Talk:Russia/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

disputed territories colored in light green on the map

On the map Crimea which is claimed by Ukraine is shaded in light green. Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan, Habomai which are claimed by Japan should also be colored in light green. --204.197.178.92 (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

What differentiates Crimea and the islands claimed by Japan is that Crimea is not recognized internationally as owed by Russia and the international community believes that Crimea is part of Ukraine, while the islands that are claimed by Japan are internationally recognized as part of Russia, which is why these islands are colored in dark green. I hope this helps. - 祝好，Josephua^(聊天) 00:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category:Slavic countries and territories

It is currently being proposed that Category:Slavic countries and territories be deleted. This article is part of that category. The relevant discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8#Countries and territories by language family. The discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Russia. Krakkos (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Mikhail Mishustin FNS Portrait.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Russia christianity country??

which constitution do they take, you name it America is also a Christian country because Christian domination is there ??! Michealbrown51 (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

State religion

The following sources describe the Russian Orthodox Church as the de facto state religion of Russia:
should this be mentioned in the article? (The Sr Guy (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)).

I don’t see an issue with this, as long as it’s described accurately. It’s “de facto”, not “de jure”. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Usa, canada, uk, germany also christian country; turkey, indonesia, syria its also muslim country; india and nepal its hindu country; china, vietnam, north korea its buddhist country. YOU'RE KIDDING Michealbrown51 (talk) 09:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Equality of the names

Since the Constitution states that "The names 'Russian Federation' and 'Russia' shall be equal", wouldn't it be more appropriate to start the article with "Russia (...), or the Russian Federation" rather than "Russia (...), officially the Russian Federation"? That's because the current wording might confuse as it factually states that Russia is unofficial name of the country, ergo the names are not equal which is not the case. Gradoved (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

References

 Done. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a horribly put together page and must be changed,

Edits still blocked despite overwhelming inconsistencies and biases, for example Crimea being included (as it should) in the population figures, but not in land area figures. This is absurd. The total land area of the Russian Federation is 17,125,246 sq km EranMonkcom (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@EranMonkcom: I believe the reason why it is like this because Russia censuses include Crimea's population as Russia believes it to be part of the country, and that the only source we rely on to get the population data is the Russian census. For land area, we can rely on other sources instead of a source provided by the Russian government, and these sources tend to not include Crimea because they internationally recognize Crimea as to be part of Ukraine than Russia. - 祝好，Josephua^(聊天) 14:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

That actually makes a lot of sense on the Crimea bit. If the only example of inconsistencies and biases are those having to do with Crimea, than problem solved. Unless EranMonkcom has any more examples? O.O SageSolomon (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2020

Change description of the picture "GAZ Volga used by Police Russia" into "Gaz Volga used by the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia", as the car depicted has the livery (orange stripes) and the phone number (01) applicable to the Ministry of Emergency Situations. 138.51.249.39 (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I wonder if there is a comma instead of a period, where the total Russian GDP (both nominal and PPP) is listed. It says trillions after the number, and I presume that comma is used as thousands separator rather than a decimal separator. Thousands of trillions seems a bit excessive to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.113.177.229 (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC on stating the Russian Orthodox Church as the state religion (de jure) of Russia in the religion section of the infobox

There is a clear consensus to revert back to the text See Religion in Russia and against accepting the new edit.

Cunard (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we accept the new edit that states that the Russian Orthodox Church is the de jure state religion of Russia in the religion section of the infobox with the addition of a de facto secular state, or revert back to the text See Religion in Russia. - 祝好，Josephua^(聊天) 13:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Reasoning

There has been a recent addition by @The Sr Guy: of having the Russian Orthodox Church be inputted in the religion section of the country's infobox as a de jure state religion while maintaining a de facto secular state, replacing See Religion in Russia. @The Sr Guy: has asserted, in simpler terms, that growing political support by the Russian government for the Church has made it a privileged religion and that it has the influence to prevent rival religions from growing. Here are the sources that he provides:

@The Sr Guy: has also did state that by the Russian constitution, Russia is a de facto secular state, and mentions this in the religion section of the infobox. Despite this, an edit like this is controversial because it may violate rules of WP:Neutrality and negatively show Russia's policy of freedom of religion. To keep this poll straight and simple: type Support if you think this addition should be warranted and kept due to the numerous sources provided, or Oppose if you think this addition should be reverted back to See Religion in Russia for neutrality. - 祝好，Josephua^(聊天) 05:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Nevertheless Crimea's land area is known, and could be added to that of Russia to make this article's statistics more representative of the geographical reality. EranMonkcom (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Poll

• Oppose - Although it is true that the Russian government has been giving a lot of influence to the Russian Orthodox Church lately, I am still convinced that Russia's policy of freedom of religion still have dominion over the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC). There are two things to consider that I believe that See Religion in Russia should be re-added instead of the addition of a state religion: WP:Neutrality (of course, with comparisons to other articles) and that the ROC has met setbacks in its attempts to covet influence over Russia.

• Many country articles have their government set to their respective constitutions and seems by tradition to primary source, rather than secondary sources such as media. This is seen in North Korea, China, and Cuba as unitary socialist states, and that even though it is supported by many sources that these powers are authoritarian and totalitarian at best, it is not mentioned in the infoboxes of these countries. The same goes for religion. Here is an example using the China article (also a Good Article which makes a good reference for editing authoritarian states). The Communist Party of China (CPC), the ruling party of China, has openly endorsed state atheism and has curbed freedom of religion with suppression against Christians and Muslims. Despite this, the religion infobox states See Religion in China instead, primarily to preserve neutrality, as the Party did state that they respect freedom of religion in accordance to the constitution. So instead of stating de jure secular state and de facto state atheism, we get See Religion in China which covers both of these viewpoints. I think the Russia article should replicate this, as even though Russian president Vladimir Putin has openly endorsed and officially supports the ROC, the Russian constitution makes no mention of ROC and respects freedom of religion. Therefore, by tradition, we should insert what is official, but with the text See Religion in Russia, because it implies that Russia is a secular state, but also implies that there is something going on that may affect these principles of the secular state (such as Putin giving the ROC more power), so therefore no need to add a de jure or a de facto, just state See Religion in Russia, as it kills two birds with one stone.
• The ROC has a long way to go if they want to become the de facto state religion of Russia. Recently, there are a few cases where the ROC has faced setbacks. One case is the Bhagavad Gita trial, (this was in 2011, which was after the publishing of some of the sources outlined by The Sr Guy) in which a group affiliated with the ROC attempted to ban a book on Hinduism on charges of religious extremism, but this case was reversed by the Russian court. Sources are provided in the article. In addition, plans of a construction of a ROC church in a park in Yekaterinburg were cancelled after protests. Sources: In addition, although Putin officially supports the ROC as a foundation of Russia, he is also trying to appease Muslims in the nation for social stability (such as not intervening in the Chechen Republic's violations of human rights because these violations are part of the republic's Islamic culture), and has maintained good relations with them, with the construction of the Moscow Cathedral Mosque in 2015. I think it'll be much appropriate that even though Russia is suppressing freedom of religion as proven by sources, I believe Russia is more in persecuting religions/denominations that are based in the West (since they don't trust the West) than religions that are based in the East, which is why Russia is more keen in persecuting Protestants and Catholics rather than Orthodox, Muslims, Buddhism, and Hinduism.

I hope these are good points to convince you guys. I think the Russia article needs a lot of work, especially with regards to neutrality, but in the end, I hope the end goal of this is to make the article stable and neutral enough to become standard encyclopedic material (that means to bring it up to Good Article and Featured Article status). - 祝好，Josephua^(聊天) 05:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose also. The Russian Orthodox Church is really getting a lot of attention, but mostly in the context of history and culture. There is only one state holiday related to this Church. It is Christmas which is also a state holiday in many secular countries. The percentage of orthodoxies in Russia is only 41 % which is shown in the article below which cannot allow to consider the Russian Orthodoxy as the state religion, in my opinion. Some regions and rebuplics inside Russia have a majorities of other religions (for example, Chechen Republic (Chechnya) with its 95 % Islam's majority and the corresponding culture). Moreover, the Orthodox Church does not have "the right to decide which other religions or denominations are to be granted the right of registration" which is claimed in the current revision of the article since in this case the official registration of the pastafarianism in Russia would be highly unlikely, but this registration holds. In my opinion, it is better to write this section of the infobox in the following format: most popular religions (including "No affiliation") with their percentanges (as in Germany and the United States articles) + mention that Russia is secular country according to the Constitution. This will show the most influent religious organizations in Russia (including the Russian Orthodox Church), but will not violate the WP:Neutrality principle. Anton-rigin (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The above reasoning appears solid to me. See Religion in Russia allows for nuanced details to be covered, and comports with the general standard for this situation as seen in other articles of the exact same type while promoting article stability. 74.73.230.72 (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose For the reasons stated above. Just adding my vote. SageSolomon (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose That some sources (and most of the ones reported here seem to be heavily confession biased) pretend it to be, that alone doesn't make the ortodox church the state religion in Russia. We can report such opinions somewhere in the article but not put it as an objective fact in the infobox. 2003:F5:6F0E:7200:3461:3461:C6F3:C7C7 (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC) MPB

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Population Dispute

User:IntercontinentalEmpire has recently made some changes to the population statistic, which have been reverted. If Intercontinental could explain their reason for the changes here, that would be appreciated. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I added it in because it is accurate, other users have denounced this information but i assure everyone, Russia's population isn't declining, I've seen many sources on this and most of them say they halted their decline. It can even be described on the page where they show declining countries. Russia is on the halted population declines list. Please ubderstand, that i'm trying to give as accurate facts as possible, only certain areas of Russia are declining, not as a whole. Take St Petersburg for example, the urban area in the city has increased since 2015 and proceeds a positive growth. Even Moscow and the Tyumen areas are growing. The death rate is highly outdated because the birth rate did in fact increase. I have used the sources as fairly as possible and i'd appreciate it if accurate information is present. Some of you might think that i'm just doing it to support Russia, cause a huge disturbance in the media or even spread lies myself, that is not my goal. It is far from what i'm looking for, i promise to find the best facts and share them with our learning community. Also i should mention that in early January when the Russia page had 2019 records on population, they were in fact accurate but a group of people one day approached me saying it's wrong, it isn't, other pages can even say it. Even without Crimea, they grew from 144-145 million, tell me that's not positive. The sources they used i have also heard complaints about accuracy, it's true, things are not all of what they seem. Again, i would appreciate it if the page is reverted and sustained, if we can find a solution to this, i'd be more than happy to listen and possibly answer to it. Thank you for reading, IntercontinentalEmpire — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntercontinentalEmpire (talk • contribs) 02:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

IntercontinentalEmpire, You discuss many sources, could you link some of them here?

In my own quick perusal of sources, I found [1], [2], and [3], all from just last September, that discuss Russia's continued population decline. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, if in January 2019 Russia had a population of 146,780,720 people, and in January 2020 it had a population of 146,745,098. then it is a decline by 35,622 (146,780,720-146,745,098=35,622). It is a very, freakingly very simple, actually elementary-school level, math, like 2+2=4. It doesn't necessary matter if some regions' population grew up (in part due to inter-regional migration, from one region of Russia to another - do I need to say, that inter-regional migration doesn't affect nationwide population numbers, because it is a classical +X+(-X)=0 situation). If overall population declined, then there is a decline in overall national population - and this is what shown in the country's infobox. --Seryo93 (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

That's it, i'm walking away from the situation, this community has insulted me for the last time, if you don't need me giving you information, so be it. I've tried time and time again to give you guys something, instead you trash it and denounce me about it. Good day!

The real "offense" and "insulting" started earlier, with edit-wars and accusations of other users as "feeding people lies". And looking at https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/russia-population/ makes me wonder a bit. What is 145,530,082 population number in 2017? Population with Crimea? Then it means some 1,274,290 (!) less than Rosstat's report (http://www.gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/population/demo/Popul2017.xls). Population without Crimea? Then it is 1,066,631 (!) people more than GKS reported. Population without Republic of Crimea? Strange (and pretty fringe - one usually either includes or excludes all two Crimean federal subjects, but not only one), but even in that extremely unlikely case we arrive at discrepancy of 637,878 people. --Seryo93 (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Once and for all. The only reliable and in fact the only one source for the demographic data of Russia is the Federal Statistics Service. Any other source gathers information from there, so in case of any discrepancy it's either an outdated data, or a pure speculation. Gradoved (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, it is getting out of hand: one of 2019 estimates (and quite preliminary, given that their later report reports different number, 146780720 instead of 146781095 - note also an asterisk note in https://www.gks.ru/storage/mediabank/Popul2019.xls) is presented as 2020 estimate just because linked to a page of quite unreliable (not a statistical source, just "background remarks in passing") for that topic source, in which the 2019 population is undated (unless counting "Project year 2019" as date of creation of that page, that is, the page was created in 2019 and reflected then-actual numbers); URL is replaced without altering visible citation (to make it look like 2020 estimate?)... And all that happens just because editor in question attempts to hide population decline at all costs. If this will repeat, I will have no other choice but to report to WP:ANI or similar venue. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Looks an awful lot like OP has opted for edit warring instead of even attempting to provide an alternative source. Source vs. no-source, source wins. GMG^talk 19:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think you mean IntercontinentalEmpire, not the OP, CaptainEek. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• You are correct. The threading got me tripped up. GMG^talk 20:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

User:IntercontinentalEmpire has to be suspended as he has been trying to mispresent the population statistics of Russia again and again even though being warned repeatedly by numerous users. That concerns both Russia and Demographics of Russia pages. Moreover all his reverts are marked as minor edits despite he had been warned that was wrong and he accepted it. Sadly, I can't do reversing his nonsense on my own, editing back again and again as it's itself against the rules. I ask for help and support as this user doesn't bring any valuable contribution to these pages and only breaks the order of how the things done over here... Nice, now he accuses me of vandalizing. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Gradoved (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Non-Asian Country outside Asia

Russia is the Only Non-Asian Country in Europe April 29, 1950 1:00:11 AM. Russia is the Only Non-Asian Country Not Yet in Asia.--2600:1702:4B28:F760:9525:69E7:DBDB:74AC (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Um... What? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Changes to lead section

Some time ago a new paragraph was added to the lead section about Russia's political system. It included numerous supposed criticisms of the Russian government, including stating that it had an "imperialist foreign policy" (no citations for this even) and has "sham elections" (in which an opinion piece was used, seriously?). It's baffling that this left unchanged for a considerable amount of time and it's clear that the person who made this edit intentionally did so to push a point of view. As a result, I changed it so that it simply mentions the domination of Russian politics by Vladimir Putin in which his government is often considered to be authoritarian to replace the previous mess, and whether this paragraph should even exist is up for debate. The previous lead section was not appropriate, which is why we don't see this in the articles of other countries, like the United States where its lead section doesn't even mention Donald Trump nor does it mention criticisms of the US government, human rights issues, US foreign policy, electoral interventions and so on. Now, is this 4th paragraph necessary or should it be condensed and added to the end of the 3rd paragraph, like it was before? Mellk (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mellk: Agreed. I reverted these changes as well before you did though this was reversed, and I decided not to contest it, as you know how ugly political discussions on Wikipedia could go. However, I successfully reverted Russia being an authoritarian nation in the government type in the infobox (this was contested, but I believe I convince the contester of it). Russian political articles needs to get the same treatment as articles on China do. Editors there have made China and the CPC (in which "observers" show some disdain) very well-balanced with praises, criticisms, and mostly straightforward unbiased information. - 祝好，Josephua^(聊天) 00:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

It also says in the lead section of the North Korea article that "[North Korean elections] have been described by outside observers as sham elections". If you want some sources that describe modern Russian foreign policy as "imperialism", here are a few:

https://www.juancole.com/2020/01/russian-imperialism-vladimir.html

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1832294_1832295_1836234,00.html

http://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/viewFile/4797/4690

DeathTrain (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mellk:@Josephua: I believe one of the reasons why Donald Trump is not mentioned in the lead section of the United States article is because he has only been relevant in American politics for a few years while Putin has been in power for much longer, since the early 2000s. Furthermore, the American human rights record is generally not seen as particularly bad by non-governmental organizations. Most articles for countries do not mention their human rights records in their lead sections unless they are notoriously bad, like Iran, North Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Cuba or Turkmenistan. I am open to changing it as I also believe it is excessively detailed, but if anything maybe it should at least say that Russia has a poor human rights situation. Also, I was the editor who added the term "imperialistic foreign policy" as a substitute for "[Russia's] military interventions in Syria and Ukraine". I though it was more concise and specific than what was already there. I am open to having it removed, but I want there to be a consensus first on whether its military interventions/foreign policy should be included at all, as I also believe it to be unnecessary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia&diff=prev&oldid=926478255 DeathTrain (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The previous lead section outright states that Russian elections are "sham elections" while the NK article at least has the decency to state that outside observers describe it as such, and while Russian elections are widely regarded as not being free nor fair, they are not on NK's level and are not regarded as such by these monitors. The quality of Russian elections are discussed in detail on their respective articles and sections. Also outright stating that Russian foreign policy is "imperialist" is POV-pushing and not appropriate. There are various sources that describe certain wars e.g. Iraq war as "imperialist" but that word isn't even used once on such articles, as it isn't appropriate (and the US article's lead section correctly leaves out topics such as the numerous military interventions undertaken). The point is, the lead section is supposed to be the lead section and jamming in every imaginable criticism there is incorrect. These criticisms are already in detail in their relevant sections and articles, including in the Russia page, there is absolutely no valid reason to throw all of this in the lead section with language that heavily suggests agenda-pushing. Iran's article for example only simply mentions its government as being described as authoritarian and there being significant abuses against human rights, and this is with Iran being more authoritarian and having more significant human rights abuses than Russia (and where you can get the death penalty for being gay). While it's not perfect now, it's far better than the non-NPOV mess of before and further improvements can be made with discussion. Mellk (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mellk:I just want to remind you that the reason why I made that edit was because the paragraph already mentioned Russian military intervention in Syria and Ukraine, and I thought it was more concise and specific to just describe it as such. Similar to how Donald Trump has only been relevant in US politics for only a few years, George W. Bush who launched the Iraq War has not been relevant in US politics for many years and even when he was, there was visible opposition against it by the domestic opposition as evidenced by the Protests against the Iraq War. Furthermore, The United States never had any known intention to annex all or part of Iraq, considering how they have yet to do so, unlike Russia with Ukraine; the last time I remember the US annexing a sovereign entity was Hawaii over a century ago. It already mentions that American expansion required displacing Native American tribes. It could therefore be argued as a relatively isolated incident. I did not write the initial paragraph, I just added the term "imperialistic". I guess I was already influenced by the POV that was already there. To be fair, I would like to make a distinction between "imperialist foreign policy" and "imperialistic foreign policy": the former implies that it is imperialism, whereas the latter implies that it is like imperialism. I do not think that you should confuse them. But either way, I don't think it is necessary to include the foreign military interventions as I also find them also to be excessive details.DeathTrain (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I understand that you wanted to improve the wording on what was already written, however both "imperialist" and "imperialistic" would still not be appropriate. Both words also pretty much mean the same when looking at the dictionary definitions. Mellk (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the points stated by Mellk above. - 祝好，Josephua^(聊天) 21:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mellk:So now that that has been fixed, you have also mentioned that the paragraph is not perfect and that you are open to further improvements. So what are you suggesting as further improvements? DeathTrain (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@DeathTrain: I would prefer replacing emphasizing the authoritarian part with a statement that is like the statement used in the China article: "Political dissidents and human rights groups have denounced and criticized the Chinese government for human rights abuses, suppression of religious and ethnic minorities, censorship and mass surveillance, and cracking down on protests such as in 1989." I would like to get rid of the Corruption Perceptions Index, Freedom House, and the Democracy Index because those are foreign organizations so they are no relevance to Russia whatsoever and they are stating ranks and not reasons. I want to include a statement on why the Putin administration is suppressing human rights, with the reasons stated by Putin himself or the government. This is reflected in the China article in where it states "The Chinese government says that the right to subsistence and economic development is a prerequisite to other types of human rights and that the notion of human rights should take into account a country's present economic level." I still cringe at the lead, and I feel like the fourth paragraph where it listed Russia's participation in international organizations needs work. - 祝好，Josephua^(聊天) 14:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Josephua:Ok, but if the references to authoritarianism or totalitarianism are removed to be like the China article, should the same be done for other articles like Belarus, Zimbabwe, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Kazakhstan or Eritrea? Also, do you have any reasons by Putin himself why human rights are suppressed, as Putin himself denies most human rights abuses? On the rankings by NGOs, I agree that it does not have to give exact rankings, but it can still say whether or not Russia does well across them as they are metrics of national performance, as with articles for other countries like Finland, the United States, South Sudan. DeathTrain (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@DeathTrain: What I meant is emphasizing the authoritarian part by listing human right abuses and stating that critics called his administration authoritarian. Here is Putin's response to the criticisms: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48798875 - 祝好，Josephua^(聊天) 03:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Josephua:Ok, so what do you want to list as human rights abuses? Don't forget, an excessive list such was the reason why the original paragraph was changed. If you want my suggestion, I would mention political repression, unfair elections like in Belarus, and the assassination of opposition figures. I would also mention that NGOs or foreign/independent observers also describe Putin's regime as authoritarian. What about you? Also, I do not know of many other articles that have government responses to human rights abuse accusations aside from China and North Korea, but I am open to adding it. DeathTrain (talk) 16:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@DeathTrain: The terms "democratic backsliding" and "human right abuses" cover all what you said. I renovated the third paragraph of the lead to include NGOs under the term human rights groups while also adding political activists because there are domestic political activists who oppose Putin like Alexey Navalny. In addition, I included more criticisms such as censorship and corruption. Putin's interview with the Financial Times is the best reliable source on Putin's response to criticism. I think as of now, the third paragraph of the lead should be left alone with the changes that I made because it is neutral as it considers both the criticisms of the Russian government and Putin's response to it. - 祝好，Josephua^(聊天) 21:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Josephua:I did make some minor changes to the paragraph for the sake of simplicity and to not make it sound too similar to the China article. Also, do you think that mentioning corruption is necessary, as few if any other countries mention corruption in their lead section, no matter how notable it is or isn't? DeathTrain (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Corruption is currently a central theme in many RS on Russia today, so keep it. The role in other countries and other articles is not very relevant. Rjensen (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Rjensen:How do you know that? The Corruption Perceptions Index ranks many countries worse than Russia. There are also specific articles on Wikipedia that describe corruption in individual countries and sometimes describe it as pervasive in their respective societies. DeathTrain (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

lots of small unimportant countries are worse. However Russia is a great power of importance. for a list of 3,000 articles published in 2019-2020 take a look at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2019&q=Putin+corruption&hl=en&as_sdt=1,27 The theme of Putin & corruption has filled the scholarly studies for many years. This of course is the scholarly literature--the popular media has much more coverage of lower quality. Rjensen (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@Rjensen: Given how there are actually more lead sections to countries that mention corruption than I previously thought, such as Pakistan, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Chad, Haiti, Bangladesh, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, I guess that it is appropriate. DeathTrain (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Russia as a European country

I am sure that Russia is indeed a transcontinental country, yet, i suggest it is necessary to affirm that Russia is a European country, because that is where it has its origins, the present explanation "is a transcontinental country in Eastern Europe and North Asia" is too loose and must be modified to something more accurate like: "is an european transcontinental country, that has it's origins Eastern Europe and extents into North Asia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.188.155.237 (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. More than 90% of Denmark's area lies in North America's Greenland. No one disputes Denmark is as European as France. Russia is certainly as European as France. --204.197.178.92 (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Done. And I agree with what you've said. Danloud (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. The source doesn't say that. Russia is Eurasian.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I also oppose this. Majority of Russian area is actually in Northern Asia. Comparison with Denmark is absurd, since Greenland is a self-governing territory. Bluesatellite (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not oppose this, majority of Russia's area indeed lies in Northern Asia, and Russia is indeed a transcontinental country, but the Russians are clearly a Slavic/European ethnic group who are native to Eastern Europe and European Russia, Russia's culture is Orthodox Christianity influenced, Russia was formed by Kievan Rus', but extended its territory to Siberia/Northern Asia, Majority of Russia's territory is indeed in Asia, but Russia is culturally and ethnically both European. Siberia covers up to about 75% of Russia's total land area, but only 22% of its total population, while European Russia covers only 25% of its total land area and about 78% of its total population. Again, the people living in Siberia or Northern Asia, besides the Siberian indigenous groups - (who are a minority), are the Russians - who are clearly White people and are the majority living in Siberia. Making Russia's lead a European country with a vast expanse of territory that stretches across Northern Asia the most suitable. Danloud (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Russia is a Eastern European country and a Northern Asian country. We say it from geography perspective. United States and Australia are culturally very Anglo, do we call them "a European county". Bluesatellite (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The United States and Australia are two countries where the Europeans emigrated to, they're both not "European", even when Europeans live there, They're not even located anywhere close to the European continent. While the Russians are clearly an European ethnic group who are native to the European part of Russia. Comparing Russia to Australia and the U.S.A. is clearly absurd and makes no sense whatsoever. Danloud (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I refer to your statement that Russia is a European country because it is culturally European. That's why I point out that Australia's population are also mostly European ethnic group. Hence, the conclusion is ethnicity doesn't make it a European county, but geographical location does. And majority of Russia is geographically part of Asia. Does it make Russia less Europe? Nope, again, it's a European country and a North Asian country, also per these categories Category:North Asian countries, Category:Northeast Asian countries. Bluesatellite (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bluesatellite: Northern Asia is a part of Asia, but by UN Standard Country or Area Codes it is considered a part of Eastern Europe or Europe as a whole. Asia's UN Standard Country or Area Codes doesn't include Northern Asia. Russia is the only country located in Northern Asia. Again, Northern Asia isn't really a region of Asia compared to other regions of East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Central Asia and West Asia. So saying Russia is a "North Asian" country doesn't make any sense. However, you can say that China is a "East Asian" country and that India is a "South Asian" country. Europe is not really a continent, it's in fact an artificial continent. It's rather a peninsula which is connected to Asia by land. Eurasia is a real continent. Every region in Asia has its own culture, like Southeast Asian culture, East Asian culture, South Asian culture and West Asian culture, Northern Asia really doesn't have any culture. It's just a part of Russia, which is culturally and ethnically both European, but part of the Asian continent because of Europe being an artificial continent. Danloud (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Human rights in lead section

I had a discussion with another editor over describing human rights abuses in Russia as "systematic" or a synonym. The entire discussion can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mellk#Concerning_your_edit_here So what do you think? Are human rights in Russia bad enough that it warrants some sort of adjective and/or examples emphasizing it? DeathTrain (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to add that this shouldn't be based on opinions but rather what the article contains due to MOS:LEAD. Mellk (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mellk:But the article contains various specific examples emphasizing Russia's problematic human rights record. DeathTrain (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The article mentions criticisms of its human rights record, hence why it is already mentioned in the lead. Mellk (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mellk: UPDATE. We have agreed to put in the term "numerous", like with the Cuba article. Now the focus on the discussion is whether or not examples or other elaboration or adjectives should be added, as most articles for countries with poor human rights records have lead sections do give some sort of elaboration or examples on the human rights abuses, such as with Belarus, Zimbabwe, Kazakhstan, Equatorial Guinea, Turkmenistan, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Ethiopia. DeathTrain (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Caucasus-ethnic en.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to use image better depicting Crimea annexation

"Little green men" during Russian invasion of Crimea

Vladimir Putin (third, left), Sergey Aksyonov (first, left), Vladimir Konstantinov (second, left) and Aleksei Chalyi (right) sign the Treaty on Accession of the Republic of Crimea to Russia in 2014

I propose to replace on WP:UNDUE to replace image depicting Crimea annexation as a legal process by one depicting it as a military invasion. There is clear consensus among high-quality sources that Russia invaded and occupied Crimea, therefore depicting it as a military operation is more fitting. Please comment if you either agree or disagree.

"Little green men" image on the right is a proposed replacement for the current one "sign the Treaty on Accession of the Republic of Crimea to Russia" on the left.

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The current image is fine. The treaty is what actually marks the annexation and is the main one used in the article about the annexation itself. It's not one-sided like the proposed substitute. Mellk (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Russian flag over the building of the Supreme Council of Crimea during the annexation of peninsula by Russia

Alternately, I could suggest File:Flags over Supreme Council of Crimea (3 March 2014).png as a possible substitute. The essence of the event is that Russia claimed Crimea as own territory (or, in other words, raised its flag over the peninsula - both figurally and literally) and such a photo also illustrates that in a good way (and, unlike accession treaty signing, doesn't "focus only on legal procedure"). Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that could work if there is a higher quality image. Mellk (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support the suggestion about the photo of Russian militry instead of the photo of Putin and Aksyonov Devlet Geray (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. It would look misleading, as the proposed image would imply there was a war. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  Moscow Connection, well, actually there indeed was a military operation, as was ultimately admitted by Russia itself. The proposed image with LGM is still problematic, however, 1) it heavily implies "usual takeover", with heavy fighting and so on - which, after all, wasn't the case here; 2) Russian involvement, while known in hindsight, is a bit less obvious here (after all, they operated without insignia there); 3) it misses very point of the annexation: territorial claim. Post-Soviet Russian military operations abroad aren't something unique for 2014 event - we had 2008 war in Abkhazia and South Ossetia (which didn't resulted in annexations) and ongoing operation in Syria (which also isn't aiming at expanding Russian territory). What is unique and noteworthy about 2014 event is that Russia claimed territory as its own. It could be illustrated with a formal proccedings as is now - but this "focuses on formalities" and indeed misses "actions on the ground". Or it could be illustrated "on the ground", with proposed alternative of "raised flags". Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The current image is fine, and is what marks the annexation, and is also used in the main article about the annexation. However, the image of File:Flags over Supreme Council of Crimea (3 March 2014).png could've been used if it was of higher quality. Using the image with the little green men is very misleading, and it makes it seem like there was a full blown war. Danloud (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support The global significance is that this is the first unilateral annexation of territory in Europe since WWII and the signing of the UN Charter. Condemned by the UN as aggression. Its legacy is a new disputed territory in Europe, and it is considered part of a denied Russo-Ukrainian War. There have been thousands of boring signing ceremonies in Europe, but only one “little green men,” “hybrid war” annexation in history. —Michael Z. 00:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support "Little green men" picture more closely reflects the essence of the material. Signing a document (treaty) is just a formality. The annexation was the result of military action (Russo-Ukrainian War), not diplomatic work, so it is quite logical to add a picture of the military in action, rather than signing papers. Proposal But at the same time I think what could be even better — it is a picture of the map itself with highlighted Crimea region or something like that. Or we can simply remove the picture and leave only the text. But we definitely have to change the current picture.--RenatUK (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Tense of article

This article reads like an advert for Russia rather than a fact based, non partisan article. There are numerous comments made without any justification or citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexpinna (talk • contribs) 10:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• What stops you from editing the article? Or at least you could add "citation needed" templates.--RenatUK (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules

Noelcubit, apparently, you ignored my advice to carefully read the current Wikipedia rules. For example, this edit — you must provide a reliable source for this statement. Wikilink to another Wikipedia article is not a reliable source. There is a difference between stating "Russia is among the world's most popular tourist destinations" and "Russia is in 16th place in World Tourism ranking" or something like that. The word "most" can not be used just like that. In this article it says "Most visited destinations" for top 10 countries. So Russia is not in the top 10, right? To personally look at a rating and draw conclusions based on this is an original research. Editors should not do original research, because for your "among most popular destinations" could be "top 100" and for someone else it could be "top 10" or "top 5".--RenatUK (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2020

Russia

216.221.85.27 (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request - 8th Nov 2020

"Tuition" is spelt incorrectly. Please change "a tution-free university education" to "a tuition-free university education".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryuu279483 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Done--RenatUK (talk) 10:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Stalin-Lenin-Kalinin-1919.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Corruption

A section for Corruption in the country appears in the section of Economy, where this clearly shouldn't appear. Other corrupt countries like Ukraine and Mexico do not have a section for corruption in the same section apparently. Danloud (talk) 10:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Could you explain why you wrote this in your edit: "Take it to the talk page before adding this back"? This corruption section in the article was long ago, am I right? So there was a consensus that this section should be in the article? So it means everyone could revert your edit and it would be up to you per WP:CONS to explain why this edit should be made, before adding this back? I disagree with completely removing the corruption section. We can move it from the economy section or/and trim it (and I already trimmed it before), but it definitely should be in the article. And I don't understand why we should look at Mexico and Ukraine articles. They are not featured articles. We can't just ignore the corruption information in this article, given the situation in the country (137 rank out of 180, most corrupt country in Europe, etc). After your deletion, there is not a single word about corruption in the article. This is just nonsense.--RenatUK (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• I trimmed the section. Now there are only three sentences in it.--RenatUK (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @RenatUK: I did not want to remove the section completely, nor did i say the section does not belong to the article. It is indeed a very needed section in the article, and should not be removed. Again, as i said, i think the section does not belong to the section of Economy, that is why i wanted a discussion here. Anyway, thanks for the trim. Danloud (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Putin in lead section

Russia's current President Vladimir Putin was first added to the lead section of this article since at least October 2019:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia&type=revision&diff=919155661&oldid=919107265

A discussion on the paragraph that included him was made here, in which four users agreed to retain a description of Putin's leadership in the lead in an altered capacity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russia/Archive_12#Changes_to_lead_section

Recently, user:Danloud removed the mentioning of Putin in the lead, with these justifications.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Danloud#Concerning_your_edit_here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia&type=revision&diff=981105336&oldid=981048046

So, what do you think? Is Putin's leadership significant enough under MOS:LEAD to be described in the lead section? DeathTrain (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

No need to mention him 2 times in the lead..no need to single out this one ruler considering the article covers from the 8th century BC to now.--Moxy 🍁 21:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: Can he be mentioned once? DeathTrain (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

He already is ...in the infobox...that is part of the lead...that in fact its the second thing seen in mobile view. No need to have his name 2 times in the lead.--Moxy 🍁 22:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: What about elaboration of his leadership, as he has dominated modern Russia's government and politics since 2000 and may stay in power up until 2036 or maybe even later. Under your interpretation, of WP:UNDUE, is the significant elaboration of Alexander Lukashenko's leadership in the lead section of Belarus also inappropriate? DeathTrain (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

In my view the article is about a place on an international level with a huge time span. Besides Wikipedia:Other stuff exists (essay) note how not even Politics of Russia or Politics of Canada or Politics of the United States mentions people in the leads because they are about broad concepts... not about one point in time. He have articles that cover specific time frames and topics like Russia under Vladimir Putin or Public image of Vladimir Putin or Domestic policy of Vladimir Putin.... etc that are mostly linked from here in the appropriate sections as per due weight based on time frame and relevance. WP:UNDUE "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery."--Moxy 🍁 03:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Moxy: For one thing, most government leaders of the United States and Canada have not been in power for nearly as long as Putin. As far as the time frame of Putin's leadership in the longer run, I see it as very similar to many other post-soviet countries, many of which prominently mention their longtime post-soviet leaders, like Lukashenko in Belarus, Niyazov and Berdimuhamedow in Turkmenistan, Nazarbayev and Tokayev in Kazakhstan and Karimov and Mirziyoyev in Uzbekistan. Similarly, Lukashenko is mentioned in the lead section of the Politics of Belarus article and Berdimuhamedow is mentioned in the lead section of the Politics of Turkmenistan article. Concerning WP:UNDUE, Putin is mentioned several times in the Russia article, notably in the Politics and the History sections; in my judgement, he is prominent enough to be elaborated upon in the lead. Putin is not a fringe detail or viewpoint, particularly in the context of the country's modern history, as the article primarily focuses on modern Russia; it does not focus on the Soviet Union, the Russian Empire, Kievan Rus' or the Tsardom of Russia. The article as a whole gives little to no mention of the economy or governance of the predecessor states, as the focus of the article is by and large on the present-day Russian Federation, which is established in the first sentence. Similarly, the article on Egypt (i.e. the present-day Arab Republic of Egypt) does not give too much detail on Pharaohs or the Muhammad Ali dynasty in the lead, nor does it give much detail on the politics and governance of Ancient Egypt or the post-independence Kingdom of Egypt. I feel that excluding him would therefore be violating WP:DUE. DeathTrain (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

We will simply have to disagree... neutral infobox entry is more than sufficient. I don't see how pointing out the problems of this one leader should put a negative light on the whole lead - thus article when we are we are talking about a country made up of millions of individuals. No Catherine the Great.... no Peter the Great... no Stalin.... no Lenin no Putin. So at this point you will need to ask others what they think. Question should be.... should we single out this one leader in a negative light setting the tone of the article with critical analysis of the past 20 years in the lead of an article that covers a Millennium worth of information.--Moxy 🍁 00:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

DeathTrain - You correctly point out that "the article primarily focuses on modern Russia... " It shouldn't. You have simply described the fact that the article has a problem with recentism. You suggestion re Putin will only make that worse. Please find a way to reduce the emphasis on modern Russia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely no reason to mention him 2 times in the lead, it is just expanding the lead for no reason, since it is an article of a country not the article of the leader himself. Even Hitler isn't mentioned in the Germany article, i wonder why? Keep the lead simple and focused on the point. See the leads of FA level articles like Canada and Australia and learn how a lead should be. Danloud (talk) 10:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Danloud: @HiLo48: The reason why Hitler is not mentioned in the lead section of the Germany article is because he has been out of power for decades and has not been very relevant to the modern German state, which is the focus of the Germany article. He is however, prominently mentioned in the the lead section of the Nazi Germany section. Similarly, the Russia article focuses on the modern-day Russian Federation, not a prior state. Why do you think this article does not much elaboration to things like the Soviet Union's Communist Party Central Committee or the State Duma of the Russian Empire? Similarly, Stalin is mentioned in the lead of the Soviet Union article, while Catherine the Great is mentioned in the lead of the Russian Empire article. Canada and Australia are not really fair comparisons with Russia, as they have not had nearly as much significant change to their political systems as Russia; they have largely remained British Commonwealth parliamentary systems with the British monarch as their constitutional monarchy since independence. In Russia, the political system has changed very radically and significantly since the emergence of the Russian state, from monarchies to being part of a constitutionally socialist Leninist state, to the modern federal republic. The predecessor states are elaborated upon in the lead, despite only being primarily mentioned in the history section of the article itself, and they have their own articles to focus on them. In contrast, Putin is mentioned several times in many sections of the article, as once again, the focus of the article is the modern federal republic. Therefore, I believe other post-Soviet states like Belarus or Kazakhstan with similar post-Soviet histories and similar article structures are more appropriate models for a lead section. DeathTrain (talk) 10:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

"...the Russia article focuses on the modern-day Russian Federation" It shouldn't. That should be the focus of an article titled The modern-day Russian Federation. HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Are there any such articles for other countries? DeathTrain (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea, but this article isn't titled The modern-day Russian Federation, so Putin doesn't belong. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: So does Lukashenko belong in the lead section of the Belarus article? DeathTrain (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

No idea. I know little about either the person or the country. But please have a read of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Something wrong in one article doesn't justify something wrong in this article. HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: How does this prove anything? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can also be used to argue that the articles for Georgia, Belarus, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine and Kazakhstan are better comparisons than those for Canada or Australia, as they are all other post-Soviet states with similar, overlapping histories. DeathTrain (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I have said my piece. There's one more Wikipedia link I recommend you follow. It's WP:DEADHORSE. HiLo48 (talk) 10:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I would say mentioning the leader of a country on the country's lead 2 times itself is completely misleading and is just expanding the lead for no reason. Even Lukashenko doesn't belong to the lead of Belarus. There must be a reason why everybody disagrees with your opinion. Danloud (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Danloud: @Moxy: WP:RECENT is not a bad thing per se, and although it is not entirely good, it still may describe information that can still be important in the long run. Do you believe that any exceptions could be made for any country? There are many other articles for countries aside from Belarus which contain significant elaboration of the country's current and/or longtime leader, including Chavez and Maduro in Venezuela, Nazarbayev and Tokayev in Kazakhstan, Karimov and Mirziyoyev in Uzbekistan, Niyazov and Berdimuhamedow in Turkmenistan, Obiang in Equatorial Guinea, Mugabe and Mnangagwa in Zimbabwe, Kagame in Rwanda, Museveni in Uganda, Sisi in Egypt, Assad in Syria, Kabila, Lumumba and Mobutu in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Erdogan in Turkey, etc. Many countries in the former Soviet Union do give substantive descriptions of their post-Soviet histories in their lead sections, including Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Tajikistan, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. I believe that countries such as these with similar, long-term histories are more appropriate models for comparison than with Canada or Australia. DeathTrain (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

You said that before. HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Because I have not heard any clear response to it. DeathTrain (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: @Danloud: @Moxy: How about instead of talking about Putin in the lead section, what do you think about elaborating upon human rights or corruption in the lead? DeathTrain (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The lead is meant to be a summary of the major points of the article. Human rights is ONLY mentioned in the Foreign relations section of the article, and in a mixture of positive and negative ways. There's really not much there that can be easily summarised in the lead. Do you have a specific suggestion on how might go about "elaborating upon human rights or corruption in the lead"? HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Perhaps something like:

"Following the end of the Cold War, Russia's relations with the West has been complicated by its poor human rights record, as reported by international watchdogs."

If not, could a separate "Human rights" section be added in the "Politics" section like in the articles of other post-Soviet states like Belarus, Kazakhstan or Turkmenistan? DeathTrain (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Your goal here has become too obvious. It's clearly to tell the world that Putin is a really bad person. That is NOT what the Foreign relations section of the article says. HiLo48 (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: It does say so in this paragraph:

An important aspect of Russia's relations with the West is the criticism of Russia's political system and human rights management (including LGBT rights, media freedom, and reports about killed journalists) by Western governments, the mass media and the leading democracy and human rights watchdogs. In particular, such organisations as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch consider Russia to have not enough democratic attributes and to allow few political rights and civil liberties to its citizens.[135][136] Freedom House, an international organisation funded by the United States, ranks Russia as "not free", citing "carefully engineered elections" and "absence" of debate.[137] Russian authorities dismiss these claims and especially criticise Freedom House. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has called the 2006 Freedom in the World report "prefabricated", stating that the human rights issues have been turned into a political weapon in particular by the United States. The ministry also claims that such organisations as Freedom House and Human Rights Watch use the same scheme of voluntary extrapolation of "isolated facts that of course can be found in any country" into "dominant tendencies".[138] Putin has argued that Western-style liberalism is obsolete in Russia, while maintaining that the country is still a democratic nation.[139][140][141]

What I have currently proposed in the lead section makes no mention of Putin. DeathTrain (talk) 01:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Then the lead must also say "that the human rights issues have been turned into a political weapon in particular by the United States", because those words are also in that section. You are cherry picking negative content about Putin. That link says "Do not cherrypick." Please step back and recognise what your motives are in wanting this content included. HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: You are taking that quote out of context, as that is what the Russian government argues. How about something like

"Following the end of the Cold War, Russia's relations with the West has been complicated by its human rights record, which is described in reports by international watchdogs as poor. The Russian government denies these allegations."

That seems more neutral to me, and also takes into account the Russian government's response to accusations of human rights abuses.DeathTrain (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

No. You are saying that problems in its relations with the West have been caused by its human rights record. Many would say that the root causes of those problems are more to do with ideology and power, and that allegations of human rights abuses are used to justify "the problems". There is also the fact that all governments love having a bête noir for which they can blame the world's problems. Russia is very handy for that role. HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: What about something more simple, such as:

"Russia's human rights record has been criticized by non-governmental organizations. The Russian government denies these allegations."

DeathTrain (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Find me a country whose human rights record has not been criticised by somebody. Mine, Australia, certainly has. Do you expect you will find anything about human rights in the lead of its article? HiLo48 (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Although no country has a perfect human rights record, NGOs describe some as significantly worse than others. The lead section of some countries like China, Syria, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe, Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran all describe poor human rights situations in their lead sections, while others such as Australia, Canada, Denmark and even Jordan do not. It is a relative evaluation, and NGOs and human rights watchdogs certainly describe Russia as having a significantly poorer human rights record than many other countries, although the global norm for most countries however is a mixed or mediocre record. Many countries with particularly poor or problematic human rights records tend to describe so in the body, as with the aforementioned countries. According to WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, details in the body can affect the lead, and there is a large paragraph describing human rights in the body of this article. If you find this to be inappropriate to justify elaborating human rights in the lead, I would have no problem creating a section focusing on human rights in the "Politics" section, as has been done in many articles with poor human rights situations described in the lead. Do you have any reason why I should not? DeathTrain (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a very good reason. You appear incapable of taking an objective position on this matter, and are therefore not the right person to write such a section. This is proven by our unswerving determination to say negative things about Putin and Russia here. You haven take up a lot of time of other editors, and I would predict the same would happen again if you tried to write that section. On the international stage, accusations of poor human rights behaviour is used as a political weapon by most countries in many ways. For example, if governments are in trouble at a domestic level, they love to raise the alleged bad behaviour of other governments as a distraction. It is never as simple or black and white as you appear to want to believe. HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: But aren't NGOs neutral? If a human rights section is written based on reports by NGOs, would that not be more credible? Would you say that you are more neutral and are therefore more qualified to write such a section? If not, do you know anyone who would be? If I end up writing a human rights section that you do not find to be neutral enough, you always have the option to edit it and make it more neutral. DeathTrain (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

You are new here. Right now I recommend you have a really good read of WP:STICK, then go away and edit some less politically oriented Wikipedia articles for a few months. There's several million articles in Wikipedia, so there's bound to be some less controversial ones you can improve. It will give you a much better perspective on how things work here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: I've been an editor here since 2017. I find that you calling me inexperienced as more ad hominem than anything else. I find that you questioning my qualifications to edit something to be a red herring. I would rather you just directly answer my questions: Are you more qualified to write a Human rights section? Why? Do you know anyone who would be if you are not? If you don't believe there should be such a section, why not? Aren't NGOs independent and would give more neutral credibility to such a section? How do you know that something I have not yet written would not be neutral? I am going to consider what you have said, and I'll try to make it as neutral as I can. DeathTrain (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. There was no ad hominem intended. Your Edit history only goes back to 22 October, and the range of articles you have edited in that time is very narrow. There is nothing on your User page. If you have edited as someone else before that, I strongly recommend you make some comment to that effect on your User page. The absence of anything there right now (with your User name appearing in red) is a big flag to other editors suggesting some inexperience. I will make one more comment on the topic right now. No, most NGOs are not independent of politics, no matter what they claim. For example, those which are religiously based are inevitably biased against governments which don't encourage religion. HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Regardless, I am going to take your advice. I will take a few weeks, maybe months off this discussion to prepare a draft section for Human rights in Russia. When it is prepared, I will return to this discussion and we can discuss it in further detail, and then possibly also discuss if it could warrant mentioning human rights in the lead section. Are you okay with that? DeathTrain (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Not entirely, to be honest, because I have serious concerns about whether you are approaching this matter in genuine good faith. But I guess that's up to you to demonstrate in future. HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: @Danloud: @Moxy: This might interest you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Clashes_of_policies DeathTrain (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: While I am working on the draft section, what sources would you recommend as appropriate or credible to describe human rights in Russia? DeathTrain (talk) 02:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: No reply?DeathTrain (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Why did the discussion about Putin in the lead section somehow turn into a discussion of human rights in Russia? Maybe it's better to start a new discussion? So other editors can easily join too.--Renat (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@RenatUK: There was some overlap, as the article previously said that Putin's regime was accused of numerous human rights abuses. But sure, I guess it is appropriate to create a new section.DeathTrain (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Were germanic people in russia before slavic people?

Did ethnic germanic people live in the northwest part of russia before slavic people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.61.113 (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The hobbits came first, then the dwarves, then the trolls...--Jack Upland (talk) 07:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

"germanic people in russia"?!

Deutsche (alias "немы " ) Yes! What's it like ?! AND ! "Kick in the ass" of all Russia. For 72,000,000,000 euros! (execution of the judgment against Russia). Prikocement bancaire.To all Russian diplomats (freezing bank accounts).

Because of the tricks with "Yukos".Strong is ... - "germanic people in russia".NEW Wiki User 2 (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Add Ufa City to the other major cities

' Moscow is the country's capital and largest city, other major cities include Saint Petersburg, Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, Kazan, Nizhny Novgorod, Chelyabinsk and Samara.' Ufa is bigger than Samara, can anybody add Ufa in the list of major cities? Slaaw (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Check List of cities and towns in Russia by population. Ufa, as of 2020, has an estimated population of around 1,128,787, while Samara has a total population of 1,156,659. So, Samara is indeed larger than Ufa. Excluding estimates, Samara also had a larger population than Ufa in the 2010 Russian Census. Danloud (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2021

change another is "Российский" (Rossiiskii) to another is "Россияне" (Rossiayane) 37.147.251.224 (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Done (this was changed yesterday, but now corrected). Mellk (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of sections

Someone deleted several paragraphs (National holidays and symbols and Tourism) in November 2020 without any justification or edit summary. I have now returned them, but this was again deleted by a newcomer (created in October 2020) Clipasie. It was reverted without any justification or edit summary (against the rules of Wikipedia). The second time when this was removed, the reason was finally written, namely that none of the Wikipedia article of a country have a paragraph "National holidays". I would understand this, so I removed all mention of the national holidays. But then it was removed again by user Clipasie, requesting a debate here on the talk page. I do not agree with his approach, it is against the rules of Wikipedia to remove such extensive content without reason and I suggest its return. Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Tourism section in its current form is completely fine. Most of the deleted paragraphs were unsourced and/or against WP:RSUW. What exactly you want to return back?---Renat (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• @Jirka.h23: There's a section for Tourism already, which looks much cleaner than the previous paragraph for it. And I think the deletion of the paragraph "National holidays" was justified because there's indeed no other article of a country on Wikipedia that has a section for that. So, I think everything's okay here. Noelcubit (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, now I see it, I overlooked it, so it was moved elsewhere and rewritten. Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Science and technology

The whole Science and technology section is basically an advertisement; just a plain list of who invented what. It needs improvement, and a massive trim. I'm currently trying to improve the sections of Economy. If someone can help with this one, it'll be very helpful. Danloud (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Mikhail Lomonosov proposed the law of conservation of matter preceding the energy conservation law. Since the time of Nikolay Lobachevsky (the "Copernicus of Geometry" who pioneered the non-Euclidean geometry) and a prominent tutor Pafnuty Chebyshev, the Russian mathematical school became one of the most influential in the world. Dmitry Mendeleev invented the Periodic table, the main framework of modern chemistry. Nine Soviet/Russian mathematicians were awarded with the Fields Medal. Grigori Perelman was offered the first ever Clay Millennium Prize Problems Award for his final proof of the Poincaré conjecture in 2002.
  Russian discoveries and inventions include the electric filament lamp, the aircraft, the safety parachute, sputnik, radio receiver, electrical microscope, colour photos, caterpillar tracks, track assembly, electrically-powered railway wagons, videotape recorder, helicopter, solar cell, transformers, yogurt, television, petrol cracking, synthetic rubber and grain harvester.

--Renat (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@RenatUK: Looks great. Thanks a lot for the help :) Danloud (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC on image for Vladimir Putin's article

Hello, there is currently an open RfC regarding what image should be used in the infobox of Vladimir Putin's article, if anyone here would like to add there input. Link to the RfC. Thanks. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Rename Russia to Rossia

The official name of country is Rossian Federation and short name Rossia, with capital in Moscow

Russia or historical Rus, include bigger region.

According history the Rusia, Ruthen, Rus is started in Kyiv Rus. On that time Moscow has no any belonging to it.

This page is page of official country which exist in our days Rossia / Rossian Federation. If you come to Rossia, you will never hear or heard rUssia, only rOssia.

Please rename the English name to correct ROSSIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofisrom (talk • contribs) 21:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Your final sentence highlights the problem with that request. Wikipedia reflects what reliable, generally English language sources say, and they all say Russia. You are asking for the whole of the English language to change. We do not control that. HiLo48 (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Ukrainians were allowed to change name of their country to Ukraine from the Ukraine, and capital to Kyiv from Kiev, why Russians as you call us are not allowed to do the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.173.131 (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Could you give a reliable source for the name Rossia in official English usage, or even some official Russian institution demanding that the English form should be Rossia? All info in Wikipedia should be based on facts and sources, this place is not meant for establishing new forms against common practice. Many countries have different names in different languages, for example Deutchland is Germany, Suomi is Finland, Nippon is Japan and Hellas is Greece. – Niera (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Please, look at wikipedia articles about any other country then Russia. For all other countries there is a name in English followed by actual name of the country. For example - Belarus (/bɛləˈruːs/; Belarusian: Беларусь [bʲɛlaˈrusʲ]; Russian: Беларусь [bʲɪlɐˈrusʲ]), Ukraine (Ukrainian: Україна, romanized: Ukrayina, pronounced [ʊkrɐˈjinɐ] and so on. All but Russia. Or, how couldn't we love you after this, you democratic western people! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.173.131 (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, even this article begins with "Russia (Russian: Россия, Rossiya)". If you believe some essential fact is missing, please feel free to add it with a source. You don't need anyone's permission to do that. Besides, as far as I see, in English "Russia" is spelled quite much the same way as you Russians spell your country's name. "Rossia" would be spelled differently. Likewise, as far as I've understood, it's a common practice in Russia to transliterate foreign names as they are spelled, not as they are written in their respective languages. For example ru:Гейтс,_Билл, which is effectively "Geits", not "Gates". Why should Russia's English name be a different case? Niera (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Crimea

The status of Crimea remains a disputed territory between Russia and Ukraine. Most of the international community recognizes Crimea as Ukraine not Russia.

Crimea should be labeled as a disputed territory on the Russia page. Thanos2556 (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Population

What I do not understand : The population of the Crimean Peninsula is about 2.3 million at least de jure, although de facto about the same . If the population of the Russian Federation without Crimea is 145900 without Crimea, then including Crimea should be 148200 . Please fix this discrepancy . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.162.65.185 (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

GA review

Best revoke GA nomination ...so a record of a quick fail is not part of the articles history. Mass amount of sources needed (including completely unsourced sections), double the recommend size, ongoing dispute, among many other problems.--Moxy 🍁 09:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Kaliningrad

Kaliningrad Oblast, in fact, is geographically in Central Europe. I do not know how it was not mentioned until now. Mainland European Russia is indeed in Eastern Europe, but Kaliningrad isn't. Clipasie (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Clipasie: in fact it is considered Eastern Europe according to the first 2 maps on the Eastern Europe article (the one by the United Nations Statistics Division and The World Factbook). --Baptx (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Section sizes

Soviet Union section (1922-1991) = 69 years = 19,783 Kb
Post-Soviet Russia section (1991-2020) = 29 years = 18,614 Kb
Post-Soviet Russia (1991–present) section should be trimmed.--Renat (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@RenatUK: Some sections of History do need a trim. I have not yet seen such a large "separate" section for World War II in any GA or FA class articles. Danloud (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Danloud: I propose to delete the first two paragraphs of the section Russia#World_War_II. They are unsourced anyway and look out of place. I haven't checked the revision history, but I think the section originally started with the words "On 22 June 1941, Nazi Germany broke their non-aggression treaty ..." and later someone added two unsourced paragraphs above.--Renat (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@RenatUK: I have been trying to clean up the article since the last month, and trimmed the article significantly. The article is currently much lighter; while it has become easier to read through it. Currently, I believe if the History section could get a trim—the article could easily get a GA or FA class run. What do you think? Danloud (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Danloud: there is a lot of content without citations. I think this may be the first problem on the way to getting a GA/FA.--Renat (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@RenatUK: I'm trying to find sources and add them to the article. It will be very helpful, if you can try and add citation needed tags on sentences that are unsourced, and I will try adding sources to them. Maybe, the work will get faster then. Danloud (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2021

Dann101 (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Can I please edit Russia, I was born there and I know many facts about it, please and thank you.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Twassman [Talk·Contribs] 19:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Add about annexation of Crimea into lead paragraph

Folks, what do you think, should I add information about Russia annexation of Crimea into lead paragraph? --Yumashiv (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)]

• Very strong support, with the strength of the gravitational attraction of a black hole Yeah it can be mentioned, as long as its effects (e.g: 2014 Russian economic crisis) are also included. Prins van Oranje 14:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Recentism. - 祝好，Sinoam^(聊天) 17:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Nope. Clipasie (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree it's recentism. We don't describe how the Sakha Republic or Kazan became part of Russia in the lede. 00:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

lede

The lead needs to change something. It says "Russians are the largest Slavic and European nation; speaking Russian, the most spoken Slavic language, and the most spoken native language in Europe." Slavic needs to be changed with Germanic, Russians are Germanic. Thanx. 45.118.63.3 (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Russians are not Germanic. Rjensen (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Haha, what? Since when were Russians Germanic? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 14:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

What? 🦅 Danloud ^(talk) 14:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)