Wikipedia

Talk:Geographical distribution of Russian speakers

Latest comment: 10 months ago by 68.197.111.251 in topic Russian speaking countries
Learn more about this page

Misleading map

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

This map mixes up countries with no data and countries in the lowest category. This results in several errors, for example in the case of Germany where much more than 1% of the population speak Russian. I think the map should be removed for this reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:65:E824:AA34:C987:63D1:14D:9128 (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

 
Proportion of Russian speakers by country:
  0-1% Russian speaking
  1-9% Russian speaking
  10-19% Russian speaking
  20-29% Russian speaking
  30-39% Russian speaking
  40-49% Russian speaking
  50%+ Russian speaking
For everyone's information, this is the map we are talking about: File:Proportion of Russian speakers by country in 2014 (0-50% gradation).svg (also shown on the right here). @Underlying lk: you created and added this map on 27 November 2017, could you clarify what data you used to create this map? All you state in the description is the following: "Data source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geographical_distribution_of_Russian_speakers&oldid=812198115#Statistics". This is WP:CIRC. Moreover, the source most commonly used for these data is https://web.archive.org/web/20160519181010/http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=POP&f=tableCode%3A27%3BareaCode%3A0%3BsexCode%3A0&c=2%2C3%2C5%2C7%2C9%2C11%2C13%2C14%2C15&s=_vcvv2%3Aasc%2C_countryEnglishNameOrderBy%3Aasc%2CrefYear%3Adesc&v=1 (current page: http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=POP&f=tableCode%3a27%3bareaCode%3a0%3bsexCode%3a0&c=2,3,5,7,9,11,13,14,15&s=_vcvv2:asc,_countryEnglishNameOrderBy:asc,refYear:desc&v=1), which does not clearly show the data visualised, but requires the reader to first figure out how the website works and then to find the specific data. Moreover, contrary to what the title claims, these data aren't (all) from 2014, but from a wide range of years, varying from 2001 to 2017. The sources do not indicate their methodologies, but the mere fact that there are multiple sources covering a range of years (without clarification or warning in the description) means that this presentation violates WP:CALC ("Comparisons of statistics present particular difficulties. Editors should not compare statistics from sources that use different methodologies.") and thus constitutes original research. Combined with the comment made above about 'mix[ing] up countries with no data and countries in the lowest category', I support the proposal to remove the map, and will carry it out. I'll add {{better source needed}} templates to the UNdata source as well. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
The source is the UN data website for most of them. If you want to question the accuracy of specific figures - you're welcome to, but tagging them all with 'better source needed' doesn't make the article any better.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
Each of the specific figures I've tagged is currently inaccessible, so unless they can be made easily accessible for verification by readers and users, there is no way we can rely on the accuracy of the figures provided. I should point out that this problem exists for any online statistics source which requires user imput to show specific data, and doesn't change the URL in the process. The best kind of sources for checking statistics tend to be PDF files, or photocopies of printed books (e.g. Google Books), which show static demographic information about a given year in a clearly defined area and population. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
I don't know if you're on mobile, but from desktop I can access them just fine - hit the link and use the interface to query the figures. Even if you can't personally see them, WP:SOURCEACCESS is pretty explicit in saying "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access".--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Untitled

edit
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

This page could use a definition of what derussification is, not just information on one country's derussification... --Alynna 16:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Yay, it's been done. Thanks. --Alynna 04:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Geographical distribution of Russian speakers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Geographical distribution of Russian speakers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Geographical distribution of Russian speakers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

European Union preventing any official status for Russian

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

@Staszek Lem: I never said there was anything wrong with the credibility of the source, but rather the paragraph to which it supposedly refers to. Exactly where does reference says that "European Union so far mostly supports this policy to prevent any official status for Russian"? "European Union" is also a very vague term to use. –Turaids (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, I guess this was Wikipedian's summary of the article cited. The fact is that Russian language is excluded from EU documents in ridiculous ways, due to the pressure of Baltic states. If you think the summary is inadequate, please rephrase, but the source cited does discuss a real problem. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
The article mentions no "pressure of Baltic states", so it sounds like you're letting your own personal beliefs get in the way of objective editing. You can't just rephrase someones opinion as a hard fact and then supplement it with your own statements not explicitly expressed in the reference. That's called synthesis of published materials. Either the text is adequately rewritten or it's being removed. –Turaids (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
Are we reading the same source? the source cited says: Explaining her decision to write to Commissioner Reding, Evans said "it's disappointing to hear that the EU is bowing to pressure to exclude Russian speakers in the Baltic in this way," a state of affairs which she believes is "all the more surprising" given the large proportion of Russian speakers in both countries. "We hear often enough about how the EU wants to be closer and more accessible to its citizens. It will not achieve that aim by deliberately excluding entire language communities," Evans said. Are you trying to argue that it is not the Baltic states but somebody else tries to exclude Baltic Russians? Are you claiming that removal of Russian-language documents is an opinion rather than hard fact? If not then please be specific. I say the wikipedia text adequately summarizes the source. And yes this is my personal belief as a Wikipedia editor, and nothing wrong with this. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
P.S. This problem is not only about Russian language in EU. Some other states are trying to banish some other languages as well.Staszek Lem (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
It's cruical to accurately draw the line between facts, opinions and your own conclusions in highly politicised matters like this. Russian-language fact-sheets being withdrawn is a fact, Evans criticising the action is also a fact, what you highlighted in bolden green is an opinion previously presented as a fact. The pressure coming specifically from Baltic states is your own conclusion not explicitly stated in the reference. For one, according to the article on anti-Russian sentiment, anti-Russian sentiment is supposedly common in many European Union member states. And EU apologizing to anyone about anything is an "understanding" mixed in with an opinion (just because someone says he/she understands something one way or another doesn't necessarily make it a fact). You can't just toss them together like they're all the same. Can you see the difference?
Initially After your 1st edit After your 2nd edit Now
The European Union so far mostly supports this policy to prevent any official status for Russian, going so far as to have apologized to the Latvian government for printing brochures in Russian in 2010. The European Union so far bows to the pressure from the Baltic States to prevent any official status for Russian, going so far as to have apologized to the Latvian government for printing brochures in Russian in 2010. Plaid Cymru MEP and European Free Alliance (EFA) group President Jill Evans commented that The European Union so far bows to the pressure from the Baltic States to prevent usage of Russian language in EU documents, going so far as to have apologized to the Latvian government for printing brochures in Russian in 2010. On March 2010 fact-sheets in Russian produced by the EU executive's offices in Latvia were withdrawn, provoking criticism from Plaid Cymru MEP and European Free Alliance group President Jill Evans who called European Commission to continue to provide information in non-official EU languages and commented that "it's disappointing to hear that the EU is bowing to pressure to exclude Russian speakers in the Baltic in this way".
–Turaids (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Includable/excludable information

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

@Underlying lk: I'd have appreciated you starting a discussion first and not just reverting my edit like the last person I had to deal with did. Please explain again how someone's opinion of what Russian should be is relevant to the geographical distribution of Russian speakers. The title clearly limits the type of information to be included in the article, so unless the page is renamed to something more broader (like the Russian language in the world) I really don't see how your argument holds up. –Turaids (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Turaids: First off, generally when someone wants to remove info that is supported by reliable sources, they carry the onus to prove the reason of the removal to other editors, otherwise the info should stay.
About the case in hand, the paragraph you removed attests the fact that the distribution of Russian-language material on a semi-official basis is generally not allowed in Latvia, or at least controversial. Mentioning that seems important to give the right perspective on how the language is seen in the country.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
As I already said, this page is not a dump of everything Russian language related, so I moved it to a relevant page, where we can go into all the detail we like on what people believe Russian should and should not be. It's clear we've gone overboard with "giving the right perspective" when 4 out of 5 paragraphs in the section about Latvia don't talk about the geographical distribution of Russian speakers at all and the one that does is worded in such a way that clearly carries an implication. –Turaids (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
That is an issue, but one that can only be solved by adding material about the regional distribution of Russian language within Latvia, rather than removing content. Besides, I don't see how the paragraph is any more relevant in an article about official EU languages (which Russian surely isn't).--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
There's really no need for information that doesn't add much to the article and basically duplicates the same already slightly off-topic fact. As for the Languages of the European Union, it clearly belongs there, because the article deals with languages in Europe in general (not just the geographical distribution of their speakers like this one) and Jill Evans is an MEP and the president of European Free Alliance group of the European Parliament. –Turaids (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Subnational territories

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

The article listed number of random Ukrainian cities as "subnational territories". The populated places in Ukraine are not subnational territories per se, but rather a subregional territories for the most part, first of all. Second, the article did not list any cities of the Central Asia that predominantly Russophone and did not claim those cities as "subnational territories", the same goes for the city of Narva in Estonia as well as several other instances where Russian language is pretty common and traditional form of communication. Yet the article listed just random cities out of Ukraine with the ongoing Russian invasion without explaining the purpose for listing. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

The article also does not list any subnational territories nor populated places of the Russian Federation for any reason. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Why subnational territories include any territories outside of the Russian Federation only? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Move discussion in progress

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Derussianization which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Russian speaking countries

edit
Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I wanted to know the countries with the largest concentration of Russian speakers given the current conflict. 68.197.111.251 (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geographical_distribution_of_Russian_speakers&oldid=1256602864"