitely somewhere close to 3 million with significant Russian heritage. Even if one includes Russian as a multiple entry, they still have Russian ethnic origin and you cant argue with that. If someone is Jewish then they usually select just Jewish, even if their Jewish ancestors came from Poland, Russia, wherever. Those who select Jewish or some other ethnicity along with Russian, are clearly stating they also have ethnic Russian origins as well. These people are deserve to be mentioned in the statistics and you cant claim the other statistics on this page exempt people who arent "pure" ethnic Russians. Im positive the other statistics include those who have some degree of non-Russian origins as well. I ask that you stop reverting this official census data. Thank you. Epf 22:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking about ethnic "purity" or any of such nonsense here. The issue here is that US census bureau in its statistic uses multiple ethnic entries i.e. they will write a single person under different ancestry columns thus multiplying the number by several times compared to ethnic census in other countries, where the person would have no option but to state a single ancestry during the population census. [6]. The issue here is a difference in methods between census in USA and elswhere , specifically in former Soviet Union. Not "ethnic purity" or any of such demagogy. The number for Russian-speaking community in USA is only 700 000 [7] this number is much close to the real number of ethnic Russians in USA. I'm also very familiar with the Russian community in North America and its only significant in several major urban centres like New York, Toronto, Seattle, Boston, San-Francisco, Philadelphia and Miami. Fisenko 16:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry to say but you are incorrect here, because there are significant Russian communities across Canada and the USA, not just in the largest urban centres. The number of people who speak Russian language is not the same thing as those who are of Russian ethnic origin. This article is about Russians as an ethnic group. Now because the responses include multiple origins, it does not mean they "multiply" their responses. Those who claim single Russian ancestry and those who claim Russian ancestry along with another (multiple) are added together to form the numbers. Therefore, these numbers do not exaggerate anything and are obviously quite accurate. I really think you might be confused with how the data is formulated. If someone says their ancestry is Russian only, then that is it, they are only counted once. When someone reports Russian and another ancestry, they are counted under both ancestry categories. When the numbers for each ancestry/ethnic category are accumulated, those who selected Russian and some other ancestry will be counted twice (for each ethnic category they reported) so that the total number of responses will obviously be more than the total number of those who took part in the census. This however does not mean that the numbers for each category are inflated and when 3 million report Russian ancestry, it means 3 million different people claim to have Russian ancestry either solely or along with another ancestry. So if say for example 700,000 reported Russian as a single ancestry, another 2 million or so would also be included who reported Russian along with another ancestry. So when there is 3 million people claiming Russian ancestry, it means there are 3 million different persons who claim to have Russian ethnic origins. I hope this helps clairfy some things, and if you already knew this, well then my apologies. Epf 17:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are correct absolutely correct, there is no argument here. However my point was that in all other censuses present in the article they use a different method. On Russian, Ukrainian, Kazakh, Latvian etc. censuses all people will have to choose and enter only a single ancestry. Therefore, the data used for all other countries would not use the same criteria as in USA. BTW Any member of the Russian immigrant community in North America will tell you what the "Russian-speaking" community in USA is larger than “ethnic Russian” community not the other way around. Fisenko 18:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well from personal experience growing up in North America, it is quite the contrary with most people who are European immigrants and their descendants. With most immigrant groups here unfortunately, there are more who are of the ethnic origin than those who can speak the language. The only exception may be Spanish as there is more people here who can speak it than can claim Spanish or mixed Spanish (Hispanic) ancestry. In Canada, multiculturalism and diversity is encouraged much more and with more cases here than in the US, the number of speakers is more than the number who can claim to be of the ethnicity. I see your point though that there are obviosuly millions more of Russian speakers in the world than ethnic Russians, but in the US, most of them have lost their knowledge of that language. At this point though, do you think the US census figure should be included or not ? Epf 05:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You are not very familiar with the history of Russian immigration into North America. There were four waves so to speak of Russian immigrants into North America. First wave (1880-1910s) was relatively small and this were mostly peasants and religious minorities (like Dukhobors in Canada) and others from Russian Empire/Austro-Hungary and were just a small component of huge wave of East European migrants who mostly were Jews, Ukrainians, Rusyns, German Mennonites (many of who were known as Russians at the time) etc. Second wave of Russian immigrants followed the Russian Civil War of 1917-1921 consisted of anti-Bolshevik exiles the so-called White immigrants and was still relatively small (initially they prefered places closer to home in Europe or China), as well as third wave which followed the Second World War and was even smaller (most third wave immigrants were actually second wave White immigrants moving from Europe/China into North America). In the late 1980s and 1990s the largest influx of Russian immigrants came to North America (the breakdown of immigrants from former Soviet Union was still dominated by Jews, Ukrainians and other minorities), among recent immigrants many Russian Jews do very often identify themselves as simply Russians. It is also quiet clear what most of them have not yet forgotten their language. Fisenko 11:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Most indeed have forgetten the language as with practically all other European migrant groups to the USA. The Russian Jews do cite Jewish ancestry for the most part, but it is impossible to tell how many non-Russians cite Russian or not. Either way, you cant debate and exempt official statistic data. If you like, you can put a note beside the reference to the data saying how the number may include some who possibly dont have any Russian ethnic origins. There is a separate category in the census for "Soviet Union" ancestry for those who are just putting where they came from geographically. You also underestimate the numbers of ethnic Russians who fled both during the great migrations to the Americas of the late 19th/early 20th centuries and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, The ethnic Russian communtiy is very large in America and Canada and these people very much are not simply Russian Jews. I am telling you from what can be read from history of Russian migration to the Americas and statistics about the ethnic Russian community here. Also, do not change the Canadian census data. Those who have Russian ancestry and another ancestry deserve to be included as well and it is ignorant POV in my opinion to say otherwise. Epf 02:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to jump into an already-heated debate, but I feel it important to note that, despite what the U.S. census did a century ago, Jews are not an ethnic group - they're a religion. So it's probably not wise to use that as gauge of how many ethnic Russians live in the US. Seems to me the article has to more clearly define what does it mean by Russians living elsewhere. Perhaps "people born in Russia"? Kosboot 17:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have made this photo It's here for almost a month already, but i still decided to explain how i made it here on the debate. I judged by contribution and not by sex. I entered those people who are most recognizable in the world, and whose contribution is most known in the world. There are many great Russians, so it was not easy to chose, but i thing i chose the once whose faces are the faces of the nation. I'm sorry no woman entered here, but i judged by contribution and not by sex. Offcourse a could take any woman and enter it here, but it would be obvious thats a populistic act of co-equality. M.V.E.i. 17:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

there are no 1M russians in israel

there are only 100000 russian citizens in israel, most of them are jewish! you can not clam russian ethnicity! giving the fact that most of the "russians" in israel are jewish and only speak in russian. i would put the real number on 50000 ethnic russians only! the major part of the russian speakers in israel came from ukraine, moldova and belarus. about 1/4 of the so called "russians" in israel came from central asia. --Ifeldman84 22:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't mistake ethnicity for nationality, that's something that happens way too often and it's quite annoying, actually. You can be ethnic Russian without being from Russia or speaking the Russian language. You can speak whatever language you want, follow whatever religion you want, and be whatever nationality you want, but nothing can change your ethnicity.
no no, you mistake by considering jews as a religous group ONLY, NOW THAT'S something that happens way too often and it's REALLY REALLY REALLY annoying, actually.Varcety 19:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Please don't try to insult my understanding of ethnicity—it is one of the only things I do understand. I know what Judaism is, and I know what qualifies as a Jew and what doesn't. I'm also aware that you have mistaken ethnicity to mean that they act Russian, speak Russian, and identify as Russian. All of these are highly doubtful, and I would appreciate it if you wouldn't make assumptions about what I do and do not know. — Hizrael
In case of Judaism, ethnicity is flexible. According to quite a lot of people, someone who changes his religion to Judaism, becomes an ethnic Jew.
A considerable number of Israeli citizens who were born in the former SU are ethnic Russians according to themselves and/or to legal definitions. It is a controversial issue in Israel - some consider themselves Jewish, but are defined as Russians by the Israeli law and vice-versa. I don't have any numbers, though and 50,000 is dubious.
What no-one can really change is the place where a person was born. Correct me if i am wrong, but that is called "nationality". Most of the people in question were born in Russia/Ukraine/Belarus/Moldova, although i don't have the exact numbers for that too. --Amir E. Aharoni 06:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
"A considerable number of Israeli citizens who were born in the former SU are ethnic Russians" - i doubt it considerably. i think that out of the 100K russian citizens in israel (those are the people who immigrated after 1997) there are about 50% NON-jews as the israel statistics show. and so the number 50K might be very accurate. others out of the 300K non jews in israel mostly are ukrainians. oohh... really who gives a damn?--Ifeldman84 19:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Personally i don't give a damn, but some people do give a damn, and thats what encyclopedias are for.
As i said, i don't have the numbers myself, and i don't have the time and the mood to look for them. If you find any numbers, please give the source. Thanks for your efforts! --Amir E. Aharoni 08:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I was born in Israel and lived there for 5 years, and I can tell you that there were a significant amount of ethnic Russians, as well as people of mixed Slavic-Russian/Jewish-Russian heritage. After the USSR opened up it's borders, Israel was one of the easiest places to get to which is why many Soviets, be they Jewish or not, migrated to Israel.--CommanderJamesBond 11:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
In the 2004 article, BBC puts the number of Russians in Israel at 1 million Not listing Russians in Israel at all in the Distribution column appears to be a POV. Could this number (or any other for that reason) be added to the Distribution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


I drastically shortened the infobox by conflating the population figures into 3 categories (Russia, other ex-USSR, non-USSR). This unfortunately involved adding up census figures from different years in different countries undoubtedly gathered by different methodologies (the source data are still available in the footnotes); if you object, please suggest another way to shorten the infobox, since the length was getting pretty ridiculous. Thanks! cab 13:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


A very large number of Russians are atheists. I think it would be right to mention this in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

I think that most of russians are agnostic too, though they're rather unpracticing orthodox. I know that there is a minority of russian muslims. I think this also should be noted in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Axxn 06:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The 2001 census of Uzbekistan puts the Russian population at 1,092,000. Is it possible to reduce the figure to 620,000 in 2005?????? [8]

Russians in Israel

Is there any way to derive the number of ethnic Russians in Israel? The Israeli census lists 291,700 "Others" (non-Jews and non-Arabs), but it is unclear as to how many of these are ethnic Russians (as opposed to other Christian ethnicities). Cossack 14:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Russians

Am I the only one to find it most unusual that there should be a whole separate section in the article describing the Russian diaspora in China? It is, after all, rather insignificant in comparison to the rest. I suggest fully merging it with "Russians outside Russia". User:Humanophage 20:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy 9th May

Tommorow it's a holy day, day of victory on the Nazis, the victory in which Russian played the biggest role, more then everybody together played. M.V.E.i. 13:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC) And first half of WW2 war fight in nazi side. But then Hitler betraied Soviet Union and Molotov - Ribentrop pact.

Russians in Brazil and USA

Both numbers are very inflated. In USA population census everyone who claimed even partial Russian ancestry is recorded as Russian, while many do not consider ancestry as ethnic origin but rather as a place of origin, therefore, many Russian Jews and others with roots from Russia/USSR/Russian Empire claim Russian ancestry.

Brazil only has 4 Russian churches and Russian language is only spoken by a few thousand people and not mention anywhere as a minority language unlike Polish, Italian or German. Obviously there are no 500, 000 ethnic Russians in Brazil. The same is true about Argentina.Fisenko 22:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's true. Ethnic Russians in Brazil could count 100,000 at most. The source given is not reliable (they also claim that Walt Disney's real name was Vladimir Disniov, an ethnic Russian!). Dantadd 13:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why the Mongol Invasion didn't impact the Russian ethnic & language?

The Mongol Invasion led by Batu Khan and his Blue Horde, conquered and ruled Russia for about 250 years. Many cities and towns were destroyed during that time. Why is that today the Russians still look caucasian and the Russian language is still an indo-european language? Didn't the mongol invaders impact the Russian language and ethnicity? Homer33 04:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No, there are no words in Russian from mongolian. The mongols didn't influence in any way on Russian culture, it just hurted it during the occupation time. If anybody influenced anybody, it's actually the Russian language on the Mongolian Language, which since 1943 uses Russian the Russian ABC. M.V.E.i.

If russians look partly mongoloid (and most did), it is becouse of asimilation of eastern finno-ugres not becouse of mongols. Most of Batu Khan army was ethnicaly turkic not mongols. Still, western mongols - kalmiks have influenced russians. For example Lenin was 1/2 kalmik. In russian there are many turkic and finno-ugric words, but all indo-european langues have many non indo-european words. So it is Indo-european langue. 06:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Do most Russians look partly Mongoloid? That is an... unusual observation, one has to note. Humanophage 14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Hhhh i think that what our friend tryed to say is that many look. Infacy a few look, and it's in South Russia, but thats because the Finic tribes mostly settled their. M.V.E.i. 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that you should listen to that guy, considering the fact that his ip is from Latvia, and we know how balts feel about Russians. The most asian europeans are the finno-ugric group, which includes finns and estonians. --GerojiYuga 10:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct! Theres a big population of Finic tribes in Russia, there use to be even more. Where have they gone? Mixed with the Russians. M.V.E.i. 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


Lets discuss the image that should be in the top right corner. I think if we go for the eight people then at least one should be a woman, otherwise it is simply ridicoulus. Also there should be somebody before the 19th century. For woman maybe Anna Pavlova (see Commons:Category:Anna Pavlova or Anna Akhmatova? Alex Bakharev 08:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This photo is exelent, theres no one we can take out. BUT, if you want, lets make a 10 people photo, and add Lomonosov (fact, his contribution to science is no less then Newtons) and Valentina Telishkova (The first woman in space). But i think this thing of "there should be people from both sexes" is stupid, judje by contribution not by sex. The trick about the photo is that if anybody who see the people on it will recognize them, he will say: "Ooo i know that one, he have done that, that and that". M.V.E.i.

Alex Bakharev, there are no 2 million Ethnic Russians in the USA

The census talks about Russian citizens, while the article is only about ethnic Russians. Most of the Russian citizens living in the USA, infact, almost all, are Jewish. Ancenstry here means the country the man came from. For exemplem Israeli 106,839. But there aint such a nationality Israely isn't it (they are Jews)? This census is NOT ethnic. M.V.E.i. 21:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please check discussion above Alex Bakharev 03:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
And it proves my point, that the "Russians" of USA are mosstly Jews, and there are also other Soviet minorities identified as Russians. Again, the article is about Ethnic Russians. M.V.E.i.

A lot of jews and ethic groups from the SU, are usually classified as russians by the american society, which has not even the singlets clues about who russians are, what they know about them they learned from anti-soviet cold-war propaganda movies. Their idea is that everything that comes out of Russia, is russian.--GerojiYuga 10:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Editing problems:

I am sorry. I seem to be having problems editing the popultion comlumn: I try to put in that 15, 000 ethnic Russians live in Poland, but it won't let me. Could someone please help?

                                                                  With respect.
                                                                 -- 20:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Sergei

"Moldova" - Russian population figures

Are those figures for actual Moldova, or for separatist republic of Transnistria? Just wandering, because I always knew most Russian people in Moldova lived in Transnistria.

Transistria was syntheticaly created. Transistria was created in the Soviet time, but it always had a big Russian population because most of the cities in that area were created by the Russian Empire/USSR (for example the city Tiraspol was founded by Alexander Suvorov). Moldovia was a republic in the middle ages (Russia added this area only in 1812). M.V.E.i. 14:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing question

Summary of this article say: "According to 2002 census, ethnic Russians make up about 80% of the population of Russia [24]." But I could not find this number in reference [24]. Can anyone copy and paste the corresponding segment or provide a better reference?Biophys 15:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic groups: Russian 79.8%, Tatar 3.8%, Ukrainian 2%, Bashkir 1.2%, Chuvash 1.1%, other or unspecified 12.1% (2002 census)

Search for "ethnic groups" on the corresponding page. Humanophage 12:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Statistics isn't accurate. Realy most of jews and tatars (becouse of fear of xenophobia) in Russia is counted as russians. In Russia there realy are more than 2% jewish.

Well, that's true, but that's the only statistics we have. Would you like it to be removed altogether? At any rate, the same applies to a number of other states as well, so one would suggest subtracting several percents from the dominant ethnicity when confronted by statistics of this nature. Humanophage

Great russians?

<Ethnic Russians known as Great Russians (as oppose to White Russians and Little Russians) began to be recognized as a distinct ethnic group in the 15th century, when they were referred to as Muscovite Russians, during the consolidation of Muscovy Tsardom as a regional power.> Actualy when Ruthenia state joyned Muscovy, tzars started to call themselves great russians nad rusyns (ukrainians) small russians. So many ukrainians believe, that russians stolen they hystorical name.

Russian art

Is their any chance someone who understands writes a few lines about a few Russian painters who influenced on the world of art alot in the Contribution to humanity section? Thank you. M.V.E.i. 18:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

Per the quick-fail criteria of the GA process, any article that obviously violates a neutral point of view should be failed immediately. The section "Contribution to humanity" reads like propaganda; a separate section just to chronicle the positive contributions of ethnic russians is not acceptable. Other very serious issues present in the article include, but are not limited to: the lead section is far too short, there are multiple sections that are completely without inline citations, and the improper formatting of many of the references (just a numbered url is not sufficient to verify the reliability of a source). If you feel this decision was in error, you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky Talk 18:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys, a constant act of vandalizm occures here

Someone who obviously hates himself and his nation, tries to feel better by constantly vandalizing this page. While people work hard on the article, someone vandalizes it. The user has a variety of IP numbers and nicknames. My request is: Check the history of this page frequently and see what the change which was done is. Also, an administrator might think of doing some long term IP ranges blocks.


[9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28].

As you can see this user has many nicknames and IP's, but does the same thing. We were patient to much just reverting him back. I dont care if he feels the nation he came from is small and not important so he vandalizes the Russians page, i dont care if his bored. This must stop. We were quite about it to much. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The section "Contribution to humanity" and the section "Culture" is disputed

(Note: someone else brought up the matter above under the section "Failed "good article" nomination")

Russian Literature is considered to be among the most influential literature in the world, sounds very much like propaganda. Considered by whom? Influential in what way?

Tolstoy and Dostoevsky in particular were titanic figures, and have remained internationally renowned, to the point that many scholars have described one or the other as the greatest novelist ever.

Titanic figures sounds like the writer tries to prove they were not merely great authors, but gods. Bad choice of words, and might have been written just to make them shine more than any other great author from any other country. One scholar (referenced) is far from many scholars, which the text asserts.

The information on World War II contains information which is POV and particularly difficult to verify;

A fact which the Russian people are proud of is the large part, larger than anybody elses part..., well, obviously the writer seems to be proud, but is the entire Russian people as proud as h/she is? And far worse, larger than anybody elses part is really a blatant POV. Sounds like the writer likes to downplay every other country involved in the Second World War. It was not only the SU fighting Germany, was it?

It was on the Eastern Front that the war was won or lost, for if the Red Army had not succeeded against all the odds in halting the Germans in 1941 and then inflicting the first major defeats at Stalingrad and Kursk in 1943, it is difficult to see how the western democracies, Britain and the US, could have expelled Germany from its new empire.

Well, one historian may have written this, but to present this particular historian's POV only (and not other historians) is violating WP:NPOV. It seems to have been written just to prove the point larger than anybody elses part..., does it not?

Hope this helps ya all. No need to think I'm anti-Russian here; I love Tchaikovsky and whatever, but the section needs to be rewritten in order to conform to Wikipedia standards. --Protagon (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

More here: The section "Culture" is full of useless peacocking. Please see Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms.--Protagon (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The section contribution to humanity is referenced, so you cant tag "dubious" in a middle of a sentence that gives you references. The Contributaion to humanity section exists also in the English people,Italians and Bulgarians. Jews have an Achievments section, which is pretty much the same. This section was created and edited by many people, and it's just fine the way it is. M.V.E.i., Fisenko, Miyokan and me are just 4 of alot of people who have written it and and belive it's juust fine.

The Culture section is needed, but it needs to be written and expanded. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is vandalizm. You are worned. A majority already decided long before you came that the Contribution To Humanity section is needed and that it is written just fine. Being a sock pupett doesn't give you the right to edit war and to decide for everybody how it would look. Stop. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Nope, it's not fine, and stop accusing me of vandalism (WP:AGF) - I haven't changed any text - I have only marked stuff that needs to be addressed. It's simple; the article is lacking, as another editor mentioned above under "Failed "good article" nomination". Sorry, but the things I've marked are either dubious/peacock tems/questionable and/or lacking in quality and/or failing to live up to Wikipedia standards. I would suggest you read Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability, and alter/rewrite the disputed texts in this article accordingly. It's quite easy - it just takes a serious editor to do it. --Protagon (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Those stuff are adressed. Thats the wehole point you enter tages in the middle of a sentence that was referenced. You are a vandal, simply because you edit war with people who have already had those arguments and found a concensus. You cant reveryt things and add tags when alot of people are against it. So stop. Since you are in a minority, what you can do is write a new version of the section, and not insert it into the text, but upload it here on the talk page, and people here decide wheather there will be a change or not. Thats the maximum you can do. You cant do changes on your own. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
If you decide to ignore the stuff which I have seriously and in good faith mentioned above, and try to play this by your very own rules (please see WP:OWN), this will likely go to a neutral Wikipedia:Requests for comment and perhaps an arbitration case. Should we do do this, or would you please revert yourself, readd the tags and answer to each of my concerns above? Or even better, rewrite the disputed texts? --Protagon (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment, no doubt. The texts are not disputed. If you have a new version of them upload them here on the talk page. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, first, please answer this simple question: do you know what peacock terms are? --Protagon (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and this in not the case. You are now trying to change the case on purpouse, not to honest of you. You started adding idiotic tags and continued doing it even after you were told by few: The text is alright and referenced. Anyway, what those who will come here should do is check this and this link to see that what i have reverted was vandalizm. As i said, if you have suggestions how to revrite it without hurting the content, please. Upload your suggestion here and we all could discuss it. If not, you cant go against a majority that already has a concensus for a long time. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, wrong again, I'm not changing the case. That is precisely the case. You claim you know what peacock terms are, but still you don't see them. Therefore I will spell them out for you, slowly, one by one:

  • Russian art is very important and considered by many to be unique and some of the most important painters in the world are Russian,
  • is considered to be among the most influential,
  • titanic figures,
  • larger than anybody elses part
  • etc. etc. etc.

are all peaock terms by pure definition (actually perfect examples which would fit on the very page Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms itself as examples). Simply rewrite them to non-peacock versions, it's as simple as that, and I'll make no fuss. Please, where is your claimed majority or "consensus" which have discussed and suggested these particular wordings? Please show me, it would be interesting to see that previous discussion with other editors. --Protagon (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • etc. etc. etc.
You vandalized the artricle with tags that are much beyong what you stated now. Now lets go thru what you brought up:
    • is considered to be among the most influential - It really is and the reference was given.
    • titanic figures - Well, when they are rated as the greatest novelists ever, they really are.
    • larger than anybody elses part - 2/3 of the murdered at WW2 were Russian, and 85% of the German forces were destroyed in Russia by Russians. And this was referenced. So i dont see anything wrong with that statement.
    • Russian art is very important and considered by many to be unique and some of the most important painters in the world are Russian - About Russian art it's enough to place a needed to be written template. Vorontsov, Rublov, Repin were Russian so some of the most importent painters really were Russian. If you want ad the names to the section. We need a Russian who understands in art to write about it. The culture sectin really needs to be edited. Written i would say.
Again, go to English people, Italians, and have this argument there. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning other pages (English/Italian) - actually I might go there and check if things live up to wikistandards. But now, let's stick to the subject and consider this particular page and these particular statements. But, first just a note: this will be the last time that I accept that you accuse me of vandalism. Please read What vandalism is not, and stop that behavior; otherwise I will take appropriate measures. Now, back to the subject...
It is quite obvious that you believe the wordings are true and fine the way they are, but this is not relevant. Actually, I might even agree with you on some points, but neither my opinion is relevant. What's relevant is that the two sections are full of peacocking, and reads very much like propaganda, like User:VanTucky has stated above. Now, these things have to be fixed, and I will add the tags to the statements until they are properly addressed. If you are serious about fixing it, here's a very good advice (from the peacock page): Instead of telling the reader that a subject is important, use facts to show the subject's importance. That is, don't draw conclusions for the reader; let the reader draw his own. Here are some examples on how to do it (for instance):
  • Russian art is very important and considered by many to be unique and some of the most important painters in the world are Russian - the peacock terms here are actually just stupid; important - important to whom, considered by whom? Instead of saying it is important, tell why it is important. Unique - bad word, all art is more or less unique. Scrap it. In fact, scrap the entire sentence and replace it with mentioning appropriate painters and use terms like widely known, famous. Don't draw subjective conclusions on who or what is important or influential.
  • Russian Literature is considered to be among the most influential literature in the world. Same thing here; influential to whom? Considered by whom? Advice: scrap this sentence completely - instead, mention appropriate authors and use terms like widely known, widely read or famous.
  • ...many scholars have described one or the other as the greatest novelist ever - quite unnecessary, every scholar has his/her favorites. Scrap it. Use facts, not opinions.
  • titanic figures - this has been changed and that's good. Maybe not perfect, but better.
  • Second World War: larger than anybody elses part. Plain peacocking, scrap it. Advice: rewrite the entire first sentence to, for instance The Soviet Union was a major participant in the Second World War, and played a big role in defeating Nazi Germany in World War II. (maybe not perfect language, but better, I think you get my point). Then, afterwards, mention the facts as is, but remove the last cite It was on the Eastern Front... referenced to one single historian. This is quite unnecessary, as it is opinion and not fact. Again, let the facts speak for themselves.
In the meantime, I will add the tags to all disputed statements until they are properly addressed. --Protagon (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
What you do is edit waring and inserting tags which you were told were already discussed and dont fir here, and this is vandalizm since you were warned for a few times. What you do is called Sneaky vandalism and Abuse of tags. You can read about it at the same page you gave. No about what you wrote:
  • ...many scholars have described one or the other as the greatest novelist ever - It's a fact that many scholars... this is a complitely NPOV and fine statement that anderlines the fact that it's a n opinion of a number of scolars, but we want that opinion to be in the text.
  • Russian Literature is considered to be among the most influential literature in the world. We said among the most influencial, to keep the NPOV. About that you can find information in a seperate article about Russian literature.
  • Russian art is very important and considered by many to be unique and some of the most important painters in the world are Russian - Among the most important simply because painters like Repin, and many more, are comsidered by many to be among the greatest painters in the world andf the most influencial. Were not touching Russian art because we want a specialist who could write it in a major way.
  • Second World War: larger than anybody elses part. Whan most of the German forces were destroyed in the USSR, and most of the murdered were Soviet people, it shows that the soviet union had the largest part.
Everything you refered to was answared. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Aha, I see, I might have guessed this. You refuse to see the problems, and you obviously think that you define the rules. Please note that this was the last time I accept that you refer to my edits as vandalism. My edits are not Abuse of tags, since they are not put here in bad faith, but in order to improve the quality of this article. I have thoroughly explained here on the talk page why and how the things have to be fixed. My edits are neither Sneaky vandalism, since I don't hide them, I don't say they're minor, I don't hinder the improvement of pages and I do not use misleading edit summaries. But I'm sorry to say that you continually do so; I quote the page Wikipedia:VAND: Some vandals even use edit summaries such as "rv vandalism" to mask their changes; since you do this and falsely accuse me of vandalism, you are by definition yourself guilty of sneaky vandalism. I sense that we have a slight case of WP:OWN here, and I actually don't think we can come to any constructive compromise here, as you still refuse to see the peaock terms. Still, I will give this another chance, and allow other editors (including you) to address the disputed contents. I will readd the tags, and if you bluntly remove them without addressing the disputed contents constructively, i.e. ignoring my points, I will take this one step further and take appropriate measures. --Protagon (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I dont think i falsely call you a vandal. I also dont think that if you'll say it ain't true it will make it not true. A concensus was reached here long ago, i'm not the first one who tells you to stop, yet you ignore what you've been told and ask questions without expecting an answer. You abuse tags. You use them in places with references and a nutral point of view. I wouldn't say i refuse to see the problem, but reather you refusing to see answers to your claims. You were offered a solution long ago: Dont revert but show an example, here, ON THE TALK PAGE, on what refrasing you want to be there. I already went on 2 compromises in the text, while you simply keep on taging. If you'll compere the CTH section before you started fighting about it, and now, you'll see i have done changes as a compromise, while you ignored them. Again, you act as if you are being ignored, and you are not. Offer the changes on the talk page, and we will talk about them. This, for example, is an accepted change. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
This part of the article is far from neutral, quite POV, and sounds like it could possibly be nationalistic propaganda using these peacock terms. I want to see statistics, I bet you they don't match up to the claims, especially regarding WWII. JanderVK (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Go to the World War II article and see for yourself. First, we mentioned it's OVERYS OPINION. See? Soviet Union lost more people than anybody else. Now read this. Is it so hard for you to find the article and check it yourself before blaming people?? Read. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Wrong again, mister. As I said before (my very last repeat): (1) My edits are not vandalism. (2) I do not abuse tags. If you continue with false accusations, it might soon be time for an WP:AN/I on this for you. You say Offer the changes on the talk page, and we will talk about them. I have already done so, on numerous occasions. I have described how to do it. I have given my advice. I have given examples. No, sorry, but I do feel that whatever I say you will disagree with, if you haven't yet understood the obvious peacock terms which harms the WP:NPOV of this article. And the cite of the single historian's POV seems (now more than before) to be put there only to support a POV. And, your idea of a "compromise" seems to be trying to keep a status quo - that's not a compromise when the section is full of POV. A compromise is to rephrase every disputed phrase, so the tags can be removed, and on that I will not compromise. Don't worry mister, I will patiently keep tagging until I see that the needs have been met. Anyone else supporting/opposed to this? --Protagon (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
1. Yoy are a vandal, you have a revert war while your the only one on your side. 2. You are abusing tags, and i'm not the first one reverting you over that. You havent given one example. O, you have given one, with canging "Nore then anybody elso" to "big part", and that was made as you offered. It's not like were showing Overys view as the only one, but we have underlined that it's his opinion. So a tag is really not needed, because it was noted in the text that its an opinion. About what do you want to discuss?? About the fact is it here opinion or no?? The page, and everything, was given to you. "Mister", pans on. Make a table here. Every line you dont agree with, and how do you suggest to change it. It's the 4th time i offer that. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
That's definitely the last time you call me a vandal, this goes to RFC and WP:AN/I right now. I'm not alone - User:VanTucky and User:JanderVK agrees with me above. I'm keeping the tags until a really serious editor can address the problems. If you have trouble understanding, User:No Free Nickname Left, read this entire talk page section from the start again. Then you might understand - but I can't help doubting it. --Protagon (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
As i said: 1. In Culture there is no use of taging, since you have puted this tag: The quality of this article or section may be compromised by "peacock terms". It already makes it clear that the section needs to be written. 2. In CTH we need to have: Russian contribution to sciense, literature, music, and the role the Russian people play in WW2. If what you try is to reach a situation one of those parts will be deleted, forget it. If you have a suggestion how to change it, write it hear. You clame you want the section to be more nutral, so already nor for the first time i re-write it to make it more nutral. All you do is placing tags. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)