Talk:Russians/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Contribution to humanity

I wonder whether Russian "contributors to humanity" of last 90 years are omitted on purpose or by some mistake? No any single Nobel prize winner, no writers, only few composers. Probably not all the famous Soviet artists, authors and scientists were ethnically Russian, but still there are quite a few. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.236.19.141 (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Response: I gave there names of Scientists/Inventors who have made some of the most importent discoveries in Science, some of the most importent inventions. The Noble Prise is a very controversial thing. Tolstoy, the greatest novelist was nominated but didn't win, while hundreeds of writers who are week and forgotten, won it. Dostoyevski, Pushkin, and many others didnt have it, so what? Russian composers: Chikovski is one of the greatest (If not the greatest) composers ever. Many other composers (Rachmaninoff, Rimski-Korsakov, Shostakovich, Prokofiev) are among the best ever in the world. Dont forget that the Noble-prize thing is very politicised. Quite a few? Almost all the great Russian people were Ethnic Russians, all the names i gave are Ethnic Russians (And i just gave the chosen once). Ofcourse some great people from Russia were not Ethnic Russians (Jews played an importent role in Russia), but in every country there are many Jews who made great achievments in the name of that counry. In conclusion, Russians are one of the most importent and contrebuting nations in the world. M.V.E.i.

M.V.E.i- i don't understand why you think Lev Landau doesn't fit the russian category- because he was jewish?? Um, so then by that argument Trotsky isn't Russian either. True, Landau was born in Baku not Russia, but at that time it was part of the Russian empire. If Russian citizens who consider themselve part of the Russian people also happen to be Jewish, who are you to condescendingly dictate they are not?Ateapotist

I agree with Ateapotist.--Ilya1166 07:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Actualy, this article is about Russians as an ethnic group. Trotsky and Landau weren't ethnic Russians, so they dont fit the article. Log in, log out (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A proposal to expand the image

We cant remove anyon from the current image because: 1. All of them are importent. 2. They were chosen by a long discussion and are a concensus. Nevertheless, i thing we should add another 4 people, which means, addinganother line . I've experimented it on my computer, and it looks just beautiful. The 4 people i propose are: Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Andrei Tarkovsky, Sergei Rachmaninoff, Dmitri Mendeleev.

There's another proposal to turn it into a 4 line image, which means adding another 4 to the previous four offered (i propose: Sergey Korolyov, Vladimir Zworykin, Alexander Pushkin, Constantin Stanislavski). This will look even better but i'm afraid many might say it's to much. Nevertheless, i experimented with this version to and it looks exelent (4 lines with 4 people on each line). Infact, it looks the best an image for an ethnic froup article could be.

If you agree to expand but have other ideas for the people needed here, please, No Peter I of Russia or Vladimir Lenin. All kings, leaders and all that has to do with politics should be left out.

Please state your opinion on the expansion idea, on how much to expand if expand, and what do you say about my people proposal.

REMEMBER, no changes should be done on the current image due to the fact that this selection was chosen as a consencus. Most of those i offered to add i offered because it seems they have place to be though they were not agreed by the consencus that agreed on the 8 that eventually were entered to the current image. M.V.E.i. 16:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I hear there are women in Russia too. What about Valentina Tereshkova? Haukur 17:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The Russian women are the most beautiful in the world, no doube. But, i chose by contribution and recognisation, not by sex. With all this polit-correctness look what they have in the English people image, it's really not nice. Offcourse i really respect Valentina Tereshkova, but we already have Gagarin here. He was the first man in space. And all that came later... first woman, first red-haired, first wearing green socks, it doesnt stand the competition to enter the image. All Soviet cosmonauts are great people that deserve alot of respect but for this image enough Yuri Gagarin. M.V.E.i. 17:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Lydia Litvyak? Haukur 18:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The idea is nice but we are not shure she's an ethnic Russian. Her lastname, Litvak, means Latvian. Thats mostly a Jewish lastname, and sometimes Belarusian. If her mother is Russian then yes she's exelent for here (doesn't metter from what side, but to enter the image the candidate needs to have Russian blood), and no licence problem, but where is a link? If i could at least have the surname of her mother before marrige i could tell. M.V.E.i. 18:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Katya Budanova is shurely Russian, but we dont have an image of her. if we had an image of her that would be nice. Anyway, as i can see, by proposing woman you support expansion. Please tell how much do you think should be added, 4 or 8. M.V.E.i. 18:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Political correctness would expect 50/50. But that's not that important. Atleast one for two would add a bit of colour. :) Suva —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suva (talk • contribs) 18:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Alexandra Kollontai? Marina Tsvetaeva? I'm not particular about the number of people, nor do I absolutely insist on a 50/50 gender spread but something close to it is surely reasonable. After all, every other Russian is a woman. Haukur 18:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Kollontai doesn't fit, as i said previously, no politics. Tsveteva... What about Akhmatova? M.V.E.i. 19:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hhh you are probablly right. I proposed Akhmatova. M.V.E.i. 19:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Akhmatova is good. Haukur 19:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Anna Pavlova? Haukur 19:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i offer to put Akhmatova instead of, and it's not easy for me, Yesenin. They contribute the same to the image. Pavlova is great but i wont support that because ballet, theater, stage will be exelently represented by Stanislavski, which we get in case we get to expand it into a four-row image (which means, we add 8 people). Ok... mmm so we have a woman candidate? Looks nice. M.V.E.i. 20:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I entered Marina Tsvetaeva and not Anna Akhmatova because i found out that Akhmatova was Ukrainian and not Russian, while Tsvetaeva is Russian. M.V.E.i. 15:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You could have used Anna Pavlova aswell, as she is much prettier than most other people on the picture. And also she seems to be quite notable. Because me with very little knowledge of famous people even know about her. :) Suva 15:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Suva. But the new collage is certainly no worse than the current one so I don't object to you putting it in the article. Haukur 15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Guys but, what makes Pavlova unique? Shes not the only ballerina in the world. I chose those who are irreplacable. Anyway, i wanted to insert her and for that i played a little more and made a 16 people image but it looked streched and horrible. About beauty, Tzvetaeve is beautiful. It was Haukurth who offered her so great idea! It was really hard to chose the people (i have 4 versions of that image on my computer with different people selections). P.S. Sova, you problly have more knowledge on famous people then you think, i haven't known Pavlova before. M.V.E.i. 17:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It seems Stanislavski greatly represents the whole stage thing. M.V.E.i. 17:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is limited space on the image and we cannot infinitely extend it. It is not suppose to show all the world-famous Russians. M.V.E.i. did the last version of the image and he has some artistic license on who is on this image. If you will extend the image, I would consider Anna Pavlova (as a matter of fact as an Australian citizen I would even consider to put her instead of a "dead old white man" on the current image; how many other foreigners gave their name to national foods like Pavlova (food)), Alexander Alekhine, Feodor Chaliapin, Peter I (well I know he was a politician, but he lived 300 years ago), Pyotr Kapitsa, Dmitri Mendeleev, Nikolai Lobachevsky, Ilya Repin... The list really can unroll infinitely Alex Bakharev 00:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As you said, we can't put all Russians in it. Pavlova is only a Ballerina, she's not the first she didn't stamp anything new, unlike Stanislavski for example who made alot of new things. There were people who just must be thats why i extanded it. I wanted Mendeleyev but i figured Lomonosov represents the whole science thing nicely. M.V.E.i. 09:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, but I don't quite understand why there should be so many pictures at all. The image is quite huge, and the old pictures were more than sufficient to represent the folk. Seriously, why put every famous Russian in here? Anyone who would fancy using famous Russian links may find them in the appropriate section, namely the one on their contributions to humanity. This image is basically an illustration to an anthropological article on the Russian ethnicity. I'd say it should present those Russians who are supposed to look Russian, not mere representatives of the Russian culture or famous Russians with highly exotic features. In addition to that, what's Pushkin doing there again? Hasn't that already been discussed?.. Oh, and speaking of the contribution section. Am I the only one who finds it weird that the part about WWII is larger than the part on all famous Russians altogether? It also contains highly subjective information, and the overly enthusiastic tone strikes me as unencyclopedic. The article projects the image of a folk with a huge array of complexes, with its representatives trying to make a point using Wikipedia. Well, the image is truthful, but at least we could try to act in a more discreet manner... Humanophage 01:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think 12 images is too much, and I agree with Humanophaege, the pictures should be Russians that look Russian, not necessarily representatives of Russian culture or famous Russians with exotic features. Which is why I think that someone like Maria Sharapova should be included. Also, I strongly object to Sergei Yesenin being removed, he looks very Russian and he is probably the only young Russian there.--Miyokan 01:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Those who have the classical Russian appearance without any traits that would be classified as uncharacteristic of the ethnicity, and without traits apparently obtained through admixtures of those who have little to do with the Russians, or Eastern Europeans altogether, like North Africans, Western Asians or Mongoloids. Mostly of the Baltid phenotype, if you need a precise description, but East Nordids wouldn't hurt either. Humanophage 09:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

My friend i cant say your wrong. Nevertheless, most of Russians or at least half have those elements (some have Finic, some Turk), and we cant cancel those. M.V.E.i. 10:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if someone has foreign admixtures, then certainly he cannot adequately represent an ethnicity. I mean, a partly Tatar Russian, for instance, cannot be a fine example of either the Russians or the Tatars, and should not be used as an illustration to anthropological articles about either of them. The same can be said about anyone with considerable admixtures of physical traits that are not characteristic of the original Russians. Why use examples that aren't fully illustrative of the ethnicity itself? In addition to that, it is an exaggeration to imply that most Russians have either Turkic or noticeable Finno-Ugric admixtures. Well, actually, there's nothing wrong with Finno-Ugric admixtures, as long as they don't add a Mongoloid strain, which would make them different from the original Russians, and thus improper for the article. Humanophage 16:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Many, maybe more then half of the Russian have mixed with finic tribes. Many Russian woman were raped by mongolo-tatars and some had children from them. Those parts should be represented to. Those are Russians to. They are many, and thats why they cant be ignored. P.S. I wanted to add Rachmaninov but i havent, thought i wanted. He is mostly Russian but his family-root was Tatarian. I dont see that important but i havent entered because i figured that you will object. M.V.E.i. 22:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sharapova was in and old image and that was heavily critisized. She has nothing special and many took it as vandalizm. And what do you mean "looks Russian"? Every Oblast in Russia has it's own look, features. There's no such thing as a "Russian look". Yesenin looks like the north-west Russian yes, but really not like a South-Russian. Tzvetaeva has the same features as Yesenin. M.V.E.i. 09:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. In every ethnic groups image what they did is taking the most historicaly famous and recognizable once, and not just temporary celebraties (like Sharapova). The trick is to take those who are number one, irreplacable. M.V.E.i. 09:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that it's nice expanding. I havent made it 16, just 12 (a luky number by the way, not that i'm supersticious). I'm not trying to represent all the famous Russians in the world, we would have to do a 1000 people image for that. But yet, this expanding was needed. M.V.E.i. 09:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What first comes into my head is:

• Alexander Suvorov should be added into the image with no doubts.
• The art and literature in particular seem to be dominant now on the image. I think, we should not forget about other branches of culture as well. for a sportsman I'd suggest Vladislav Tretyak.
• Due to my personal view I'd replace Dmitry Donskoy with Ivan III of Russia

Cmapm 14:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• • For one more female famous Russian I'd suggest Marina Raskova.Cmapm 15:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But we have no-one we could remove from the image, and expanding more will not look good. M.V.E.i. 18:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose, it's better to remove someone from already represented branch of culture, than to leave huge branches uncovered.Cmapm 19:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The trick is not to cover branches but to put those who are most recognized for a long perioud of time. P.S. We already had the discussion about Donskoy and Ivan the 3, but only me and Humanophage took part in that discussion. I think that your suggestion here is good so i will start the discussion here bellow again. M.V.E.i. 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK guys, Cmapm suggested a proposal to replace Donskoy with Ivan the Third. It's really hard to decide beetwen them, so state your opinions on that. M.V.E.i. 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I am quite surprised that no-one has yet suggested Alla Pugacheva --Russavia 23:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That ugly Popsa cow? No way! She is hated by to much! PocketMoon 17:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We (the dutch), have been working on our own article of the Dutch people and we have been able to supply only ethnic Dutch people, with minimal admixture of foreign ethnic qualities to our collage; making it completely Dutch. When will you Russians start placing only ethnic Russians in your collage? I see that your greatest poet is a negro? He has no place in your collage. Neither do Germans or Jews. You don't see use placing the Dutch-German royalty or the Jewish Spinoza in our collage do you? 85.146.24.65 (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You actually seem to want to make a point about the issue of Dutch ethnicity. I would suggest you do this at Talk:Dutch (ethnic group). Iblardi (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hhhhh Pushkin was only s 1/8 negro. The rest of him was Russian. Once a person has a majority of Russian blood, and he consideres him Russian, he can enter him. You cant enter Schpinoza because he didnt have any Dutch blood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.110.85 (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmkay, I've gotten a message from someone accusing me of a hurting a consensus, so I've read this section very very carefully and... I don't see it. Does anyone other than 79.183.110.85 have a problem with my replacing the single-file picture collage with a wiki-code multi-file collage? Melesse (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Russians in Israel

There are at least 300, 000 Russians in Israel, that I know of. Russian is one of the most common European languages used there. In Tel-Aviv many ATM and bank machines offer service in Russian along with English and Hebrew as third most spoken language. Why is this not mentioned in the info box? --User:142.33.185.2. 02:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)- Sergei

There's actually about 1.5 million Russian-speakers in Israel, far more than 300,000. How many of them are ethnically Russian is debatable. 300,000 is the figure of non-Jews from the former Soviet Union. Funnily, many of those people would be Jewish by Wikipedia standards (Jewish father) but not by Halacha and Israeli law (ethnically Slavic, non-Jewish mother). Though either way, an ethnic Russian mother (or maternal grandmother in my case) is sufficient for the Ethnic Russian category in my opinion. But of course, plenty of these non-Jews could have Ukrainian or Belorussian mothers, but we just don't know for sure. CommanderJamesBond (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Population section is completely out of whack

I don't even care which numbers are correct, but it contradicts the article itself!

• population of about 260 million people worldwide, on the right we read: Total population 137 million (what year, btw?)
• 130 million ethnic Russians live in Russia, on the right we read: Russia: 115,889,000
• 50 million more live in the neighboring countries, 70 million live elsewhere in the world, on the right we read: 137-115=22 million outside of Russia total! Guinness man (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed the Disputed tag in the Contribution To Humanity section

The section is fine. What's disputed? If Overy have said it or not? Or the fact that the first man in space was Gagarin? About literature. He said they are CONSIDERED, and gave links showing they are widely regarded as the best novelists ever. The section is written nutraly and gives referenced facts. Shpakovich (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Russians in Canada

The real number of ethnic Russians in Canada is logically somewhere between 500,600 and 98,245. 500, 600 is totaly unrealistic and can mislead readers who are unfamiliar with a differences between methods used in cenus data on "ancestry" in Canada and methods used to collect ethnic statistics in former Soviet states and most other nations. Using number of "multiple responses" from Canadian census is obviously leads to an overestimation. 500, 600 includes all Canadians who said that they have any ancestors who are either ethnically Russians as well as in many cases simply those who have any ancestors who originally came from the either Russia, Soviet Union or Russian Empire. Ethnic Russian diaspora in Canada even if we include Russian Jews, Russophone Ukrainians and people of mixed origin who consider themselves culturally Russian would number may be 200, 000 + but clearly not 500, 000 Fisenko (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It really is a matter of definition. If you're talking about Russian Canadians as defined in the English language ("those who self-identify as such" or "immigrants from Russia (the country) and their descendants"), then it is half a mil. If you're talking about Russians as defined in this article ("east slavic ethnic group", different from ukranians and belorussians) who happen to live in Canada, then, come to think of it, I agree with 98,245. But for this article only, not for Russian Canadian. --Cubbi (talk) 06:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

A vote

Your Votes:

• One piece. Much more esthetical. First, the sizes of all people's images are the same size. Second, they were edited so all faces would be almost the same size, and not one image completely showing face and another the whole body. MaIl89 (talk) 11:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• One-piece Looks nicer, less attractive for edit warriors. Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • comment Please assume good faith - most editors work for the benefit of the encyclopedia, very few set out to start an edit war. Preventing an edit war isn't a good justification for making a task (i.e. changing a photo) more difficult for everyone. Papa November (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry to break it but you cant ignore that "most" are not "all". It would be really nice to make those who are left as weaker as possible. Dont tel me there ain't vandalism on Wikipedia. Maybe only few come with bad intentions, but they do alot damage. Another argument is that it took to much time to get as close as posible to a concensus about who should be on the image. Many images together would make it to easy to change people. Someone might change it not because of bad intentionts, the intention will be good, but because of not knowing that the case is to gentle and as someone who worked alot on images i know that it brings to ugly wars. MaIl89 (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• One-piece per above. Otebig (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• comment The separated image block has some obvious problems - the dimensions of the images used are not in proportion, so there are gaps between images vertically, and each row is a different length. It would be nice to clean up these images up, and then discuss the merits when the aesthetic problems have been removed. Papa November (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You ignored the vandalism problam. It's to easy for vandals. And about what you said, why working so hard if it's much more easier and esthetical to have a one piece? There are more arguments for a one piece. We done seek here for a compromise, and thats what you seek for, but for the better solution. Another argument is that it took to much time to get as close as posible to a concensus about who should be on the image. Many images together would make it to easy to change people. Someone might change it not because of bad intentionts, the intention will be good, but because of not knowing that the case is to gentle and as someone who worked alot on images i know that it brings to ugly wars. MaIl89 (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm well aware that there are many problems regarding vandalism, but there are better ways of dealing with the issue. The image collage can go in a sub-page such as Russians/collage, which can be transcluded in the article. If persistent vandalism occurs, then the sub-page can be semi-protected. This would allow established editors to modify and improve parts of the collage with ease, but make it completely impossible for vandals. Surely this is better than making it slightly difficult for everyone? Papa November (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not shure were talking on the same issue. Your right that her offer, and your improvment of her offer, are possible. But why do all that if a one piece solves many of those problems with less work? A one piece solves many possible problems from the start. A collection is too liqued. MaIl89 (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
        • The single image solution has a number of serious problems. For a start, what happens if one of the constituent images has a license problem? At the moment the entire image is deleted. What if you want to change one of the constituent images? At the moment, you have to go to the trouble of editing the composite image, which also results in progressive loss of quality through JPEG compression. The only tangible argument I've heard against using an image table is to reduce vandalism... but you can actually achieve better protection against vandalism by transcluding another protected page than by using an editable image. Please could you clearly define exactly why you object to a collage? Papa November (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
          • This image does not have license problems. The discription page has a link and license type to every image used there. You speak in general, and again, it's not the place for it. Here we talk about a specific image. It's not a problem to change one of the persons there, it's just "cut" in paint, and then some paint games to fit the new person in. You didnt realy think that what you see is what was from the start. And no it makes no problem with the quality. you can alow yourself to cut a piece of an image so it would fit the others. Infact, if somethings makes quality problems is in a collection of images where you have to strech and torture images so they would get close to each other by size. Some people were changed till the concensus was found, or more preciesley the closest as possible to a concensus. I have nothing against collection of images, but i still prefer a one piece. MaIl89 (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• One-piece if necessary alter the image itself, but keep it as one image. --Kuban Cossack 10:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Russians in Finland

Article states that there are 33,000 russians living in Finland. However, this is 2002 information and recently there has been in news that the number has risen to 45,000, including this (Finnish). This has been reported in various sources in Finnish media. More and more russians flood in our country and therefore this article needs to be updated to the latest information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuhlfürst (talk • contribs) 19:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Russians-only East Slavic?

I have created a user account and noticed that someone keeps changing Russians as back to an ethnic group of only East Slavic origins. Why-is he denying that the Mongols had a large impact on Russia. There are many articles proving that Russians have Mongol genes and their culture was influenced by the Mongols. I recommend saying that Russians are of "Slavic and Mongol origin." Here are some links: http://www.sras.org/the_effects_of_the_mongol_empire_on_russia

I've just checked the above-mentioned link and was shocked at the very low(if there is any) scientific reliableness of the data provided.The author of this "evidence" is an american college graduate Dustin Hosseini who posesses the horreinously bad knowledge of Russian(being a bachelor of arts in Russian language and history(!!!) and despite this fact,tries to elaborate on the matter of the geneology of Russian people.Here is a fair example of his "profficiency":"Давай попьём! Davai popyom! ‘Come on, let’s get drunk!’".I 've taken this passage from the above-mentioned article where Dustin tries to draw a link between Mongol and Russian words in order to prove that the peoples have the same genes.(!!!)This poor lad doesn't know that "let's get drunk" is translated as "davai VIplem" not "davai popjem" as he holds it.

Mongols left relatively insignificant trace in Russians' geneology primaraly because they didn't colonize Russia and were only one-time passage-bys on their way to central adn south Europe.As we know,mongols conquered the lands of today's ukranians,poles,hingarians,horvats,passed through austrian lands,so if we follow the logic of Dustin-like "specialists" we might conclude that half of Europe are mongolized and turkisized(for example,turks beseged Vienna numerous times,possessed Greece and Armenia for centuries but no one calls greeks to have turkish genes).

Frank Russian (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/360/11931_alcoholism.html -no, I don't think that Russians are alcoholics, but the article just shows that they have mongol genes, and pravda is a fairly respectable newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdn12 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that people of Pskov, Novgorod, Vologda, Arkhangelsk, Vladimir and many other regions of northwestern Russia where Mongols never got to are not Slavic??? Also I would like you to have a look at this: [1] genetic study which says all about the different genes and spices. True there have been non Slavic influences in some groups, but on the whole if the closest to Russia genetically, it would be Komi and Mordva, Finno-Urgic peoples not mongols. Internationally Russians are recognised as East Slavs. --Kuban Cossack 07:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Genetic research, such as that described in "Two Sources of the Russian Patrilineal Heritage in Their Eurasian Context"[2] shows that there are no Mongoloid admixtures in Russians. There are Finno-Ugric admixtures in northern Russians - curiously, the part that has never been pillaged by the Mongols. Non-Northern ethnic Russians are genetically more or less identical to the Poles. --144.82.204.222 (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

To the author of the abovementioned commentary. Thank you for correcting my Russian. We all learn from our mistakes. (Dustin H.)

Help needed. Kuban Cossack, take a look

This article has no information about the Slivic tribes that eventually formed the Russian nation. The genetic study should be given here, and offcourse a few words about Russians having some Finno-Ugric blood. I except the Slavic tribes Krivich, Ilmen Slavs, Radimichs and Severians, and the Finno-Ugric Merya and Muromian, dont know any other tribes that fit here.

Someone told me Russians also have some Iranian nomand tribes in them, but i havent found information about it. Vistula Veneti, Saka (Scythians) and a few more were mentioned but again, no links were given to me about it so i dont even know if it's true. In a book called Rebirth of Perun (Voskresheniye Peruna) by Klein it was said that the Slavic Mythology has many incommon things with the Iranian one and that might speak of some connections.

If someone can, please write about it.

P.S. No one think of entering the Mongols and Turks here. Since the genetic study showed that Russians dont have that blood, it is totally useless in entering them here. MaIl89 (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I agree the article is in a sorry state, and could use a major expansion, but honestly I am focused on other areas now, and my time is scarce. --Kuban Cossack 11:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I did what i can in the Origins section. Wherever you have time, please add information, esspecialy the genetic study. No hurry. For now i do what i can. MaIl89 (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you take the time to read these articles:http://www.sras.org/the_effects_of_the_mongol_empire_on_russia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_Genghis_Khan#Russian_gateways http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/360/11931_alcoholism.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdn12 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I read them, but i'll tell you why they cant be used. 1. Today an ethnic study about roots cant be counted without a genetic study. We already used here a link of a genetic study, and the results didn't have anything incommon with Turkic or Mongoloid genes. 2. "Scientists clame" many things. We will use that only they wont "claim", but prove. 3. Even if 50% of the Russian population would have mongoloid genes, which is not true becuase nothing like that was shown in the genetic study, but anyway, even if, 50% is not 100%. To put something here you need a 100%. For example, all Russians have Slavic genes, and that's why that's here. Russians have a little of it, but they all have it, Finno-Ugric blood. Thats why that information too is in the text. SharpNail (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine. First, I doubt that 100% of Russians have Slavic genes, but that's beside the point. Russians have been influenced by Mongols, yet there is nothing to indicate this based on the article about Russians as an ethnic group or the country of Russia. There are just some sentences basically saying the Mongols ruled Russia for about 200 years. There is a reason why 70% of Russians don't feel European and how the rest of Europe has gone on a different path from Russia, even countries that were once in the Warsaw Pact. http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/05/FACD8E14-56F3-4EAA-86C6-AFF94D5CCA10.html Again, there is nothing wrong with the Russian way, but it's just plain wrong to think of Russia as just another European country-it's not, even Ivanov, the defence minister, said so when talking about Belarus, a Russian ally, possibly joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?idr=527&id=670100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdn12 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

100% Russians have Slavic genes, not all of the 100% Russians have only Slavic genes, almost all for example have some Finno-Ugric.

The funny think is that both genetecaly and culturaly mongols havent influenced Russians. Thats weird but true. Linguists dont find and legacy of the Mongolian language in the Russian language. The music of Russians has no Mongolian elements.

About Russia-Europe i need to explane. Russians dont feel European but whats European? In Russia they say that their ain't such a thing as European, it's a synthetic new thing. I'll give an example. Only 100 years ago every country in Europe had it's own ethnic music, it's own architecture, and till today they have different languages. Today in United Europe to feel "European" nations give up on their ethnic culture. Russians have a great culture and they say: "Why should we give up on it for something synthetic?", by the way, about the word Synthetic. Russians hate what is defined as "fake". For example Russians dont use polit-corectness in speach. It took a while for a black friend of mine who went to Russia to study to understands that Russians dont say nigger in a racist way.

Russia has it's own way, it wants to keep it's uniqness. They join the Shanghai cooperation, but they also have agreements with the European Union and with South American states. Russia will work with those who are friendly to her, and wont work with those who try to play games with her. The Shanghai cooperation is not only economicaly good, but it's politicaly safe because there are no terms and no needs to give up on anything. In the European Union for examples you are always imposed with new laws and Russia simply doesn't need that. Russians feel European racialy, but they dont want to be Europe politicaly. Russia wants to stay Russia, a world of it's own. MaIl89 (talk) 05:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously this discussion is pointless, Russians are an Slavic peoples fact. The reason why ethnic Russian peoples are different from other Slavic peoples is due to their ancestory also including spices of northern European and Asiatic peoples, yet that does not change the fact they are not Slavic! I mean we Kuban Cossacks are bound to have some Circassian roots, Terek Cossacks have Vainakh and Avar blood, yet that still does not mean they would loose their Slavic features and orientiation. I suggest we drop this issue. --Kuban Cossack 08:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

comment: This thread was started by a banned user. Please see this report for evidence. Papa November (talk) 09:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you know where the ushanka comes from? http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-ushanka.htm How about the words Moscow, Kremlin, and Siberia? http://www.oneearthadventures.com/gobi/history/history.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdn12 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Bdn12 and MaIl89, it's really a useless argument. Bdn12. First, MaIl was blocked. Second, the links you gave are not reliable enough. I personaly know that what you gave are amature versions, i underline, versions. For example. Ushanka is from the Russian word Ushi, which is, ears. This word existed in Russian before the Mongol invasion. And what the hat is made for is to cover them. Moscow was founded before the Mongol invasion, and it was named after the Russian river existing even before that. so it can't be from Mongolian.

What you try to push is hugely controversial. Log in, log out (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

After thinking of it, what youre looking for might be much earlier then you think. Huns and many other Iranian and Turk nations lived once on what is today South Russia and Ukraine. But there is no information of them assimilating with Slavs. But it's logical that certain tribes would assimilate with them, but we cant talk about it without names and facts. The Alans i know mixed with the Yugoslavs, esspecialy Serbo-Croatians. But the Mongolians dont fit and thats for shure. Youre answers, if they exist, are much earlier. Try that category. Log in, log out (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you also find this link unreliable: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=kPwX2dW-V6sC&dq=mongol+impact+russia&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=s8WE5EXKA9&sig=MbOBVHCshaJnyY9FvFkCtNwxAoQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPT1,M1 It isn't by chance that Russia has been different from Europe. Russian leaders even say it's both a European and Asian country. http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?idr=527&id=670100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdn12 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude it's really not the place to talk about it, what you need is a forum. Russia is geographicaly partly Asian, and they have friendly relations with countries like Chine, North Korea, and many more, and thats why also economicaly Russia sees itself as partly Asian. I hope thats an answer. And again, Wikipedia, unfortunately, is not a place for such discussions, what you need is a forum. I dont mind to discuss with you on my talk page. But not here because you see people object. Log in, log out (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The Russian Eurasianist (and Yale historian) George Vernadsky wrote extensively about the Mongol and Tatar influence on Russian society. It's been some time since I've read his works, but from memory it seems that the pre-Petrine Russian military was organized on Mongol lines, as was the Russian taxation and census system. Is the Russian word for money, dengy, derived from Tatar or Mongol? A large percentage of Russian noble families (15?%) claimed some descent from Tatars or Mongols. Perhaps some of that can be integrated into this article.Faustian (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I doubt that Block’s poem can be called a reliable source of information  :-) – As for the influence – We can add something about MongoloTatarian influence on the Southern parts of Russia (Personally, I believe this to be quite a controversial subject) but then we should also include Scandinavian influence on the Northern parts of Russia, and write more about Finno-Ugric people in Volga regions and etc… Oh, and can you provide exact quotes from Vernadsky’s books ?Hellinalj

An excerpt from the chapter: [3].Faustian (talk) 04:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - But I think this information belongs to "History of Russian Military system" and "Economic History of Medieval Russia" respectively. Hellinalj (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if some of this denial of Mongol influence has to to with regional racism towards "Asians" - which is not limited to Russians. French have referred to Germans as "Huns", Germans have claimed that Europe ends at the Polish border, Poles have looked down on Russians and Ukrainians as not European, Ukrainians have insultingly referred to Russians as Asians and Mongols, and some Russians have tried to whitewash Mongol influence. But many others have rejected this approach. Remember Blok's famous poem?Faustian (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The particularly funny thing about that is that Blok presented the Russians as Scythians, which at the time were considered Asiatic, but later turned out to be light-skinned, blue-eyed, red-haired Europeans. Oh, and the Russians aren't the easternmost Europeans, what of Finno-Ugric peoples living in Russia? --144.82.204.222 (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Russians in Norway

Just wanted to say that there are many Russians in Norway too. http://www.ssb.no/innvbef/. A big minority of the russians are from Chechnya. Another reason why ther are many russians in norway is because there have been a "trend" among some men to seek a Russian wife. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.166.88.105 (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean Ethnic Russians or Ethnic Chechens, citizens of Russia ? - Can you provide non-Norvegian sources, or at least a translation ? Hellinalj (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellinalj (talk • contribs)

Image problems

Hi everyone, there are some problems with the infobox image at the moment, which you should be aware of, and may be able to help with. Basically, some of the images from which the collage is derived have licensing issues, which also affect the infobox image itself. I'll go through the problematic images one by one:

1. Image:Tsvetaeva.jpg - Image was by a photographer who died in 1936 (PD-old in Russia) ...but was published outside the US after 1923, and was still under copyright in Russia on 1st Jan 1996, so it is not free in the US. I've found an alternative image, which was published before 1923, and is therefore free both in Russia and the US.
2. Image:Tolstoy.JPG - No source information available. An alternative image cropped from a portrait is available.
3. Yuri Gagarin image - taken from US library of Congress, but no license is specified. An alternative image from NASA may be free if the photo really was taken by a NASA employee. I'm not convinced, but I'll give NASA the benefit of the doubt!
4. Image:Tsiolkovsky.jpg, Image:Sergey Pavlovich Korolyov.jpg - deprecated PD tag. No indication that it is PD under retroactive 2008 Russian law
5. Image:Stanislavsky-young.png - deleted image: no source provided.

Can anyone help with these? In the meantime, I'll sort out a multi-image collage containing only images which are definitely free. Papa November (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to user:Log in, log out for adding replacement images. I've cropped a couple to the correct aspect ratio so they appear correctly. The other two however had some more licensing issues: Image:Roza-Shanina profile.jpg and Image:Korolyow Barry Kent.JPG don't show that they are in the public domain in the US or Russia. Can anyone either provide licensing information, or a couple of alternative images? Papa November (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

On Roza Shanina i found a few links: [4], [5].

On Korolev: [6] (check out pictures on the left side. Number 3, 4, 6. Russian photos before 56, for a collage a good size), and check this out, it's from 53', [7], [8]. Log in, log out (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the images. They look great, but they probably aren't in the public domain. Roughly speaking, any of the following are acceptable for Russian images:

1. Anything published (not just created!) before 1923
2. Anything by a Russian author who died before the end of 1942

I know it's difficult, but if we're going to use lots of images, we need to make sure they're permitted! Papa November (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So the law have changed from last year. About Korolev... You took the Gagarin photo from some NASA site, and it's a PD site, could it have a Korolev image to? And about Shanina, it's really problematic! Are there any other chances for a photo to be PD? Could we use this not free rationalised type of license? This gets problematic. Log in, log out (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the new Russian copyright law came into effect on 1st Jan this year, and it's made it very difficult to find public domain images. I suspect that the Gagarin photo wasn't actually taken by a NASA employee, but if they say they took it then I won't argue! I doubt that a NASA employee ever took a photo of Korolyov. Russian images published before June 22nd, 1941 are PD if the author remained anonymous until 1992. Maybe this will help if we can find some older images?

Non-free images are fine for the articles about Shanina and Korolyov themselves. However, there are lots of free images of (different) ethnic Russians, so we can't justify using the non-free images to illustrate the appearance of an ethnic group. Papa November (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Good news. We can probably use the Shanina image. See the discussion on Commons for more details. I'll work it into the collage tomorrow. Papa November (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank youuu!!! Meanwhile i made a Russian Americans image for the Russian Americans article which has no license problems. Log in, log out (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, Shanina's back - it turns out that the image is PD in the US, but not in Russia so we need to keep it at Wikipedia rather than Commons. Take a look at the discussion on Commons if you want details. No luck with a Korolyov image yet though. Is there anyone else who can go in his place for the moment? Papa November (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion about the Shanina image isn't finished yet on Commons. It may have to go again. I'll keep watching! Papa November (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

About Korolev, [9]. Author: Unknown. Year: 1938. Another one: [10]. 44. Is it a PD? If yest it's nice for here. Log in, log out (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's finished. We still don't know for sure about the Shanina image, but we can replace it later if it turns out to be copyrighted in the US. Papa November (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Great work!!! Thanks to your work Russians have the best ethnic group image!!! Exelent!!! Thank you! Log in, log out (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, Yuri Gagarin looks bloody Asian on this photo. So does Shanina. Looks like the most Asiatic, broad-faced and snub-nosed famous Russians were picked for the selection. They even picked Pushkin, in spite of him not being illustrative of the ethnicity at all. Oh well, it's too difficult to edit the ethnic image section due to all the ridiculous image copyrights, so let them be Asiatic if you want. I suppose that keeping copyrights is more important than presenting an anthropologically accurate picture of the Russians. --144.82.204.222 (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

- And what do you mean by "an anthropologically accurate picture of the Russians" ? Hellinalj (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

What the... If a person have at least some Russian blood, and he considered himself Russian, he fits the image (Gagarin, Shanina, Mendeleev, Lomonosov, Donskoy, Popova, Checkhov, are 100% Russians. The Rest? At least half). That was just a provocation and the fact the user stayed ananymous shows that. Log in, log out (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

An anthropologically accurate depiction of the Russians would not have photographs of people who appear distincly non-European. It doesn't really make much sense to include part-Russian people in the article, because it describes the Russian ethnicity, not notable people who described themselves as Russians. The pictures should depict more or less pure ethnic Russians (or people of related ethnic groups), because they're an illustration to an article on ethnic Russians, not on Russian culture. For instance, it could include Vladimir Nabokov, who was an ethnic Russian mostly living in America, but it could not include Alina Kabaeva, who is half-Tatar. See? Besides, it's better to replace photographs that obscure facial features or show them in a strange manner as compared to other photographs of a person. I'm referring to Gagarin's photo. And it's not a provocation, I simply didn't log in. --Humanophage (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Havent you seen a majority disagrees with you here? You can includ even if they are only have of that ethnicity, because they are still half of it. What you talk about is racism and Wikipedia is not a place for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.128.200 (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha. Just what I was trying to say about Russians not being purely European. Even a fellow user has commented that they look Asiatic-because partly they are. It's not anything better or worse, that's just how Russian history has been and partly why it's the biggest country and spans two continents.

Well, both of the comments were written by someone who hasn't logged in, so I deem them provocation, possibly from a single user. A scientific research with actual data has already been cited, disproving your claim. The only person generally looking somewhat Asiatic on the picture is Shanina, who appears mixed on 2 out of 3 of her famous pictures because of her wide face and upturn nose. It is an appearance characteristic of Finno-Ugric population of Russia, such as Mordvins, and is a feature that is duly noted by Russians when describing these ethnicities. Gagarin is hardly Asian, however, this particular picture makes his eyebrows seem much larger and more pronounced than they were, makes his nose invisible, his eyes funny-looking, and his face short and bloated in contrast to other pictures of him, such as this one [11] or the one used in the article on Gagarin, or any other normal picture of him. Pushkin's ancestry is famous for being extremely uncharacteristic of Russians (he is part-African), and he simply cannot represent the ethnicity. --Humanophage (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"Contribution to humanity"

Discussion has strayed completely off topic. Structured debate restarting below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Whta the hell is this? I tried Germans, I tried Poles, I tried Han Chinese and the French people, none of these have any "contributions to humanity". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Please try to be constructive. Don't just remove content unless there's a good reason. There are arguably some concerns about NPOV in the section, but it contains decent encyclopaedic information and can probably be improved. Papa November (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC) I've restored the content once again, as this really isn't a good enough reason for blanking it. If you don't like the section heading, then merge the content into other sections. The Han Chinese article contains a similar section, and each of the articles you cited has a widely varying set of sections. Surely you don't intend to strip all of them down to the same small common set? Papa November (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Try English people, who have a section under the same name, and Ashkenazi Jews, who have an achievments section. Log in, log out (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Yes, please change the title or reword the text. Outright deletion is not the way to go.Biophys (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Achievments is an idea for the new section name, but achievment is, as i understand, more to yourself then others. Those scientists worked hard so others would enjoy it, so it's more Contribution to humanity. Anyway, whatever you all decide on the name is fine. Log in, log out (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC) "Russian people had a large part in the victory over Nazi Germany at World War II. During the war, the Soviet Union lost around 27 million citizens (most of them Russian), about half of all World War II casualties and the vast majority of allied casualties." A point: most of the Soviet Union's 27 million casualties were not Russians. As Oxford historian Norman Davies wrote, "...the overwhelming brunt of the Nazi occupation between 1941 and 1944, as of the devastating Soviet reoccupation, was borne not by Russia but by the Baltic States, by Belarus, by Poland, and above all by Ukraine." [12].Faustian (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 55% were Russians. In the Baltic States the local population almost didnt suffer. Log in, log out (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC) From Davies' article [13]: The ethnic breakdown of Soviet losses poses other problems. Although ethnic Russians provided an absolute majority of casualties in the military sector, they formed a minority in the civilian sector. Western historians, who obstinately persist in thinking of the Soviet Union as “Russia”, often ignore the fact that the Wehrmacht never penetrated beyond the outer fringe of Russian settlement, or of the RSFSR. The lands which bore the brunt of of the German attack in 1941 had only just been annexed from Poland and the Baltic States in 1939-40, and did not contain any significant Russian population. The area of German Occupation in 1941-44 was very largely confined to the non-Russian republics. The victimised population was made up overwhelmingly of Balts, Poles, Jews, Byelorussians and Ukrainians. What Soviet sources correctly report as ‘‘Soviet losses’’, western laxity translates into “Russian losses”. In this regard, despite traditional Soviet coyness about the ethnic breakdown - and a special reluctance to discuss Jewish losses on Soviet territory - it is clear that the Soviet nationality which sustained the greatest civilian losses during the war was the Ukrainians. Quite apart from the millions of Ukrainians who fought and died with the Red Army, a Soviet source has recently estmated civilian losses in Ukraine as 5.485 million as compared to 1.793 million in Russia, including presumably the 800,000 at the Siege of Leningrad. Of course, not all the inhabitants of Ukraine were Ukrainians; but it seems reasonable to conclude that Ukrainian war losses were at least of the same order, i.e. 5-6 million, as those of European Jewry, or of ethnic Poles....Faustian (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC) You yourself said that Russians had a majority and military looses, and military losses, and soldiers formed a majority among the murdered. The currect number is 27 Million, dont forget about villages completely burned it took years to get information about them and how much were murdered them. In this article the one and only, Overy was used. Anyway, i changed the formulation. Log in, log out (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC) If the Russians' major "contribution to humanity" was being slaughtered en masse by the dynamic duo of Hitler & Stalin (who btw killed MORE pople than Hitler did, they say) in the war in which the Soviets ("Russians") started as Hitler's allies (whoops), then I rest my case. Anyway, why are the Russians the only state with a "contributions to humanity"? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC) You involve different cases. There were given referenced numbers, starting a political discussion is not the place. Stalin is a seperate story, Stalin is Georgian and not Russian. Jews have an achievment section, English people used to have it. A fact is that people oppose to it's deletion. Thats where it ends. Log in, log out (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Not more allied then the west with their Munich agreement. And you cant denie the fact that millions of Russians fought in the war against Hittler. There are written facts, dont try to go beyond them, that wont work. A certain fact is written. That's where it starts, and that what metters. Log in, log out (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Oh, Jews. Was the Jewish "contributions to humanity" being killed in large numbers during WWII, too? "Stalin was not Russian", but suddenly the other Soviets were. Right. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC) No one denounced the other Soviet, all that was said is that most of tham were Russians. A statistical fact. Russians contributed not by the fact they were murdered, but contributed by the fact they did it while struggling with the Nazis, and beating them eventualy. You try to grab on what's not written, and thats fine because what's not written you cant revert. Log in, log out (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC) And yeah, more allied than the West. (The West was not allied at all, just avoiding conflict.) Read more about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the invasion of Poland (and also who trained and supplied German army during their secret build-up). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC) They continued economical conection, thats more then avoiding conflict. Stalin to avoided a conflict to rebuilt the army. Why did Stalin move plane-factories to Siberea, as a gymnastic exercise? An Wikipedia is not a forum, You'd better stop talking about what's not written. Its useless. Log in, log out (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC) The invation to poland can be compared with the west giving Hittler a part of Czechoslovakia. The partition of Poland was at least to get the border mor far to make it harder on Hittler to reach Moscow. If something helped him was a part of Czechoslovakia. Again. Stop arguing on what's not written, it's useless and Wikipedia is not a forum. Log in, log out (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Also, reverting an article to get back at a user (who by the way, wrote correct things, but i'm not going there with you) is strongly against Wikipedian policies. Relax, lie down for a while. Your blood is to hot right now. You cant have a normal discussion right now. Relax a little and then come back. Log in, log out (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC) "The invation to poland can be compared with the west giving Hittler a part of Czechoslovakia. " What language is this? Ruslish? (You keep writing about this "Hittler" person.) Yeah, the western armies invaded Czechoslovakia from the other side and killed thousands of people in the process. Then they killed tens of thousands of prisoners of war and civilians, too, and deported more than million to, um, Sahara or something (where a large part of them died). Sure. "The partition of Poland was at least to get the border mor far to make it harder on Hittler to reach Moscow." Yeah, previously Hitler would need to cross the whole Poland (which kept refusing his demands, leading to the war), and now he would need to cross only half (or actually, just cross the direct German-Soviet border). A clear improvement. (Also, you still didn't learn who helped to create Wehrmacht.) You are so deluded it's incredible. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Excuse me, what did you want? About what do you argue? There is not one word about Poland in the article, what do you want from us? This section stays and that's it. You dont even argue about what is written in it. Log in, log out (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC) The word is that Russians "contributed to humanity" by "helping to defeat Hit(t)ler" and having enormous losses in the process. Which were also suffered from the Soviet hands, but I know now that Hitler's former best pal Stalin "was not Russian" (just Russified) but the other Soviets were. While, say, the (Han) Chinese have nothing about their equally disastrous was against Japan (which they fought alone for years). And with their losses also in great part inflicted on them by their own government. (Except China was NOT allied to Japan before Japan invaded them.) In short: not much of a contribution really in being horribly victimized by two equally evil totalitarian systems and presenting this as something glorious because one eventually won after being betrayed by the other. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC) I fail to see, how these claims are related to the article. - I actually was surprised to see such strange behavior on the talk-page. Please, try to write on topics, you know about and do not insult others Wikipedians – Thank you. Hellinalj So you denie that Soviets, and mostly Russians, were the one who beated Hittler under Moscow, Stalingrad, Leningrad, and took Berlin? You denie 20 Millions Russians were murdered by Nazis? Interesting. Log in, log out (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC) One betrayed the other? The knew we would atack them, not much of a betreyal. Victimized? We beated the Germans, the winner can't be victimized. The people, not the "system", beated the Nazis. And we didnt feel the system was totalitarian. Free education, industrialisation, shure there was Stalins purges but not more then the MacCrthysm in the US. Besides, all of that wasn't even talked about in the article. Log in, log out (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Just for the record, what was brought in the article was statistical numbers and what they ment. No word about systems. Log in, log out (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Mabey it's better to rename the section, "Contribution to humanity" sounds a bit pompous... can't think of anything now... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Mmm possible, but i couldn't find anything beeter. Achievments sounds as if more for yourself then others, while Inventors who worked hard to give somthing to others, people who fell under Stalingrad, Kursk, Berlin to kick the Nazis of this world. Make your suggestions. I dont give to a sections name to much value, what metters for me is the context. So if the name fits, whatever you offer is fine. Log in, log out (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC) "Sputnik 1, was launched by the Soviet Union and was developed mainly by the Russian Sergey Korolyov" Isn't Sergey half Ukrainian? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC) But he is also half Russian, which simply means he fits here, and if Ukrainians would want to make a similar category, and they can, he could enter there two. It's beautiful that Russians and Ukrainians articlesboth have Korolyov in their images. Log in, log out (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Tell me more about this "Hittler" person. Also any_Soviets =/= Russians. Also any Soviets killed in the war =/= killed by the Axis (and this is what I talk about being victimized). Stop thinking the butcher Stalin's victory was a victory for the opressed Russian people (arguably the largest group of his victims of his genocidal policies by the sheer numbers along with the Ukrainians, even if not by the percentage of the population). Stop writing the most idiotic things like these you just wrote ("Stalins purges but not more then the MacCrthysm in the US"), unless I decide you're a hopeless case of a surviving Homo Sovieticus and end this discussion now. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC) If you want to learn something about Soviet Russia, you can start here. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Please, do not insult others Wikipedians – Thank you. Remember - Policy shortcut: WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND Hellinalj Thats funny. A foreigner who havent lived in Russia will teache me, a Russian from Russia, that i was opressed, and what is Russia. The Russian people were not opressed. Seperate people were, but in general? Free education, free healthcare, industrialisation, sending kids to sport-clubs for free. O really how did we survive that. You want opression? Go see the miners in Sheffield who work for money you barely can buy your kids a gum for. Go to Harlem. Please, end this descusion! History of opression? How about black people lynched in the USA? How about CIA murders? Ask Marthin Luher King What democracy is. I'm a Homo Sovieticus, or whatever. I will never reach your level of the evolution! I'm a lost case! Leave me to die and save yourself! What you told me now was not even talked about in the article. 3 times i asked you to stop talking to me about things not talked about in the article. Wikipedian talk page are not forums. Wikipedia is not a propoganda site. Log in, log out (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC) - Please,calm down - This is probably a troll - Remember - Policy shortcut: WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND Hellinalj Hey, i told him that Wikipedia is not a Forum and that what he says is not even in the article. He seems a fanatic. He really thinks that by talking alot he would convince me in something. He doesn't understand that he wont, and that he should talk only about material in the article. And hey, i was civil with him. I dont want this useless discussion. He simply uses the fact i dont, and wont, complain about him, and that other administrators are already asleep. All i hope is he understands that if he'll continue reverting the material, he tried to edit-war Papa November today, he simply will be blocked because people here agreed this section stays. Not that i care if he's blocked, i simply dont like things resolved this way. Log in, log out (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Back to the point - build a consensus please

Right, let's try again. To summarise, the whole point of the discussion above was that User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog objects to the presence of the "contribution to humanity" section and believes it should be removed. Please discuss this objectively below, stating your proposed solution and an explanation. Please do not "just vote". Also, this is not a forum for general discussion about the contribution of Russians to humanity. That is not the subject of debate - keep the discussion focused solely on whether this article is better with or without such a section. Papa November (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• My proposed solution is convert to history and culture sections. There's really no reason to delete verifiable, encyclopaedic content solely based on it having the wrong section heading. I agree however, that it still seems a little like propaganda in its current form. The featured articles on Pashtun people and Tamil people both discuss things such as literature, music and sport under a "culture" section. That would seem like a good place for the 3rd and 4th paragraphs. The 2nd and 5th paragraphs would sit nicely under a "history" section. Papa November (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I support keeping the section as it is. It shows what role in general the nation playes in different areas. Sciense is not culture, and creating a section of Russian sciense would be weird, so that kind of section is the best thing. The material in this section is fine. The people mentioned there really existed and did what they did. The numbers of Russians who were murdered in the struggle against the Nazi machine are referenced, so with content i couldn't find any problems. The concensus as i see was built long tipe ago. User captain comes and says things against Russia, against communism. The problem is that he talks about thinks not mentioned in the article in the first place. Maria-Yulia offered to change the name of the section. I dont mind, just give ideas. Achievments is not good because this words shows more personal then for others, while scientists, and soldiers killed, did what they did for there nation and not so for achievments. Russian place in world progress? To geopolitical and it's hard to enter war heroism here. The more such section exists the better it is. People reading such a section about any ethnic group might get rid of some stereotypes on him. Chinese by bringing global awarness of their ancient inventors and contributors to humanity made many of the stereotypes on them fade away. Log in, log out (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Just a quick point to add here: consensus can change, so there's no harm in debating this again. Also, I think it would be reasonable to move the information about scientific achievements to a "history" section, because we're talking about the historical achievement rather than discussing the science itself. Finally, I think it would be nice to expand a little on the list of scientists. We don't really learn anything just by reading their names - if they are to be included here, I think we also need to say who they were, and what they did to contribute to science. Papa November (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Mmmm are you shure that would look good? Suddenly in history about an invention, seems weird. Log in, log out (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait!!! So you offer to create a section with many subsections? One includes sciense, one culture, sports maybe, and etc? But how will we do that? I admit that i dont know how to write all that. Log in, log out (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In the Scythians article they have under "society" art, culture, we could add science. Assyrian people have it all as sub sections of culture. I'm sorry, in Russia it's already 3:10 at night so i'll go sleeping. I'll return tomorow, i'm just really tired. Log in, log out (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Good morning everybody. As i said, i support keeping the section as it is, but i dont denie that a change is possible, but it will take hard work. In the Scythians article they have under "society" art, culture, we could add science. Assyrian people have it all as sub sections of culture. Log in, log out (talk) 08:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A problem there. There they havent made a differnce beetwen Scyths, Assiris, and their states. In other words that will be copying parts of the Russia article to the Russians article, and that will be, i dont think it's good. Keep it the way it is. Moscovite Knight (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What PN said.

However, first find the number of the ethnic Russians (because now it's taking Soviet citiziens and making them "mostly Russians") who were slaughtered during WWII/under Soviet communism in general

Hidden off-topic discussion. Please only discuss the presence/absence of the "contribution to humanity section here"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
, which was and the same disaster(*). (*) Even military losses were in great part self-inflicted by the Soviet leadership, for example by the pre-war destruction of the officer corps through the purges (resulting in the incompetent leadership and thus huge casualties), by the ruthless stand-and-die and attack-by-all-cost orders (the same results, with these refusing the orders to die being executed), by the betrayal of the millions of POWs branded "traitors" together with their families and leaving them to die and even repressing these who survived (also millions die, with Stalin not helping even his own son who was captured), and so on (and much of civilian losses too - for example, no evacuation of Leningrad early in the war so huge numbers of people died during the siege, or the partisan activity resulting in the German repressions against civilians, not to mention the Soviet civilians killed by the Soviet forces directly). It' all in Wikipedia, btw.

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There are no exact number. However, we brought you links in the article which show, and it's understood, that Russians lost more soldiers then any other group. And thats logical. Log in, log out (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way. If you wouldn't be so buisy in edit wars and agitation you would see that the "Mostly Russian" formulation was changed already yesterday. Log in, log out (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Papa November in principal but since there is no history section for now (and I can't write one) I still think it is better to rename the section for now... but I still don't know a better name... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what i said. Achievments doesn't fit, i explained why. And other names, dont come up yo me right now. Log in, log out (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)