This is an archive of past discussions about Russia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 10 years ago25 comments15 people in discussion
Clear consensus to adopt the map with light green colouring. There is no current consensus to make the map dark green. No changes should be enacted until the issue with Kosovo is fixed. SpartazHumbug!18:28, 27 March 2014 (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.
Current mapProposed map Users can see the differences between the maps and proposed wording below the image on the page's infobox here. For parity's sake, cross-posting at Talk:Ukraine#Request for comment where there is a dispute regarding whether or not to change the color of Crimea. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Comments
Adopt proposed map - I came here as an article reviewer for Ukraine and consider myself uninvolved. Given the recent vote in Crimea and the votes in Russia to annex it, while Ukraine still claims it as its own and much of the international community does not recognize the votes as legal, Crimea's status is clearly disputed. Per WP:NPOV, the proposed map accurately reflects the current dispute in a neutral, clear way and would be a useful addition to the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Shade Crimea Dark Green - I have been involved in the discussion on the Ukraine page. My argument is consistent and unbiased: Wikipedia should represent the de facto situation regardless of which countries 'officially' recognize the situation. Noone has been willing to argue that Crimea is not, de facto, under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation. Therefore it should be depicted as part of Russia and not as part of Ukraine. I concede that this position is inconsistent with the current policy on disputed territories being shaded. However, I would argue that there is no measurable way to determine what does or does not rise to the level of a dispute. I would also point to cases, like Korea, where this convention is not enforced and the de facto borders are displayed without shading.173.79.251.253 (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Support. Crimea is clearly a disputed territory and should be so shown on a map. Same goes for the map of Ukraine. We are not here to endorse one side over another; we are here to create an encyclopedia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 21, 2014; 16:40 (UTC)
Support proposal. Crimea may be de facto part of Russia, but internationally it's viewed differently from the rest of the country. It should be marked on the map, but in a way that distinguishes its status. The proposed map does this well. Bazonka (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment: Wouldn't there be disunity from general conventions throughout Wikipedia? I don't mind whether Crimea is shaded in light green or dark green, but this is something that might need to be thought over. Referring to the pages of India, China, Cyprus, Georgia (country), Israel, Pakistan, Argentina, Serbia and Japan, light green is only used if there is a claim, however there is zero de facto administrative control. China has no control over Taiwan or Aruchanal Pradesh despite claiming them as territory, hence the light green. If there isn't a universal standard on Wikipedia, wouldn't this give mixed and confusing ideas to readers? --benlisquareT•C•E19:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Wait and see: According to mandatory policy content has to reflect what best sources say, not on any de facto/de jure considerations of individual editors. The "annexation" is a very recent event, my suggestion would be to wait to see how high-quality sources will predominantly present the situation going forward. Obviously, the situation may change as the event is still unfolding. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - Kosovo being snuck in. Looking carefully at the 2 maps: Current map shows a united Serbia. New map shows a separate Kosovo. I think this is a separate controversial matter and should be discussed separately. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources when it comes to maps. There is no independent cartography source like National Geographic that has released a map yet. For Wikipedia to publish a map that has never existed before anywhere on Earth is Original Research and against policy. USchick (talk) 04:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
@USchick Shouldn't the sources regarding Russia's claims on Crimea be enough to allow us to show Crimea as a light-green contested area? It seems almost biased to ignore this and show Russia having no claims on the territory. LarryVlad (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
In an article about a disputed region, it's perfectly fine to show a map of the disputed region because it helps to understand the area being discussed. Like this 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. However, to create a map that has never existed before anywhere on Earth and then impose it on an entire country is original research and against policy. First a reliable source would have to create the map and publish it, and we would follow reliable sources and create our own version that doesn't infringe on their copyright. THEN we would include it in an article. No such map exists right now. The reliable source would be National Geographic in this case. USchick (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
National Geographic Society’s cartographic policy is to portray to the best of our ability current reality. Most political boundaries depicted in our maps and atlases are stable and uncontested. Those that are disputed receive special treatment and are shaded gray as “Areas of Special Status,” with accompanying explanatory text.
In the case of Crimea, if it is formally annexed by Russia, it would be shaded gray and its administrative center, Simferopol’, would be designated by a special symbol. When a region is contested, it is our policy to reflect that status in our maps. This does not suggest recognition of the legitimacy of the situation.
And we plan to follow them. Until then, it's WP:CRYSTAL. Even National Geographic is still waiting for " if it is formally annexed by Russia," so they are waiting also. USchick (talk) 05:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Dear users, sources please! According to sources Crimea is Ukraine. When reputable sources (i.e. books of geography) will start to indicate Crimea as disputed land Wikipedia will do the same. Supporters of the current modification are doing OR. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Hardly! You need source from a geography book/source if you want to publish a map.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvio1973 (talk • contribs)
Support That Crimea is a disputed territory claimed by Russia and Ukraine is sourced repeatedly. The mode of representation of this dispute does not have to be the same as in our sources. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
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.
internationally recognised as part of Ukraine
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Under Russian law? Who knows. Under international treaty law? It hasn't because no one has recognized the annexation yet. JOJHutton01:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually it doesn't matter if somebody has recognized it or not, de facto it is Russia that's it. If you want to visit Crimea you will need a visa for Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.191.199.209 (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
If there were sources to support that Crimea became legally Russian territory, opinions wouldn't be necessary. Since there are no sources to support the claim, opinions abound. USchick (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Russian Federation
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The current, and clearly recently updated, version of this article asserts without qualification that Crimea and Sevastopol are part of the Russian Federation.
Given the near global consensus that Russia's very recent acquisition of Crimea violates international norms, this unqualified assertion -- not even acknowledging that Crimea's status is controversial -- makes this entry highly partisan, misleading and inappropriate for Wikipedis.
See the above conversations. Crimea is indeed part of Russia de facto and possibly de jure. There is qualification about other nations and the UN not recognizing the annexation. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I assume the subsection you are referencing is the Annexation of Crimea, Robert Gillette. It serves as a summary of the main articles and feature links to the main articles at the top of the section. The tone is neutral, explains the processes of the annexation, and notes the response of other international bodies and individual nation-states. I don't see any extraordinary claims or anything that could be construed as a WP:POV push. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
What makes this a POV push is that the entire section supports the Russinan POV, and the last two sentences say that this is disputed. The annexation of Crimea began not on March 1, but precisely on February 27, 2014 when unknown gunmen seized the parliament Supreme Council of Crimea#In the wake of the Crimean crisis. They replaced the existing chairman with Sergey Aksyonov, who declared himself in charge of local police and military. And then he asked for Russian forces to take control. Of course, very conveniently, Russian forces were already in the building, with automatic weapons, waiving a Russian flag on the roof. Adding this information to the article, would provide much needed balance. Then if this section needs to be shorter, the rest of the story can be summarized in two or three sentences. USchick (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2014
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
It should be added to the end of the part titled "Crimean Crisis 2014", that:
The UN General Assembly on March 27th voted in favour of a resolution on Ukraine's territorial integrity. By a vote of 100 in favour to 11 against, with 58 abstentions, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the resolution, calling on States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any change in the status of Crimea or the Black Sea port city of Sevastopol, and to refrain from actions or dealings that might be interpreted as such. Among other things, the resolution underscores the invalidity of the 16 March referendum held in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. It also calls on all states to "desist and refrain" from actions aimed at disrupting Ukraine's national unity or territorial integrity, including modifying its borders through threat or use of force. It further urged all parties to work for a peaceful resolution to the crisis, through dialogue.
If possible it could also be good to add a picture showing the results of the vote. There are many photos and screenshots with voting result online.
This text could also be added to the Main Article about "2014 Crimean Crisis", and the paragraph "On March 27, the U.N. General Assembly passed a non-binding resolution 100 in favor, 11 against and 58 abstentions in the 193-nation assembly that declared invalid Crimea's Moscow-backed referendum.".
Recent politics and international law infringement
Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion
These were not included and as I do include them I would be glad if I would not be interrupted by Russian editors. Thank you. --Aleksd (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
WTF? Are you calling me a Russian editor? LOL. Please try to explain the reasons for your addition. And perhaps you could seek some help with your English expression. As you have written your addition so far its just not acceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Reasons: information. :) I think based on sources information about NATO and UN statements is very much acceptable, Russian editor. --Aleksd (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems you want to use the word "invasion". That is obviously a change to the POV of the article, and I imagine you realis it won't have universal support. It's probably the most doubtful part of your additions. HiLo48 (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me you forgot to mension nobody accepts this as legal, only Russia itself. Strange, ah? :) --Aleksd (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I note that you simply made your additions again, BEFORE making that comment here, i.e. without continuing this discussion. That's unacceptable. I won't edit war, but I will clearly state that, IMHO, your edits are completely unacceptable. This is not the place to fight your personal war against Russia. It damages Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
As a matter of the discuss portion of BRD, HiLo48, you haven't responded to the issue of the use of the word 'invasion'. Is there a problem with introducing it as part of a balanced account when there is a plethora of RS media coverage that can be cited? It doesn't need to be introduced as part of a neutral account, but I could certainly point the argument back at you if you think the current account is entirely acceptable. As I've noted below to Aleksd, the use of neutral language is not the equivalent of a neutral POV. This is not a place to fight your personal war for Russia. It damages Wikipedia. (P.S. I spent so much time trying to approach the subject as a neutral party that I didn't realise what an insidious piece of nonsense this subsection actually is until I re-read it this morning.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I see I am not the only one who does not feel content with the previous "wording", I would say omissing of some major information in the article, see for example below user Volunteer Marek. I definitelly think many places of this section need additional information, in fact to say entirely different things. I only was able to improve a few for a short while. Consensus may be reached for the new wording but there definitely is no consensus on the previous one. --Aleksd (talk) 07:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you'll find that the concern was over the length, Aleksd. I suspect that what was agreed on by a few of us is that it's too long already (as in WP:UNDUE), particularly in light of the fact that it's still a current affair (therefore WP:RECENTISM is a concern. Turning it into an article in itself is not the approach we had in mind. As it stands, if it incorporated all of the content you're trying to add it would be as long as the section dedicated to Imperial Russia.
Could you engage in the 'discuss' portion of BRD, please? While I didn't have any particular objections as to the content, or the presentation of the content before, on re-reading it I do see that it reads as using neutral language to give an account of the event from the Russian Federation's POV, with a little token lipservice to the fact that some (actually the majority) of the global community considered it a military invasion and don't recognise any part of the process as being legal tacked on. The step by step account currently in place definitely reads as if the Russian Federation calmly tried to protect the region (including the fact that it was at the behest of the 'legal' president of Ukraine) because Ukraine was, and still is(?), in a state of lawlessness. I'd also take issue with presenting the referendum and final 'discussions' with other nations and leagues of nations in 2015 as the final part of an unquestionably legal process. Ideally, per Wikipedia's policies, a balanced account is not a political tirade or indictment... but it certainly needs to be a little more balanced. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Wording in Crimea annexation section
In that section though, these two sentences do seem POV:
"In late February 2014 the government of Ukraine collapsed as a result of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution." - the Yanukovych government collapsed, but the new government is there and is functioning.
"On 1 March 2014, Viktor Yanukovych, exiled President of Ukraine, requested that Russia use military forces to restore order and stability to Ukraine" - the "restore order and stability" is Yanukovych's and Russian government's POV and should not be stated in Wikipedia voice as fact. Order and stability have begun to return after Yanukovych fled.
Attempted to reword. Used direct quote from Yanukovych letter. Still don't like the wording of "government collapsed". I know it means the current coalition fell apart, but the structure of the government was still there. The members were replaced, not the system. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Crimea disputed Russian territory, fine for the most of users?
Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
After two years and a modest 2,000 edits I realise that Wikipedia is perhaps not the place for me.
I believed our task was only to gather the knowledge and not making OR. Indeed, this talk page seems to show this project does not work like that. Crimea is presented here as disputed territory without a support of a decent source (and by the way not like this in the article Ukraine). I am going to revert for the second (and last) time the current version. If for the most of the users this is fine, please explain me why because I don't get it. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
And on top of that now we include in the article also territory and population. From which source? This is honestly crazy. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
The map is being used in this article inconsistent with policy WP:NOR. There is no such map and it never existed in the history of mankind. USchick (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, there is no consensus that can be stroger than a Wikipedia's pillar. And there is no source supporting the current map, surface and population of Russia in this article. Honestly this entire thing is getting really out of hand. блин, эта статя не прямо как это... --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Which states: "We should neither fetter our discretion, nor disregard policies and guidelines." The policy OR was completely disregarded because NO MAPS exist to support the map that was created out of thin air and adopted as the official map (by consensus) simply because editors felt like it. USchick (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
USchick is right. This article is the triumph of OR and RECENTISM. I would change my mind I could see a single source. I have not so far. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Population
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Sources in English reports the Population of Russia excluding the population of Crimean peninsula. Whoever wants to include the population of Crimea in the population of Russia needs to cite a source. Neutral and Verifiable. --Silvio1973 (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
@User EvergreenFir. If you want to include the population of Crimea in the population of Russia you need a source. A source saying exactly what you report. You cannot add "manually" the current population of Crimea from the Ukrainian statistics to the population of Russia from the Russian statisticis bureau. Also you need to provide a source from the English speaking-world. As the content of this article is in dispute it is paramount to provide bomb-proof sources which cannot be discussed about their neutrality. Pleaae also note that if you keep reverting without looking for consensus first here I will edit a report about your conduct. Thank you for your understanding. --Silvio1973 (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE in the lead
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Reporting so much information in the lead concerning the contested annexation of Crimea is WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Unless a reasonable number of secondary sources from the English world cannot be provided it should not be reported such information in the lead. This is even more inappropriate in view of WP:RECENTISM. --Silvio1973 (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Crimean Section
Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
This section is way to long in the history section, the history goes back thousands of years and yet we have this wall of text barely covering one month. It isn't even that important compared to some other events. It should be shortened or merged into a one or two liner under the Russian Federation... --Kuzwa (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed that a bit of a trim would be good. The detail is borderline undue, and the hatnotes provide links to the main current affairs articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
"Following this, Pro-Russian protests began in the Crimean peninsula." links to 2014 Crimean crisis which doesn't mention any "Pro-Russian protests" but it does describe a military takeover. There seems to be a discrepancy between those two concepts. USchick (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago30 comments6 people in discussion
Again an issue of OR. A source is needed to list the number of federal subjects of the Russian Federation. Any manual count is OR, we need a source here. And again not a Russian one. --Silvio1973 (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
This article is on dispute. You need to provide neutral sources. And in view of recent events Russian or Ukrainian sources are not neutral. You need neutral sources affirming the population if Crimea contributes to that of Russia and that the number of federal subjects are 85. Also, stop pushing without reaching consensus here. You have done it already twice and I will file a report if you do it again. Please discuss first. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The issue of neutrality subsists even more accounting that you provide a source from (or close) to the Russian Government. If you want to report that the number of federal subjects if 85 you need a neutral source, 'even' if you want to write that this is disputed. Otherwise you make OR. Last but not least, as you are editing the lead you need to modify the article ensuring your POV is not WP:FRINGE. Please provide sources and of course discuss first, because you are on the hedge of being reported. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Real close to starting an ANI or DRN. It is entirely unreasonable and non-neutral to ask for a non-Russian source about the decision of the Russian government. As you are making the change by removing a statement that has been on the article for a while, it is you that must make the case for its removal. Just for note, you are at your 3RR limit. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, go re-read WP:OR. Citing the Russian Federal Government about their addition of Crimea and Sevastapol is the exact opposite of OR. You are also conflating the need for neutrality in the article and neutrality in sources. We do not need neutral sources (see Wikipedia:SOURCE#Neutrality). EvergreenFir (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The sources don't need to be neutral, but they do need to be reliable. Russian state owned sources are not considered to be reliable on English language Wikipedia, so why all of a sudden in this article would they become reliable? Russian sources can be used, but they need to be supported by other sources as well. USchick (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Sources are considered to be reliable when they meet the criteria of reliability found in WP:SOURCE. A source being Russian does not invalidate it if all the criteria in WP:SOURCE are met. As EvergreenFir said, a source may be biased (as is obviously the case with the state owned sources), but still be considered to be reliable according to Wikipedia's criteria.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 10, 2014; 16:59 (UTC)
@ Ezhiki. Hardly! 'Per se' the fact of being Russian does not invalidate the source, but in this case it does. And 'even' if the source was acceptable (and it is not) it would still be WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE to report in the lead that the number of federal subjects of Russia are 85 (even if described as disputed). Please note that I live and work in Russia and I can discern when a Russian source is not neutral.Silvio1973 (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
What specific clauses does the ref in question violate? In all, it almost looks like you are confusing Wikipedia's definition of a "reliable source" with the dictionary definition of the word "reliable" in a generic sense. And how it is fringe and undue to report the number of federal subjects the country's own government considers the country to consist of? Especially when the shady status of Crimea and Sevastopol is specifically being addressed in addition to that statement? Not to mention that adding two to eighty-three to produce eighty-five is hardly original research but is rather simple, down-to-earth common sense.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 10, 2014; 18:23 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with using primary sources to support a fact as trivial as the number of the federal subjects; we do it all the time with population figures, for example. Primary sources should not be used to interpret or support statements of opinion, is all. See WP:PSTS, a subsection of the same WP:OR you are quoting: [a] primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. That the Russian government considers the Russian Federation to consist of eighty-five federal subjects is not an opinion, it's a straightforward fact, hence the use of the primary source here is quite appropriate.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 10, 2014; 21:08 (UTC)
It's what the policy says; I suggest you read it. The sentence in the article may need some tweaking to clarify the 83/85 discrepancy (it was almost acceptable before being removed), but glossing over the entire issue is not productive at all and is a disservice to our readers. Of course, that's only "my opinion", too.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 10, 2014; 21:27 (UTC)
There's nothing in the policy to support that a statement coming directly from the Kremlin is a reliable source. If the statement is true, there will be secondary sources to support it. If you have any questions about RS, you can bring it up here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. USchick (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
USchick - No, government sources have always been RS when it comes to issues of government. But I'll humor you and start an RSN anyway. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I can appreciate that you think so. Can you please point to a policy based reason for that? Since the subject is disputed, why would only one side of the dispute be represented? USchick (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The onus is on you to point to why we need additional sources. Moreover, we're not talking about the legitimacy of the Crimea annexation. We're talking about how many federal subjects there are in the Russian government. The best source to ask how many federal subjects there are is the one who decides how many there are: the government. I cannot understand the ridiculous barriers some editors are trying to raise over simple matters for the sake of their political stances. An RS was given. The wording is NPOV. It is not UNDUE. So what's the issue? Frankly all I see are POV battleground mentalities attempting to stifle all edits that remotely acknowledge Russia's annexation. The annexation happened. There's a dispute. We report on that. What more is there to do? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Cherry picking sources to advance a position is against policy. Editors are voicing concerns about POV pushing, sometimes with no sources at all and now with Russian sources , which any other time would be considered unreliable. Information in an encyclopedia needs to be properly sourced. USchick (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
@ EvergreenFir, reserve your discussion about mentalities and politics for your friends. This project works on sources. Neutral sources. A source close to the Russian Government is not neutral and definitely insufficient to push a POV in the lead. What happened in Crimea is not my problem. My problem is that you post an edit without a source. And unless you do not provide a neutral, your edits will be reverted. 'Without fail'. And report me for 3RR. I simply removed unsourced material and put the article in the condition prior to your POV pushing.Silvio1973 (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
@ EvergreenFir, your edit is contested so you cannot reinstate it. The article returns to its original condition and any change need to be discussed first. According to WP:BURDEN YOU have to provide valid sources if you want to modify the current version of the article. Unless sources are not provided the article cannot be changed. PERIOD. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
For all of those opposing changing statistics, you all seem to be overlooking WP:CALC. There is no lack of WP:SIGCOV to demonstrate that Crimea/Sevastopol are functioning as being part of the Russian Federation. Obviously, I must be wrong in my understanding that the RfC here, and on the Ukraine talk page, came to the same conclusion: NPOV = accepting what all of the sources are telling us, whether they approve or disapprove of its having taken place. WP:COMMONSENSE seems to apply to both the maps and the information in the infoboxes of both articles (for the sake of parity): both articles discuss the events and use RS to substantiate the events in the content of the articles already. No matter how I look at them, all of the arguments staving off the changing stats to depicting with and without figures read as WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
I was going to suggest an RfC on the Ukraine page (in order that it can't be interpreted as a sneaky, underhanded 'Russkie' conspiracy) before taking it to an ANI. I suspect an ANI will just end up directing us all back to one talk page or the other. Does anyone have any particular thoughts as to the next step in order to resolve this? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Reported Silvio for edit warring. Frankly I'd start an ANI asking for a topic ban next.
Yeah and the result is that we where both warned. Let's report me another time, possibly we will be both blocked. Well done EvergreenFir! --Silvio1973 (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@Silvio1973: Then we clearly cannot use US sources for information on Puerto Rico. They are clearly POV. Sarcasm aside, WP:RS says they are reliable. If you disagree, start a RSN. You are the one reverting/edit warring, claiming I cannot reinstate them because there's disagreement. That info has been there since the who Crimea thing started, so you are the one reverting established info and must wait until consensus. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I'm in agreement about an ANI, EvergreenFir. Both articles have featured the disputed region map for some time now, and it's ludicrous to keep holding out on the infobox stats as they go hand-in-glove with the basic Wikipedia principles used to determine the irrefutable reality on that RfC. Although I'd held off for a few days out of concern that we might be overriding policy, there were abundant policy-based arguments to ensure that it couldn't be construed as WP:OR, WP:POV or any other contravention of fundamental policies.
To hold another RfC in order to initiate changes would be a protracted exercise in stalling. WP:CALC should be put into effect ASAP for both articles. The only dissent has been very, very vocal (or visual), but is limited to a couple of contributors still raking over the same policies well refuted as being misreadings and misinterpretations of the application of these policies in themselves. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, do you suggest that whist the discussion is in progress, the article remains in the state EvergreenFir wants? This would be sloppy to the point of being hilarious. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
This is my reply about the report for edit warring EvergreenFir made to me. I am very curious to see what is going to be the final decision following this report. indeed I think EvergreenFir whould be blocked for disruptive behaviour. Let's see what happens.
There is no batteground at all, but unsourced and insufficient sourced material can be challanged and removed.
The issue here is very straight-forward. EvergreenFir is presenting in the lead that Crimea is possible 'de jure' part of Russia and supports the affirmation with the declaration of annexation from the Russian Government. Of course this raises an issue of neutrality and of WP:FRINGE (to say the less). There is of course a discussion ongoing on the Talk page about this matters and other users told EvergreenFir to refrain from pushing his/her udit, untill valid sources are not presented. For some reasons, EvergreenFir believes that whilst the dispute in progress, the article should not be edit as he/she wants instead than in its originary condition. EvergreenFir was also warned not to include the population of Crimea into those of Russia, unless a valid source provided. But instead of providing sources EvergreenFir has preferred to participate on the Talk page with discussion of doubtful necessity. Last but not least, I never said that 'All Russian sources are not valid'. Instead I wrote that 'A source close to the Russian Government is not neutral and definitely insufficient to push a POV in the lead'. Silvio1973 (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
To me, there's a small number of individuals on here that WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT on this issue. The same individuals keep popping up on anything Ukraine/Russia related and pushing their own POV as 'NPOV' and refuse to look at facts or acknowledge the event even exists at all. Does USA require German sources to have 50 states on Wikipedia plus their numerous oversea territories? Perhaps these 'NPOV' warriors would like to go to those pages and un-cite all sources from the US government and find other language sources to support them.–JNC2 (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, it is not a fringe view that in the USA there are 50 states, it is definitely fringe that there are 85 federal subjects in Russia. The fact the only source is a statement from the Russian Government does not really help in this sense.213.87.141.95 (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The source is adequate given the issue. The current wording reflects (unduely imho, but compromising) that this is the position of the Russian government. It's a mischaracterization to call this "fringe". Crimea is disputed, but that the Russian government considers it part of Russia is not fringe. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, wonderful. Your source is great. Let´s not forget it´s the view of the Russian Government. It deserves to be in the lead. Or not? 213.87.141.95 (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Let's be very clear . There is no room from any reasonable perspective to put in the lead that the RF comprises 85 federal subjects using a primary source from the Russia Government. However, the current text is coherent with the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvio1973 (talk • contribs)
Yeah, I understood exactly what is a good edit for you. I'm glad you are happy now. Is there, ehm... A doctor around? Silvio1973 (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Let's concentrate on the article. Are you fine with the current status. If yes, let's move to something else. If not let's find a solution. --Silvio1973 (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
RfC: map of Russia
Latest comment: 10 years ago27 comments8 people in discussion
Summary about the non-neutral point of view for marking Crimea in light-green on the map of Russia
(only few, but not most statements, are sourced with links, to make the text lighter. Most events and facts mentionned are common undisputed knowledge, but of course, I'm ready to provide loads of sources).
confusion between political statements, completely official, from governements and/or international organizations and juridical codes. Official statements from heads of governments and supra-national organizations are not laws, and even less enforcements (as they are not laws). Laws are always defined inside a given jurisdiction. In the case of Crimea, many nations and organizations made official political statements, about non-recognition of the crimean referendum. Among others USA and EU have labelled it as 'illegal', also a non-binging vote of the UN general assembly. But there is no universal valid jurisdiction for sovereignty matters. These statements about 'illegality' are therefore political in nature, of no 'legal' validity.
In Crimea there was a de facto process: military presence and actual switch from ukrainian state servants, military and law enforcement authorities to russian ones. And a de jure process: an independance proclamation/secession from Ukraine by the local parliament, then a referendum, them application for re-integration into Russia. 'De jure' means just that: a legal process did happen, and in this case, relatively to russian sovereignty, as per both local self-claimed crimean rules and russian constitutional rules. Of course, that 'de jure' process is not recognized by some other nations. But again, it's only on the political level of official announcements. On the legal level there's nothing, because legality means jurisdiction and enforcement capabilities. And a foreign nation can't have its say on the national jurisdiction of another one (unless they are tied together by an upper level of commonly agreed jurisdiction, like for instance EU nations among themselves).
not wanting to divert, but to give an idea: when some british colonies on the north-eastern coast of America made a secession in 1776 and proclaimed independence under the name of United States of America, it was done without any legality from UK. From UK pov, it was illegal, it was an act of terrorism and UK sent the military in. Also, the new state, USA, did expand dramatically by taking 'de facto' the land of formers nations, and by a massive ethnical cleansing, or by war with Mexico, so again 'de facto'.
since the ratification in Moscow the 21 March 2014 (with action starting from 18 March 2014), Crimea is part of Russia, de facto and de jure ie. Russia has full plain control of Crimea and Crimea is plain Russia, status-wise. Not a separated status nor anything specific. It translates legally in the requirement for russian visa for travellers, in the usage of russian ruble, of russian phone prefix (+7), of russian postal service, of russian delegations of insurance companies (travel insurances, car insurances 'green cards', etc). For all practical purposes, from postal service to telephony to GPS and whatever, it's Russia. No foreign nation can do anything about it, unless by a war to take Crimea from Russia military. No nation can take sanctions against Crimea, because Crimea being plain Russia, there's no possibility to single it out. Sanctions must be for Russia as a whole or none. For instance a traveller who can enter Russia anywhere, say from finnish-russian surface border or by air, can afterwards travel to Crimea like no any other point of Russia. Only action is for Ukraine to keep its road, sea and train border closed to Crimea, so creating an annoyance for surface travellers and logistics. So the disputed status stays a political statement without any kind of juridical effect.
the map of Russia has been officially corrected by Russia, as the state having sovereignty over Russia is ... the Russian Federation. Because it takes some times to swap the old ones, only few places have the new one. Yet books have already been reprinted with the updated map Производители начали печатать карты с российским Крымом. As well, the russian web search engine Yandex has updated its electronic map Map of Russia with Crimea
while there is of course a great opposition from Ukraine to the loss of Crimea, historically the peninsula has been only for a very short time into ukrainian sovereignty. The former longest "landlords' of Crimea where: Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantium, then Mongols, then Tatars, then Tatars under Ottoman reign, then Russia since 1783 to 1954 or 1991. 1954 if legitimacy is given to the former Socialist Sovietic Republic of Ukraine inside USSR, or 1991 if USSR socialist republics are given no validity, but only dissolution/independence from it. So Crimea has been then in Ukraine for 23 years, or 60 at most with 37 as a Sovietic Republic. Moreover the referendum hold in Ukraine in 1991 for independence was hold in what was then the Sovietic Socialist Republic of Ukraine, and it was about independence relatively to USSR, not about the status of Crimea relatively to the newly formed independent Ukraine. In the immediate aftermath, Crimea claimed a separated status. So, historically, there's a crimean specificity which predates since ever the current 2014 crisis, and clearly shows that it's not about a russian seizure or annexion coming out of the box from nowhere. What has happened is actually a re-integration of Crimea into Russia, like it or not, depending on personal tastes. That's no OR (original research) to exhibit an historical timeline of the sovereignties over a territory. (timeline easily backed by loads of academic data if needed in the body of the article).
Before russian rule over the Ottoman in 1783, Crimea had never ever been part of Ukraine. For instance on historical maps: Europe in year 1800, Europe in year 1700, Europe in year 1600, etc. In fact Ukraine never had even a Black Sea side, before it became under russian control in the 19th century. Kievan Russia, as a Varanguian state ie. build along varanguian-like rivers control, had barely a domination of the Dniepr estuary, before the varanguian principalty was wiped out by the Mongols.
there's no consistent policy on Wikipedia about map representation of disputed territories. For instance Gibraltar, which is clearly a small peninsular piece of iberian land and in no way near a british coast, is under UK sovereignty. Spain has been claiming sovereignty for three centuries. Yet the article and map of Gibraltar treats it like any sovereign country, in plain dark-green on the map.
About a couple specious arguments to mark Crimea in light-green on the map:
Kosovo example: Kosovo is a self-proclaimed state not integrated to any other neighbouring state. Serbia doesn't recognize the secession of Kosovo but has no control over it. Editorial consensus on Wikipedia has been then to mark Kosovo light-green, relatively to Serbia. Crimea isn't a separate state like South Ossetia, itis plain regular Russia now, so relatively to Russia its status is clear. It's relatively to Ukraine that it is disputed. So on the Ukraine article it can well be marked in light-green as disputed. But in the Russia article, it's non-sense, Crimea isn't disputed, it's just part of Russia. Everyday many flights from Moscow fly over to Simferopol in russian airspace without entering ukrainian airspace. Any traveller with a visa for Russia can travel to Simferopol, by air or by ferry-boat over the 5 kms Kerch strait.
the trick about 'valid sources'. Often pro-ukrainian editors argue that some sources must be dismissed as 'invalid'. Basically they mean russian sources. That's a politically biaised point of view. There's obviously a political conflict, so sides involved oppose and dismiss each others. From an encyclopedic point of view, what is important is the collect and assessment of all parts, as well as facts. Both Russia and Ukraine have their arguments. Culturally, historical, linguistically and demographically, russian arguments are very consistent and do weight a lot. Ukrainian arguments are mostly one: recent historical legalities since 1991 or maybe 1954 if USSR jurisdiction is accepted (but then beware of the same at other former soviet regions!).
because the sovereignty shift of Crimea is very recent, most atlas, encyclopedias and cartographic editors haven't yet, excepted few ones in Russia, printed any new maps. Yet a map showing the territory of a country is only a pictorial view of the official borders, and what matters is the actual jurisdiction not what is printed on a map. Put in other words: if you take with you a map showing Crimea in Ukraine and you show yourself to the ukrainian-crimean (ie. ukrainian-russian) border, without a russian visa, you will not enter Crimea (ie. Russia), despite arguing as much as you want with the crimean (ie. russian) border police about Crimea not being on your map of Russia, or being marked as 'light-green disputed' :-) But if anyone is ready to take the actual test, try that and success, a report would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntonioB (talk • contribs)
@EvergreenFir: well an ultra light summary comes down to a couple core arguments: 1) the former RfC didn't see the difference between political statements like non-recognitions of the crimean referendum, and juridical facts according to existing national jurisdictions. Also it jumped over historical heritage. Political statements are NOT laws and have no effect unless direct action can be done on the ground. Basically, Russia has annexed or re-integrated Crimea (pick your wording according to which part to side with) and it's a done fact: Crimea is now plain Russia. It's not a distinct entity, not a special status, not an administration shared by different jurisdictions or with observers. It's not Kosovo, it's not Gibraltar, it's not even Tibet because crimeans are a majority of russians agreeing with the return to Russia, so unlike Tibet there's no ethnical resistance. Dissident Tatars weren't enough to overturn votation. Also crimeans have been scared by anti-russian linguistic laws from ukrainians, and drastic IMF imposed welfare cuts and commodities prices hike. Moreover russian heritage weights much more than formal legalities of ukrainian jurisdiction, historically recent. Of course the ukrainian opinion can't accept that. But the cake is baked and eaten. Done. 2) in the former RfC, there were some fallacious/specious arguments brought in. I tried also to summarize then -- Basically, I suggest Crimea as regular part of Russia, in solid green. But there's a need for a good section about Crimea in the body of the article, because it's easy to get confused about legalities/jurisdictions/political statements. The trap is: acknowledgement of the done fact and current status may appear to be a siding with the initial russian process in Crimea triggered back in february. On the other hand, to let Crimea in light-green is a denial of its current plain legal status: russian. As already mentionned: statements from heads of governements about non-recognition of crimean referendum ARE NOT laws, are backed with nothing because there's no universal jurisdiction, and can't even have diplomatic effects because Crimea isn't a separated entity like Kosovo, put plain Russia. Said in other words: get a russian visa, jump in a plane in Moscow, get down in Simferopol, and you notice no difference. just like you fly from London to Newcastle or Detroit to Boston. As for Tatars, there are millions of them in central Russia, in Tatarstan, capital Kazan. As for ukrainians, maybe there are more of them in Moscow than in Crimea... Men alt dette er ikke begyndelsen. (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the shorter version. I think the issue is that the legality of the annexation is in question. We as editors cannot interpret the legality, only report on others' interpretations. De facto, Crimea is part of Russia. But Ukraine does not recognize the succession as legal and views the territory as their by law. Thus, the territory is disputed and the map reflects that. Part of NPOV is to reflect the reality of the situation, including the dispute. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, in fact both Ukraine and Russia view Crimea as them by law! Only that they don't refer to same laws. And there's no unique legal framework universally valid to decide. But relatively to actual law enforcement and actual jurisdiction, Crimea is now Russia. Law of Ukraine over Crimea has ended. See? It's not a partisan siding. We as editors can't decide about the legality, but also nobody can, because, as said, there's no central universal body about that. For instance the official annoucements of USA and EU about lack of legality, are based on nothing excepted the ukrainian claim itself. And U.N has voted a condemnation of the referendum but the condemnation is non-binding, and the statuses of U.N. clearly tell elsewhere that there's no rules about legality of self-proclaimed secessions and independances. When USA, EU and etc. state that they will not recognize the annexation/re-integration of Crimea it sounds very weird, because Crimea is now Russia anyway, so either they take it back or they stop recognizing Russia as a whole. Clearly the dispute is on a political level, not on a legal one. Besides, as pointed in my initial longer comment: there's no consistent behavior on Wikipedia . For instance, Gribraltar is disputed by Spain, yet Wikipedia doesn't reflect it in the map, where Gibraltar shows on its own (plain green). The article of China for instance doesn't show Tibet in light-green, yet sovereignty is claimed by 14th Dalaï Lama and Tibetan Governement in Exile. And tibetans have a distinct cultural, ethnical and linguistical heritage. See: no consistent editing policy. What brings consistency to the russian attitude is the russian heritage of Crimea, which was russian from 1783 to 1954 or 1991 (soviet or non-soviet times) and support from crimean russian population. And definitively, Crimea was never ukrainian before 1954 or 1991. We as editor can inform that the dispute is in the context of NATO expansion relatively to Russia. That's also an ongoing historical fact. It explains better the sources of the dispute and the political quarrel about what is claimed to be "legality" But these points, crimean russian heritage and NATO context, are not mentioned in the paragraph about the recent crimean crisis and make it appears like it's a conquest triggered by Russia out of nothing but some kind of expansionnism, while in fact a geopolitical explaination is that the Crimea operation is a way to freeze NATO expansionism, and therefore for Russia to protect itself from Brzezinski-like plans of breaking it, and that explanation is corrobored by Lavrov comments to Kerry. Maybe it's probably an editorial casus belli with no solution, because the color on the map isn't about legality. But also it provides very little background. Men alt dette er ikke begyndelsen. (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
In a nutshell, what you are proposing, Men alt dette er ikke begyndelsen. is an op ed thinly disguised as a legal and historical argument. The fact that there has been an escalation in squeezing the Russian Federation economically and politically by the US and the EU is a forum topic, not the topic of this article. If you wish to develop your own article on the subject matter (using secondary sources), that is entirely down to you. Dragging in 'historical' rights is far more convoluted than you would have it. It was part of the Ottoman Empire for far longer than it was part of the Russian Empire (not the Russian Federation)... and these empires are long since defunct. If you wish to elaborate on changes in the world economy from empires to current day nation-states, you have a lot more ground to cover than the WP:SYNTH (uncited and overtly simplistic synthesis at that) you've just offered. And before you continue on 'the Crimean Russian heritage', I would suggest you read this brief essay. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
not much an historical argument. Mainly a legal and methodological clarification. Sovereignty is about legal jurisdictions and actual control and enforcement capabilities. That's how nations work. Say you drive and come by a fence where it reads "Border", and you must show passport to drive over, and over it's a different nation. That's the case with Crimea. Before it had the name "Ukraine" over the entrance. Now it has the name "Russia". Formaly, it's not even like Kosovo, which was a part of a country before, and became after a country in its own. No, here we have a region sitting between two countries. It was part of the one before, and of the other after. Unless the sovereignity of the new country is challenged, which in international politics means basically do a war and win it, then it stays where it is now. These are plain facts. The legality here is the one of the umbrella over Crimea: Russia. European Union, United States and tutti quanti made official statements telling they don't recognize the annexion/reintegration process. Good. So what? International political statements aren't laws. Want to travel to Crimea? please get a russian visa on your passport. Simple. (Otherwise, and on the side, you didn't read my first comment, where I reminded of the historical landlords over Crimea since Ancient Greece. Facts are that Crimea was under russian sovereignity for a couple centuries before 1991 or 1954, was under controversial status between 1991 and 2014, and did not experience a sufficient ethnical cleansing of its russian population in the meanwhile, so it makes obviously for additional hints. Your link is of little relevance outside the british spinoffs (USA-CAN-AUS-NZ) and ethno-historical heritage does actually matter a lot in politics, because in most case there are centuries old continuities. Of course british spinoffs are different: colonists come from far away, plant the Union Jack on the ground and say it's UK, wipe the natives away or to remote deserts, take all the land, bring in more colonists, make secession from UK, and then say "oh! ethno-historical arguments are void!". Yep, we know that. That's not how things work outside USA-CAN-AUS-NZ. And that's not the matter here anyway. I focus on the actual facts and legalities about Crimea.)AntonioBMen alt dette er ikke begyndelsen. (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
well, it's very easy to confirm and source that Crimea is a part of Russia: for instance ITAR-TASS: Russian Federation Council ratifies treaty on Crimea’s entry to Russia or, directly on the site of the president of Russia: Ceremony signing the laws on admitting Crimea and Sevastopol to the Russian Federation and [http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6912 Laws on admitting Crimea and Sevastopol to the Russian Federation : The Federal Law ratifies the Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on Admitting the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation and Establishing within the Russian Federation New Constituent Entities, signed in Moscow on March 18, 2014. . So, it's very simple. By law, ie. de jure (after a juridical process), Crimea came back into russian sovereignty. Of course that law isn't accepted by other nations. But a law is always relative to a given jurisdiction. It's a basic.The problem is: there's no universal jurisdiction among nations. ONU is not a universal juridical body. For instance Taiwan doesn't exist, ONU-wise. Yet it's a plain sovereign nation with its own law. Under russian law, Crimea is russian. And because in the facts, ie. de facto, Russia has full sovereignity, ie. border control, military, currency, public infrastructures and services, law enforcement, it's russian. To travel to Crimea is to travel to Russia. Crimea isn't a separate country. Other nations can not chose to not recognize Crimea, because it's not a nation in itself. Every country that keeps diplomatic presences (embassies) with Russia and so, does recognize Russia, does ipso facto recognize Crimea implicitely, because it's a part of Russia. Of course, many nations have made very official statement disagreeing with what did happen. For instance, European Union: Joint statement on Crimea by the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, and the President of the European Commission, José Manuel BarrosoThe European Union does neither recognise the illegal and illegitimate referendum in Crimea nor its outcome. The European Union does not and will not recognise the annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol to the Russian Federation. That's a political statement, but not a law. To take a case of de facto sovereignty: 1776, some british colonies made secession and called themselves "United States of America". According to british law, it's illegal. UK send in the military. War. UK loses. USA stays. De facto. Period. In the current case, unless Ukraine gets in military and takes back Crimea, Crimea is russian. Easy. Those are the facts. Some people may like, some may dislike. But then encyclopedic scientificity can only writes: Crimea is a region of Russia. And as I mentioned earlier, it's shown on the map of Russia by Yandex.ru. AntonioBMen alt dette er ikke begyndelsen. (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
If there are sources saying that Crimea became a part of Russia, they shouldn't be very difficult to find. If there are no sources, then it's very possible and maybe even most likely, that Crimea is not a part of Russia at all. If such sources can't be identified, then according to policy, the article should reflect what the sources say. USchick (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
How many words and how much OR. Indeed the issue here should be simple. Do we have valid neutral sources supporting a map with Crimea in Russia? I have not seen any so far. And Yandex.ru is not neutral (I live in Moscow, I know what I say). It is not a source indeed. When dealing with geography a source is a geography book. The real truth is that this article has been modified without any supporting source, which is normal because it is so recent that sources do not exist (not yet). Silvio1973 (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
it's common in the english speaking world, that sources are dismissed as non-neutral is they are russian. So even is a map of Russia is available soon in a bookstore in Russia, with Crimea in it, the fact could be dismissed as non neutral source. But that's not even the key point by now. The key point is that Crimea is part of Russia since the 18 March 2014. To mention the fact is not to take sides, it is just that: to mention the fact. That's what encyclopedias area bout. Because the re-integration (russian pov.) or annexation (ukrainian pov) is so recent, most maps on paper support are not yet been reprinted. It's on the way. For instance (a french) tv report at a russian cartographic publishing house [1] But it's not the map that is the proof of the fact. AntonioBMen alt dette er ikke begyndelsen. (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
@AntonioB: What you have presented is your own simplistic reading of international law and 'no universal jurisdiction' WP:OR as a substitute for verifiable, reliable source. You are not a lawyer who specialises in international law. You are not presenting any scholarly research on the subject of comparative historical concepts of jurisdiction. This is not an RfC but a bizarre piece of lobbying for a POV map. If your RfC actually were an RfC (contingent on 'support' and 'oppose' votes citing policy, guidelines and common sense on behalf of contributors, the likes of which are notably absent), I'm not certain whether it would be closed as WP:SNOW or simply for lack of interest. I would suggest that you remove the RfC tag. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Nope. It's the other way around. In the first place, official statements from many countries tell that the crimean referendum is "illegal". But they provide no source about what jurisdiction and laws. Exactly as you write: "verifiable, reliable source". Something is illegal always relatively to a given jurisdiction and a given code of laws. In a trial people are told the articles of laws they break. And a trial is always in a given jurisdiction. Besides, legalities about crimean refenrendum plays no role here. You dont' get it: I'm not taking part, I'm not campaigning any political taste. I'm just observing a fact: Crimea is russian now. Call it whatever you want: robbery, crime, theft, evil, blablabla, it's anyway a fact. And legal on the russian side. Crimea doesn't even need any recognition from other nations, because it's plain Russia, not a new state. Ukrainians and n countries say it's illegal. Good, they go ahead and take Crimea back, and then encyclopedias can put Crimea back in the map of Ukraine. A map of Russia without Crimea in it is false, misleading. You can't drive from Ukraine to Crimea without crossing over the russian border. AntonioBMen alt dette er ikke begyndelsen. (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
AntonioB, I understand your point of view. We all have viewpoints here, but we cannot include them. This is the argument you make above (whether or not it is a good or bad argument) is original research. To answer the question of how to neutrally convey a fact, we look to reliable sources. The viewpoint that you convey may very well be a significant minority opinion, in which case you can (and should) find a source that makes that argument, and include it in the relevant portion of the article, making sure you are not giving it any WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. If you have an article or other source that states your viewpoint, you could bring it up here. That would probably help editors discuss if and how it can be included. --Precision123 (talk) 05:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
To hold an RfC on this subject would require that your point and other policy and guideline points illustrated in the comments above would be included in the argument, Precision123. Then, and only then, could there be an RfC and well thought out, policy-based consensus. This is why I have asked that AntonioB remove the RfC tag. At the moment it reads as WP:TL;DRWP:SOAP which is inappropriate for a talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Correct, @Iryna Harpy:. AntonioB, I encourage you to remove the RfC tag. It would be much better for you and other editors if you find a source and then we can discuss if the source is reliable and what parts of the source are relevant, and so on. Those are the policy-based arguments we look for. --Precision123 (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
LOL, I find it interesting that in a different RfC, a crystal ball was used to determine that a reliable source would come up with a map "very soon." Now this RfC is asking for a reliable source before any discussion can take place. This circular logic is being used to create brand new history without any sources whatsoever. I hope someone is being paid very well by Putin to push this OR. There's no reason for AntonioB to remove the RfC tag until these issues have been addressed by the people who created the problem in the first place. USchick (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I think we should end being that polite. User AntonioB is pushing against at least 3 pillars: POV, RECENTISM, FRINGE.
Please note this user has just 50 edits and seems not to understand the basics of this project. I think he/she sould be ignored and if insists to disrupt be blocked. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
@Silvio1973: And you are not being WP:CIVIL and you yourself have a POV. Do not direct your attacks at users. The number of edits or how recent an account was made does not matter; they could be a long time IP editor. We had an RfC to have the current map added in the first place and the consensus was to add it. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not work this way. Otherwise 15 or 20 people could create consensus againt WP pillars. Indeed this is what happened here. I do not attack anyone but I take very seriously edits without sources. Silvio1973 (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Echoing EvergreenFir's sentiments, there was an RfC held here and a particularly comprehensive one on the Ukraine article talk page which has only just been closed favouring the solid arguments for maps on both articles to display the region as being disputed. A new RfC does not follow hot on the heels of a consensus ruling unless something extraordinary occurs. I'm going to remove the RfC tag for the following reasons(EDIT) Actually, I'm not going to removed the tag or close the RfC as I'm directly involved, however: 1) It's been made abundantly clear that there is not even a whiff consensus for what is, essentially, WP:SNOW; 2) This 'RfC' has only encouraged WP:POINTy pursuit of issues they had brought up in the original RfC here and on the Ukraine article. What we have here is a lengthy, time consuming piece of politicking brought about due to disappointment in not having won. Now that is definitely tendentious editing, and this section needs to be closed off.
If you've not read it already, please read the summary by the neutral administrator who closed this RfC and the Ukraine RfC. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep the current map. It was decided already at the above rfc and having another one so soon is borderline disruptive. AIRcorn(talk)09:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep the current map per Aircorn. Not only disruptive, but entire argument for Crimea being depicted as uncontroversially Russia is based on WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Section blanking at the Russia page dealing with annexation for bold revert discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
During the last two or three days there was a subsection blanking at the Russia page dealing with the annexation. After the section blanking, there was a full rewrite added by another user and a substantial change of NPOV compared to the text before the section blanking. No new information was added, yet the NPOV was substantially altered. The diff for the before and after of the section blanking is below. I tried to return the wording into neutral form. Reverting "Bold" edit by BRD for discussion and consensus. This is the diff for before and after
(cur | prev) 20:09, 10 April 2014 Philp... (talk | contribs) . . (199,367 bytes) (-4,356) . . (Boldly editing to give more appropriate weight to recent events)
There are at least six items in the mainstream press which have occurred which are unaddressed by the subsection;
(1) John Kerry 4-point plan of US State department to Renormalize Russia's relation to Crimea and Ukraine.
(2) Issue of economic insolvency of Ukraine (bankruptcy) in EU reports on economic viability of Ukraine to support Crimea.
(3) Massive Russian investment in Crimea to underwrite Crimean international access (Passports and State Department programs) as well as pension & retirement re-investment guarantee financed in April.
(4) Russian military build-up on Ukraine south-east Russian border alerted by John Kerry as "War-zone" readiness on 7 April.
(5) Further Ukrainian regional protests in other Ukrainian cities seeking Russian re-nationalization.
(6) Russian authorized budget plans for Civic rebuilding of Crimea intrastructure including expanded new large scale spanning bridges for bridge links to Russian mainland.
The suggested condensed re-write has not addressed one single new issue reported during April in the mainstream press (NY Times, London Times, LA Times) but has only changed NPOV without any updates to the subsection itself. Previous version was more Neutral and should be retained until these issues are addressed. FelixRosch (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
You raise some fair points. The thing is that this subject is too influenced by WP:RECENTISM. In my views it should not been edited at all, except may be a few lines to describe some indisputed facts. Wikipedia whould be built with secondary sources and not with on-line newspapers. Silvio1973 (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@FelixRosch: 1) Could you please indicate which version you considered to be 'more neutral' using diffs? There have been numerous rewrites and tweaks over the last week alone.
2) I'm not exactly following what your proposal actually is. You've listed 6 points which have not been addressed, implying that you feel that they need to be expanded on. Is expanding the section your intention? If so, how does this solve the issues of WP:RECENTISM and WP:BALASPS which have been expressed[2] in recent discussions on this talk page? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The six items listed are details related to the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine and belong in that article. Other protests outside of Crimea? A potential bridge? This has nothing to do with the annexation summary that was reverted. I respectfully request that the summary be restored. USchick (talk) 06:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
User:USc has supplemented the edit on the page in the meantime over the weekend, which is supplemented here further with a citation for the earlier documented date which is 22 February. Citation added for clarity and previous citation is also appended. FelixRosch (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the Feb 27 event is being repeatedly deleted? I'm reinserting it. Please do not delete without discussion. USchick (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The material from 27 Feb is redundant to the information already presented in the paragraph directly before it. The plans for the new elections were already in place and scheduled several days Before the 27th. If you can explain why this is not redundant, you may do so here on Talk for all the editors to see. Citation for earlier date is also posted there by Url for verification. FelixRosch (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
The election you're talking about is the Presidential election, which has nothing to do with Crimea. The invasion on Feb 27 is the only relevant information related to Crimea. The rest of events happened somewhere else. Please stop edit warring. USchick (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Before your repost today, my edit did explain why it was redundant. The state of government in Ukraine during this time period is directly linked to the events. The election date was set up for 25May on 22Feb in the paragraph directly before where you wish to place your extra 27Feb report; and in the paragraph directly after where you wish to place your extra 27Feb report there is the election date for Crimea announced for 16March on 6March. This is how the article stands now. Both of the election dates are already there for both Ukraine and Crimea. What would you like to add/delete/modify. Clarify on Talk first. FelixRosch (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. The presidential election in Ukraine has nothing to do with the uninvited and unauthorized invasion of Crimea on Feb 27. Would you like to clarify how those two are related? USchick (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
@FelixRosch, I hope you share our very same target, i.e. achieve the largest consensus. Indeed, your recent edits suggests you have perhaps a different idea of what consensus it. And also a different idea of what WP:UNDUE is. It has already been discussed that section 2.9.1 "Annexation of Crimea" is too large when compared to the other sections of the article but you still continue to enlarge the section. Can you please put your valuable sourced edits in the main article? Do you realize you added 6 lines for the recent discussion in Geneva. Do you find this sensible?
@n a nutshell: 1) No reason to have section 2.9.1. 2) Certainly 10 lines are more than enough (and possibly much less) for the annexation of Crimea. I started reducing but perhaps you want to do so. Do not take it wrong but it cannot stay like that. Mind well, I am not saying you cannot post those edits, I am saying you should do in the relevant articles. --Silvio1973 (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Anthem
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Infoboxes are meant to be concise summaries of countries, containing very basic facts and figures. An audio of the anthem does not help the readers understand Russia, or provide any information about Russia (aside from what the anthem sounds like, but that's quite minor). Readers interested in the anthem can find the recording (including a pure instrumental one), along with original lyrics, a translation, and much more through the link "Gosudarstvenny gimn Rossiyskoy Federatsii", which is included in the infobox (in the Russian script), just as they can explore any topic in greater detail per wikipedia's summary style.
And in summary, as some users feel in other talkpages "anthem is cruft similar to wp:flagcruft, in that it doesn't contribute to the readers understanding of the topic" --g. balaxaZe★21:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Then it should be discussed on this talk page, as well as on all of the nation-state articles which have a sound file where one exists before deleting it.
If, as you state, 'some users' feel that anthems a 'cruft' similar to 'flagcruft', please direct us to these talk pages. Such discussions need to be centralised and discussed to reach consensus on the matter rather than making executive decisions as per your move (particularly as I know that, in your case, your removal is politically motivated, and note that you've not removed anthems on any other pages).
Flagcruft is one issue, whereas this is another altogether. National anthems are not plastered over related pages as are flags, heraldic banners, etc. They are used on articles dedicated to the WP:BROADCONCEPT of the nation-state in question. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for taking so long to get back to you on this subject, g. balaxaZe. As it was deemed 'no consensus' at the RfC at this stage, and no one seems to feel compelled to reinstate the audio OGG here, I guess we should just continue to let it stand. The next step would, of course, be to try it out on a few other pages and see how it goes down. Personally, I have no particular preference one way or the other. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Undue-section -Annexation of Crimea and 2014 Geneva Pact:
Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
Why are we giving a point by point - view by view here on this page? Most should be moved to the main article on this topic. -- Moxy (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
A good solid paragraph explaining the main points is all that is needed. That said no rush - better we get a few opinions on what we should say - the fist paragraph at 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine is good and can be re-written a bit and placed here. Things about the "Crimean crisis" its self have no place here at all. All that said I have removed the copy and pasting of news article text added in the past few days. We should try to paraphrase not copy and paste text as a whole from sources (Wikipedia:Copy-paste). -- Moxy (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the issue has been brought up time and time again as being WP:UNDUE in a WP:BROADCONCEPT article where current affairs should only be referenced briefly (that's why we have hatnotes pointing to the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC articles).
I'm not sure about the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine paraphrasing. I can envisage the first couple of paragraphs being carefully redacted as being serviceable, so long as POV catch-cries like 'little green men' are omitted (as well as other such current mass-media dependent slants only suitable for current affairs articles). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: FelixRosch, could you please engage in discussion here, on this talk page, before you go on developing your personal blog space? You've only engaged in one thread where you argued for the points you wanted to elaborate on, but have completely disregarded the ongoing discussions pertaining to the entire section being cut down to a bare minimum per WP:NOTNEWS. You have not engaged in WP:BRD, but have treated the section as BR D-for-develop... and keep developing despite anyone else's opinion (read as against the obvious consensus). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreement with PhilKn edits on usability of the condensed version, and the International Geneva Pact is the only Notable and neutral reference point for gauging the progress of events in the region. The issue of the Notability of International Pacts and Treaties is significant for noting the 2014 Geneva Pact as providing an effective and neutral international gauge to observe the progress of events in the region. FelixRosch (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The color of Crimea needs to be changed to dark green, now that Crimea has formally joined Russia.
Kosovo is wrongly demarcated as an independent state on this map, even though Russia has made very clear that it does not nor intends to recognize the independence of Kosovo. Demarcating Kosovo as separate from Serbia is therefore not in line with Wikipedia policy and needs to be corrected to reflect the correct view of Russia.
Crimea has only formally joined Russia in the eyes of Russia. As long as the status of Crimea is disputed, it should remain light green on the map. I don't know which policy you are referring to but Kosovo is recognized by 108 UN-member countries according to its article(a majority) so I don't see why it should be removed(again, without knowing the policy involved here). 331dot (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not Russia recognises a country's independence is not relevant to that map or any Wikipedia policy. The same way whether the US or UK recognises a country is irrelevant. I don't know how a decision is made on this kind of thing on Wikipedia, but it does seem to be recognition by a simple majority of UN-Members by default. CTYankeeAbroad (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
In fact, Crimea still is internationally disputed territory therefore it's color on the map of the Russian Federation should be not similar, but remarkably different.--Pirags (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
CTYankeeAbroad, what on earth is a 'simple majority'? As to how decisions are made here at Wikipedia, please read this talk page (and archives) with care if you are new to the processes. You should also check Talk:Ukraine: decisions as to representation of the current affairs issues are linked in both articles. No decisions have been made without comprehensive and extensive dialogue based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
" Fifth column " RUSSIA Programm ?
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Face aggressive and expansionist Russia's foreign policy. Would be interesting to the public Repatriatin program for all disaffected Nachkommlinge USSR, yes, according to Russian Federation.
Is this a program for 5 - te Callon?
In the Ukraine, in Western border, ind the U.S. and Canada. Advertise RF Kämpfere freedom? Or, disadvantaged USSR - National - Minority? Will Big Russia these people free? Financiel (etc.) support ? Is this topic even allowed?http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Программа_возвращения_соотечественников_в_Россию
Dear colleague, I'd like to refer to WP:NOTFORUM. And btw., similar programs exist in many countries, but we don't call them "aggressive and expansionist". See Repatriation#Repatriation laws. Bests Seryo93 (talk)
Request for Comment 2
Latest comment: 10 years ago61 comments14 people in discussion
The consensus appears to be against this proposal. The second part of the discussion should be discussed at the Ukraine article talk page (and now is), as this is not an appropriate venue for making decisions on it (although the point is arguably moot as the Ukraine lede does not include any information on subdivisions and there does not appear to be any clamour for it to do so). Number5710:30, 9 May 2014 (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 the following text be re-added to the lead?
Proposed re-addition: It is a federalsemi-presidential republic, comprising eighty-five federal subjects (including the internationally disputed annexation of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol City).<ref>{{cite web | url=http://kremlin.ru/news/20605 | title=Treaty Between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on Ascension to the Russian Federation of the Republic of Crimea and on Establishment of New Subjects Within the Russian Federation | publisher=Kremlin.ru | date=18 March 2014 | accessdate=10 April 2014}}{{ru icon}}</ref>
Support re-addition - Source is considered reliable per discussion here on RSN. Information is accurate in terms of what Russia considers its federal subjects. Information is good summary info for lead per WP:LEAD. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Support re-additionNeutral - It has been recognised as a reliable source for the Russian Federation government's POV. The proviso that its usage must indicate that it is their position, and that other/opposing, well documented and recognised positions are given equal weight in the balance of the overall presentation of the content is clear. In the interests of developing a neutral article (which can't be done with one arm laden with info tied behind your back), I see no reason to exclude it.(EDIT) Changing vote to neutral. I'm fine with either this or the alternative option I proposed below. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Support re-addition Am I right in thinking that the underlying issue is whether or not the article is seen to recognise Crimea as part of Russia? If so then 'internationally disputed' seems to solve this problem. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC), just here for the RfC.
The underlying issue is that the source is a statement directly from the Kremlin (POV primary source) and there are no other sources to support it. According to policy, Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sources. USchick (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose re-addition, IMHO the previous wording gave too much weight to a fact that should be reported in the section concerning the administration of the RF. And this independently from the neutrality of the source.--Silvio1973 (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not clear on what it is that you are opposing, Silvio1973. It sounds as if you don't want to acknowledge the source because you don't like balancing the content in order to achieve encyclopaedic article, but prefer a blatant indictment (which is very much a WP:POV push). You're presuming that the 'section' in question will somehow be written in stone. If there is reasonable dissatisfaction with the wording, discussion here on how to improve it is welcome. I don't see that a pre-emptive strike on the use of reliable sources serves Wikipedia. What you are implicitly proposing is censorship. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear Iryna, independently from the neutrality and quality of the source I do not see any reason to report the Crimean dispute in the lead. It is very much WP:UNDUE.--Silvio1973 (talk) 04:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see the proposal again, Serialjoepsycho. It is not being proposed in order to highlight the dispute, merely to bring the lead in line with every other article about contemporary nation-states (see Germany, United States, China, Poland, Brazil, etc.) in which the lead includes both the form of government and the constituent number of administrative subdivisions (regions/states/provinces/counties) under the centralised state system. Thank you! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear Iryna I see your point. But is it appropriate to enter such contested matter in the lede right now? Does in not trigger an issue in WP:UNDUE. Also, the idea is to get a consensus the largest is possible and a sentence like the one you propose will certainly attract more disputes, and IMHO with reason. это удобно сеичас? Silvio1973 (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
This is a proposed edition outlined above, "(including the internationally disputed annexation of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol City)". That happens to be highlighting the Crimea issue.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no point in highlighting the Crimea dispute in the lead. That was actually my first comment. If it's not obvious, I do not support trying to highlight the Crimea dispute in the lead. Sans that I have no issue.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
May I suggest that for the sake of this RfC the issue here is the pertinence of the source, but if it the annexation of Crimea deserves to be in the lede? --Silvio1973 (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - I'm going claim WP:CRYSTALBALL here to oppose this addition under the rationale that we're trying to make the addition too soon. The addition of the material in question will probably be appropriate at some point in the future. Not yet. NickCT (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
@NickCT: Can you please explain further why you think this is CRYSTAL? The Russian government has already declared them federal subjects, so I'm a bit confused as to what is yet to happen. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: - As far as I can tell, the status of Crimea is still uncertain even within the Russian government. Multiple Russian government websites still report that Russia is 83 subjects (e.g. here). I'd be content to sit on this for a little while (Not necessarily very long. Maybe just a week or a month) to let RSs build up to support it. NickCT (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
One vs many is not enough. Its Fringe unless its universally accepted, and per WP:NPOV we don't give the same weight to fringe sources as universally accepted sources.--JOJHutton20:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Glad to read, I have been almost blocked because I opposee this addition. Good to know I am not the only one believing it is fringe and undue. Silvio1973 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Because "(including the internationally disputed annexation of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol City)" is WP:UNDUE. You may want to write about territories as well, but I will never agree with that. OccultZone (Talk) 06:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
This is why I have proposed an alternative solution (see below). If the argument is WP:UNDUE for this article, the same applies to the Ukraine article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Neutral. It's not terribly important. Some articles open with the extended version, and some don't. It's informative to give this information up front, but also puts undue emphasis on recent events. Either way is fine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Alternative (temporary compromise) for lead
Rather than incite more potential edit warring over which policy trumps which, there is certainly precedent for comparable articles not having the number of divisions/regions/provinces in the lead at all: i.e., France and Japan (which is currently undergoing administrative reorganisation). Concerns expressed over WP:RECENT, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, etc. for the lead are easily addressed by temporarily removing the reference to the number of administrative divisions in the lead, full stop.
By the same token, the sister article (in Ukraine) is suffering even more from the same 'too much information' in its lead, therefore I'd suggest that the same temporary removal also be applied there. If information doesn't absolutely have to be in the lead and can be considered to be contentious from every angle, strike it until the issue becomes clearer. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
That is precisely what needs to be addressed, Seryo93. I'm about to log out for the night, but will invite comment on the Ukraine talk page tomorrow. Both articles have hatnotes for the actual current affairs articles in the relevant sections (which are fast growing larger than the entire history of the nation-states themselves). These articles fit the profile of WP:BROADCONCEPT, but are being used as if they were WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Naturally, neither article can avoid referencing current affairs, but allowing them to be used as WP:SOAP makes a mockery of their being encyclopaedic articles. It is not their function to act as 'good guys vs. bad guys' (in itself, a naive understanding of geo-political/geo-strategic interests). Our concern should be with handling the balance on both with care with serious regard for neutrality. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
That is definitely closer to the mark than the uncontrollable bloat affecting those sections at the moment. The way things are shaping up with the current amount of contributor traffic, I suspect that the content in the relevant sections will need to be dealt with via another RfC. It is exhausting and may seem over-the-top to have to address every piece of minutia as a separate consensus issue, but it seems that it is the only way of addressing the fact that the high media coverage has attracted far more attention to these articles over the last couple of months than they've 'enjoyed' during their long existence on Wikipedia in total.
I've now posted an invitation to participate on the Ukraine talk page on the understanding that it will apply to the lead for both articles. Let's see how it shapes up from here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Support Thank you Iryna to share the same approach I have already been defending for almost a week. And please note that I have been almost blocked (and qualified of POV pusher just because I wanted to reduce the amount of conflict).Silvio1973 (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Support There are different opinions about the number of federal subjects. I think it's better to leave those points of view for later in the article, rather than in the lead.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Support (obviously) as the initiator of this alternative. Rationale, policy and guidelines addressed in RfC statement. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Addendum The Ukraine article is a seperate article. If you propose to do anything there you should make that proposal there in the open and not behind a curtain. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
These issues are closely related (Crimean dispute involves both countries), so we discuss it in a single place, to reach uniform solution for both articles. And we aren't behind a curtain, you and anyone else can freely participate and present your variant (and by the way, what do you propose for leads?). Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Further to Seryo93's observations, the processes have been transparent and have involved editors/contributors from both articles. If you follow the sections and threads on both pages, you will be able to note that those working on one or the other article (check the user names) have been criss-crossing from one talk page to the other for the last couple of months. Some discussions regarding the content of this article have been 'hosted' on the Ukraine talk page. I posted an invitation to participate in this RfC on the Ukraine talk page 15 April 2014, clearly stating the objectives and ramifications. In fact, I, personally, would not be engaging on this talk page had I not been involved with the Ukraine article for a long, long time. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
These issues might be closely related but they are seperate.Freely particiapte? If you know about it. Oh hey you made a post on the Ukraine page. How grand? If this is not about POV Pushing you should have no problem opening an RFC on the Ukraine page and handle issues with the Ukraine article there. And do you want a Golf clap that you 'hosted' some of the issues with the article there? I hope to not shock you with the obvious but I'm speaking against that to. What do I propose for the lead? I propose that for the lead for Russia you do an RFC on the Russian page and for Ukraine you do it on that page.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
We should not delve into double standarding (adopting different, not uniform solutions for these articles), because this would be real POV-push (either in Russian or in Ukrainian favor). Anyway, since you requested, I started RFC at Ukraine talk page, feel free to participate. Seryo93 (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Double standard? There above are actual policy blue linked and everything that make the basis for some of the issues apparently elsewhere in the conversation. The reason for the removal in the Ukraine? There's to much info in the lead. No linked or implied policy justification. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Been on wikibreak, but was unable to unrespond. It seems strange: for Ukraine it's acceptable to number subdivisions in lead, but when it comes to RF lead... "oh, no, it's fringe, don't insert!". IMO, either remove from both, or also state in Russian lead "constitutionally comprising 85 federal subjects". Otherwise looks like protest against incorporation/annexation - and Wiki is not place for such protests. And I would like to refer to WP:RECENTISM and WP:BROADCONCEPT. Seryo93 (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, Serialjoepsycho, you're welcome to your personal opinion (as is everyone else). Under the circumstances, however, the Ukraine page lead inclusion of numbers of oblasts and other regions has more that enough WP:SIGCOV for including Crimea and Sevastopol to be a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. We're developing articles following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not according to taking a stand on what we might believe to be 'goodness and niceness vs badness and naughtiness'. We don't get accorded the privilege of pretending something isn't a fact because it doesn't appeal to us. This is supposed to be encyclopaedic content, not an op ed blog. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Harpy, That seems inane banter. If you going to adress me at least do so on the basis of what I said. All I can derive from that is you have a position in this. Fact? You mean that in both Russia and the Ukraine Crimea is claimed. Do you mean that members of the international community back both positions? Or just that fact that you don't like it? Seryo, wp:Broadconcept does not apply. WP:recentism, again that's the stretching if you are calling that a negative issue here. But then my only actual complaint of note is these were combined. That has been addressed.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Int'l community (at least 100 UNMS of 193) backs Ukr., position (and it is said in "Political divisions" and "Administrative divisions" section, "internationally still recognized as part", etc. and nearly everywhere else). But actual control is carried out by Russia. Ignoring this fact is impossible. Second: aside from UN recognition of Ukr. position (which gives us some weight to state Ukr. claim as de jure) both claims are sort of de jure: Russian and Ukrainian Constitutions declare (A)RC and Sevastopol as constituent parts of respective countries. And yes, real problem was stretching (if all this Crimea-related stuff were to be in lead it would be long, long for it.). Sorry for misunderstanding, either way. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
@Seryo93, please don't take me wrong but IMHO what you do is OR. I remind we should stick to sources (and possibly not primary and certainly not Ukrainian or Russian) and refrain from pushing our "understanding of the current facts". To the best of my knowledge none of us is a source. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Seryo, Russia's claim and current control doesn't actually lessen the Ukraine's claims. You are certainly right that Russia is in control and that should be mentioned. But do not let that persuade you. The facts show that the land is disputed. You don't drop the Crimea that is on the books in the Ukraine because the Russians have control. Russia's control doesn't actually remove the actual dispute. I see no reason but to give equal validity right now. This not some random minority point of view or an extraordinary claim. But this not to endorse any position. If it's decided here and the Ukraine page to make this decison to avoid controversy to avoid conflict then have at it.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
No one is disputing that Ukraine doesn't have claims, Serialjoepsycho. We are discussing the lead in which claiming the territory in an article which is not the current affairs article is better bypassed for the moment in both. The subject of this article is Russia (history, geography, economy, culture, etc.), ie. WP:BROADCONCEPT as I've already noted. The subject of the Ukraine article is Ukraine (history, geography, economy, culture, etc.). All of the sections and subsections are summaries of main entries, not the main entries in themselves. All that is being proposed is that the lead does not need to describe the administrative divisions. There is further (summary form) information on that subject in the body of this article and in that of the Ukraine article. This is intended as a temporary measure for the WP:LEAD in order that these articles do not attract unwarranted POV pushes from any side, which is exactly what has been happening. The amount of traffic - mainly attracting contributors who have not managed to get a look in at the current affairs articles due to extremist views either way - on these articles being used as surrogate current affairs articles has become uncontrollable. Unless we draw a line in the sand as to what is relevant and what is WP:RECENTISM, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS, these articles will become POV bloat contrary to WP:BALASPS. This is the rationale behind this temporary solution. Please take a look at the protracted discussions on this talk page and the Ukraine talk page. Please take a look at the page histories: you might get some sense of the uphill struggle it's been for ongoing contributors to keep the overload in check. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
This smells to much like wikilawyering. WP:BROADCONCEPT does not apply here. This conversation has nothing to do with title Disambiguation. WP:RECENTISM is an essay not a guideline or a policy. If you think this article is negatively impacted by the behavoir there you need to post more than just blue links. Don't post essays as if they were policies or guidelines and posting links to policies isn't enough in itself. You still have to make your case. And while I do disagree with the compromise I am only speaking out against you trying to push a change for another page here. I would go into the undue debate with you but then I don't actually care. A half hearted glance really seems as if you are saying it would be undue if you mention it in both articles.That would be rediculous though. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
If you don't care, why are you being so vocal about it? As for BROADCONCEPT not applying here, evidently you haven't read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Would you care to elaborate on what, "If you think this article is negatively impacted by the behaviour there you need to post more than just blue links." actually means? Did you not realise that running precisely the same RfC simultaneously on two articles dealing with exactly the same subject matter can also be interpreted as WP:GAMING the system? How else would you propose that an RfC be run? Also, "... undue if you mention it in both articles."? I'm really having a difficult time trying to understand what it is that you're arguing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Because I can be vocal about it.If you think the article is negatively effected by the behavoir listed in the ESSAY about recentism you should do more than post a blue link to that essay. Make a case of why this ESSAY should be treated as a guidline or policy. Of course I've read wp:primarytopic. It's also about Disambiguation of a topic title as well. We aren't trying to rename Russia here are we? Gaming the system? These are two seperate issues about two seperate topics. And this is a temporary measure. When did the wikipedia crystalball say the issue would be more clearer? You are trying to remove it from both articles and you are tossing around a bluelink for wp:undue (sans any actual case) for both articles.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Support Proposed Compromise It's clear that the issue with these disputed territories doesn't belong in the opening paragraph of the article, as WP is not a news outlet. It's not clear that one can accurately and succinctly give the number of territories without mentioning them, however. Therefore, it seems reasonable to excise mention of them from the intro. I don't think that the precise number of territories is even necessary for the introduction to the article, as well. There's plenty of room throughout the article, and Russia would still be Russia if it had a few more or a few fewer territories. MjolnirPantsTell me all about it.12:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
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.
The GDP has a comma and not a decimal point.
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
This edit request to Russia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
At the moment the GDP of Russia is around 2550 trillion according to this page... I think that there may be people who would like to think that they have 4 times the wealth of the entire stock market but I believe it is somewhat erroneous :) Could whoever is eligible to alter this page please put it right? It requires a decimal point, not a comma! Thank you.--Hypernator (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I could be mistaken, but I think outside the Anglosphere, the roles of decimals and commas are reversed in numbers (i.e. one million is 1.000.000, and one thousandth is 0,001, etc). A large amount of editors on the English language Wikipedia are not native English speakers. Perhaps that's an explanation? Could always just be a typo too.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
It looks fine now and that is definitely a good compromise. At least now there should be no confusion either way. --Hypernator (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Typo: Chairmen to Chairman
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I noticed that in the box on the right side of the screen, it says "Chairmen of the Federation Council." This should be "ChairmAn."
Thank you for your time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.140.65.209 (talk • contribs)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
According to the current wikipedia page on countries by GDP (purchasing power parity), Russia is 6th, not 5th as stated in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.231.186.244 (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC) According to the World Bank last year, Russia´s GDP was 5th at PPP.--83.63.225.149 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Formula One
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
a) lead: already doesn't includes number of federal subjects, leave as is.
b) Political divisions: already correct, short and simple. Maybe add {{Further}} links (as presented above) at the end of "Federal subjects" subsection of political divisions section.
Ukraine is a unitary state composed of 24 oblasts (provinces) and a city with special status: its capital and largest city of Kiev. The country is recognized as including another city of special status—the port city of Sevastopol—and an autonomous republic, Crimea, but sovereignty over these is disputed with Russia, which exercises de facto control of the Crimean Peninsula and administers it as the Republic of Crimea and Federal City of Sevastopol. Ukraine is a republic under a semi-presidential system with separate legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine continues to maintain the second-largest military in Europe, after that of Russia, when reserves and paramilitary personnel are taken into account.
between third paragraph of the section (one which starts with "Urban areas (cities) can either be subordinated to the state...") and subdivisions map insert the following fourth paragraph:
Illegal annexation is indeed NATO-only dictated position. The larger number of states are simply complying with what NATO forces them to do. NATO already bombarded areas of own member without asking anyone and even tried to oppose or question them. We don't see any large scale immigration or active protests in Crimea and the change was democratic - without killing many thousands of people, destroying economies or one-sided sabotaging world relations, on the contrary about >120k Ukrainians have immigrated from East Ukraine warzone due to the NATO-puppet criminal government into Russia via Rostov-on-Don and they identify themself as Ukrainians. If you don't believe, pack your stuff and see in place. 77.11.53.47 (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Russia was formed in 882
Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
The infobox has this date as the beginning of the country Russia, yet has the name Kievan Rus' next to the date. Are these two different countries, or the same country with multiple names over history? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Kievan Rus' is traditionally considered by historians to be the beginning of modern Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 13, 2014; 11:51 (UTC)
Ukrainians, Russians and White Russians are SAME nation, but with own ethnic deviations due to exposure to different location-based events. This is similar to modern Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.11.53.47 (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there were LOTS of people who spoke different languages living in Europe and Asia. They never knew each other because they were separated by mountains and by cultures. Some of them were nomadic and had no relationship whatsoever to any "country" in the modern sense because they followed their herds of animals and there were no borders. ALL of these people were conquered by invaders, starting with the Rus, and later by Mongols. These people lost their heritage, their land, and their culture. The "borders" of a country exist only on a map, and they keep changing. Every time there's a new invasion, the map changes, but not the landscape or the people who live there. Every new conqueror claims something different and rewrites history. The country named Russian Federation was formed in 1992. USchick (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
"internationally viewed as territory of Ukraine"
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I take issue with this wording. The article says that Crimea is internationally viewed as the territory of Ukraine, and cites a UN GA resolution as proof. However, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 was approved by a simple majority of votes. Lots of countries abstained. Some voted against. Asserting that the "international community" takes a strong pro-Ukrainian view, on the basis of this resolution, is really stretching it.
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Having taken a look at a number of the maps used in this article, I've noted the use of the following:
Russia#Foreign_relations - the "Council of Europe": there's no differentiation between Russia and other European countries, but there is a link to the Council of Europe in the text. Is the map edifying, or is it just taking up space?
Russia#Geography - the map 'depicting' "The topography of Russia" 'depicts' more land mass that isn't Russia than in does Russia. It needs a serious trim (or more pronounced borders between countries) as the borders of the many countries surrounding Russia don't stand out in the thumbnail. I.e., it's visually misleading in its current form.
It was from a reflist but, having checked, the projected content is now redundant (early April), so I've removed the references. Cheers, Dustin! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion
@WhyHellWhy: You may very well have had good reason for doing so, but you shouldn't just replace an SVG file with a PNG without explanation and expect for your edit to go unquestioned. Could you please explain your reasoning? Thank you. Dustin(talk)19:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The only reason the user Giorgi Balakhadze switched the map was because of his POV regarding the breakaway states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The map that he provided does not include the partially recognized states of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria as well as the autonomous region of Moldova, Gagauzia in all of which the Russian language has official language status. The map also doesn't include Crimea which is a de facto part of Russia. If you look back at the history of the PNG file which was always used for this page you will notice the disruptive edits made by Giorgi attempting to exclude the de facto independent states. His replacement of this map is yet another attempt to ignore the status of the Russian language in those regions. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
That was on Wikimedia Commons and on a file talk page at that, so it is likely that most users here won't have been looking at that discussion. We should wait until more Wikipedia users say something about it, so I suggest that we wait. Dustin(talk)19:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I am well aware of the WP:TE you are bringing to Wikipedia from Wiki Commons, WhyHellWhy. Wiki Commons is not accountable to English Wikipedia to policy, whereas English Wikipedia is accountable for the veracity of the maps used. I thanked Giorgi Balakhadze for introducing this map as, contrary to your account of the issues at hand, you were misrepresenting 'official language' in various regions as if Russian were the both the only official and first language. The map George settled on for use here, after having to contend with your edit warring on Wiki Commons, is not contentious. Your 'preferred' map is contentious in this context (see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). I suggest you leave well enough alone before someone gets irritated about your WP:POV content additions and changes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
In what way have I pushed my POV? I never said anything about Russian being the first language in any region. The map Giorgi presented does not show Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria as well as Gagauzia and Crimea. I do understand the fact that three of those states are not entirely recognized and the status of Crimea is disputed, but that doesn't take away the fact that Russian is an official language on that piece of land. If you look at the discussion Giorgi brought up on commons regrading this issue you will see that other users feel the same way. You can't use a map that excludes any state. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The category of countries where Russian is useful is impossible to clearly measure. Russian is useful in San Francisco, it's useful in some parts of Salt Lake City, it's useful.... It's one of the dozen most common second languages on the planet, so trying to draw a map of "places where Russian is useful" is totally arbitrary and, in some cases, could be construed as pushing a pro-Russian POV. Without a clear, unambiguous, fact-based measurement impressionistic maps are useless on Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The map doesn't talk about countries where Russian is as you said "useful". Russian is legally the officiall language in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, and the autonomous region of Gagauzia, not just useful. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
WhyHellWhy, I'm well aware of the disputes regarding the POV push over both maps on Wiki Commons. In both instances, there is not even an attempt to distinguish between: 1) where Russian is the only official language; 2) Russian enjoys official status with other languages (such as Belarusian, various non-Slavic languages in Caucasian sovereign states, as well as the western Eastern countries such as Kazakhstan where it shares official status).
For my 2¢, I would prefer a map using one colour to depict where is is 'the' official language, another for those where it is 'one' of the official languages. You might as well use a map of the member states of the CIS for all the information the map you're pushing imparts. Until such a map with an appropriate legend is created, for the purposes of the lay-person, your preferred map gives the impression that Russian is the only official language, which comes off as bragging rights rather than a realistic understanding of the status of the Russian language.
You can create as many maps as you wish on Wiki Commons: it doesn't mean that they will be accepted here as serving the intended, informative purpose desirable for the context. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
To be completely honest I personally don't agree with the used legend on the PNG file either. Nevertheless it includes all of the states in which Russian is an official language. If you wish, you may change the map yourself stating that it is not the only official language in the regions, but until then the map provided by Giorgi can not be used as it does not include all regions with Russian as one of their official languages. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
User:WhyHellWhy you obviously haven't bothered to read the caption on the map you are pushing. It does not just show countries where Russian is the sole official language or one of the official languages, it also shows a completely arbitrary assortment of countries where "Russian it [sic] a de facto working language". That is the major problem with pushing a map that gives the impression of pushing a pro-Russian POV. There simply is no objective measurement of what constitutes a "de facto working language". The consensus is against using the map you are pushing. Stop trying to insert it against consensus. --Taivo (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
@WhyHellWhy: Unless you can provide some form of additional reasoning here, then I would not suggest making any more changes. Thank you. Dustin(talk)03:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I want to clear up that I am not pushing that map, I am pushing away the map suggested by Giorgi. The map that I am reverting back to is the map that was used on this article prior to the changes made by Giorgi. The map suggested by Giorgi does not include all states with Russian as an official language. I have removed the map that depicts the Russian language. Until a map that includes all regions which consider Russian an official language is introduced, no map should be used for that section. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I don't know who introduced the map to this article in the first place, and have no interest in going back through the page's history in order to establish who did so. What Giorgi did, however, is alert other editors to the fact that the map was misleading and inappropriate, full stop. I'm quite content to eliminate it altogether until/if a rational one with an appropriate legend is created (again, it is meaningless without a legend). Would other editors/contributors be amenable to deleting it as uninformative? Unlike WhyHellWhy, whose executive decision editing demonstrates a WP:NOTHERE attitude to the removal of content (per his/her edit summary here), I do agree it to be preferable to WP:PEACOCK content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The map accurately portrays all those recognized countries where Russian is an official language. Trying to illustrate regions that are not internationally recognized is WP:POV. But since this article is not about language, I don't have a problem with removing any map. I have a problem with User:WhyHellWhy's edit warring and editing against consensus. --Taivo (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I have encountered him/her before on other articles related to Ukraine and Russia's invasion of Crimea. --Taivo (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original orplagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
CHANGE THE ARTICLE !!!
Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
I am Ukrainian i now better, Ukrainian Hryvna has nothing to do with Russia! Why someone wrote that it is Russian currency ? I so sick of foreigners not distinguishing the difference between Ukraine and Russia. For instance Ukrainian language is much closer to Polish then to Russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.165.241 (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the reference to the Ukrainian hryvnia for the moment. It was inserted by an identified sock earlier this month and was probably went undetected due to the amount of traffic and POV pushing on both this and the Ukraine article.
I'd say that there is a case for discussing the currency issue in that article, Seryo93. I've just checked back and discovered that the user who added has been cleared of sock-puppetry accusations, but I do consider it to be WP:UNDUE. Whatever direction the regional dispute goes, the hryvnia is not RF currency and will either be phased out or reintroduced, so there's no case for suggesting it to be RF currency. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
What on earth are you on about, Crossswords? This discussion (way back in May) was regarding the use of the hryvna and ruble in Crimea. Not only are you completely WP:OFFTOPIC, you're simply trying to WP:POV push your personal opinion as to linguistics. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
so the user above is not off topic and POV pushing reading the last sentence? its you who are WP:POV pushing by seeing both your different replies to the person above and to me. I just confused her post with something else and made a comment, please dont make it off topic now as youre the one now going off topic making an unnecessary comment too.--Crossswords (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
MISTAKE IN RANKING NOMINAL GDP.It's 9th!
Latest comment: 10 years ago39 comments14 people in discussion
Russia according to 2014 April estimates of IMF is 9th with 2,092 trillions $ as nominal GDP.Italy has passed it with 2,171trillios $.Time to update this propaganda number.Russia isn't 8th but 9th.In fact Italy in its page is ranked in the right way 8th according to 2014 April estimates by IMF.This criteria is used for all the political beings.So for Russia too that is 9th.It's incredible how people manipulate their data.Thanks.151.40.12.61 (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry 151.40.12.61 your wrong, Russia is the 5th largest economy now and will be number 4 in 2016 and is the biggest in Europe[9].
In 2014 April IMF estimates nominal gdp of Russia is ony 9th.See List of countries by past and future GDP (nominal).STOP with propaganda please.As you can see in 2014 Russia (2092) is only 9th behind Italy (2171).It's also forecasted that Italy will be ahead of Russia at least until 2019.You are just referring to gdp ppp and not the nominal one.Time to correct this false pdata on Russia page.Russia is 9th by nominal gdp according to IMF 2014 estimates.151.40.12.61 (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Today your ip is 151.40.12.61, yesterday you were 151.40.45.125 and the day before you were 151.40.13.161. All your comments are anti Russia, everyone. You appear to be in this mode to disagree with facts and make hearsay things.
Your wrong, dead wrong on the GDP. I forwarded the facts and you change ip's and say the same things over and over. Russia is 5th GDP, the list of information is above.--204.15.111.27 (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Please don't make personal attacks. You're also discussing two different things, the sources you provide discuss Russian GDP at Purchasing Power Parity, while the IP above makes claims on GDP (nominal) - the two are related but not the same, so take that into account. That said, the IP is still wrong - Russia was 8th largest based on IMFs 2013 data, just like the article states. It's 9th largest based on 2014 data, but 2014 data is estimated (c'mon, there's still half the year left) and estimates like that are not typically used for ranking.129.178.88.82 (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Mmm... no, you're mistaken, 129.178.88.82. Feel free to compare the IMF figures for any nation-state in Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
@Crossswords:, do not use edit summaries to challenge editors on your purported 'crusade' against the reliability of the IMF for financial statistics. In the first instance, as already noted to you, it is used consistently throughout all articles for countries in Wikipedia. In the second instance, why have you chosen this as the only article to challenge use of IMF stats rather than have it discussed via an RS/N for the sake of parity? In the third place, abide by WP:BRD. It does not mean BOLD → DELETE → REVERT → REVERT x ad infinitum. What you are engaging in is WP:TE and treating the article as a WP:BATTLEFIELD. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
You cant prove why IMF should only be used, IMF data is outdated because they use an outdated PPP conversion rate from 2004 vs 2011 from WB--Crossswords (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses the IMF because it is standardized across all entries. This is not the place to be pushing either a pro-Russian or anti-IMF POV. --Taivo (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Italy as you can see is ranked 8th with 2,171 trillions by NOMINAL GDP .Russia is ranked like Italy 8th but Russia is only 9th with 2,092 according to IMF data.Around 1 month ago Russia was ranked in the right way 9th ,but somebody unlocked the article and posted 8th.All people that read IMF data know that in 2014 IMF sets Italy 8th and Russia 9th.I don't know why administrators or editors don't set Russia 9th as NOMINAL gdp in 2014.For all states ( USA ,UK and so on ...) must be used the same criteria.Russia article doesn't respect Wikipedia english criteria.Russia isn't 8th as nominal gdp in 2014 as reported in the article .Russia is 9th because Italy is 8th.This article must be corrected because is denying the EVIDENCE.The rest (Russia 8th as nominal gdp in 2014 as article reports) is rubbish.151.40.117.74 (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I doubt that nobody noticed what i wrote....above all the same people that unlocked article and wrote 8th about the NOMINAL russian gdp...Russia is only 9th behind Italy.I'm surprised by Wikipedia that doesn't act on these HUGE mistakes in Russia presentation and aside close the 2,092 data.Really a not high level situation.To ignore is sign of strong weakness.151.40.117.74 (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
First of all avoid personal attacks like oxymoron or similar ones.I don't like personal attacks ,i like to show the mistakes in this article.You are using form but the reality is that Russia is 9th behind Italy as nominal gdp in 2014 according to IMF.
I know that is isn't forum ( i even wrote in main articles in Wikipedia english) and it seems you realized that there is the mistake about Russia 8th as nominal gdp,but here people are ignoring a STATEMENT with reliable and official sources http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/01/weodata/weorept.aspx THIS POST TALKS MORE MANY BLA BLA BLA .TIME TO UPDATE.Russia wants always a "particular" good treatment in several articles ,time to end this in Wikipedia.Russia is 9th as nominal gdp in 2014 IMF data.I wouldn't like to see bad feith in editors or aministrators in ignoring or misunderstanding.Wikipedia main lines suggest good faith (or are they just a spot?).That's all, Russia article can stay also in this rubbish situation (people reading article and talk will reflect),people that know economy like me and the majority of them will survive even without the wrong article of Russia in Wikipedia))).In all this (Russia 8th ranking as nominal gdp in 2014 posted in the article presentation and aside with other data) there's more than something shenanigan.Russia as you can read in my post of the OFFICIAL SITE OF IMF IN 2014 is just 9TH BEHIND ITALY as NOMINAL GDP.I guess next times will arrive the writing of a PRO russian attacking me with all means he can but without talking about the REAL NUMBERS because he can nothing against REALITY.NEUTRAL REALITY is what i posted and is NAMED IMF DATA.151.40.123.202 (talk) 07:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
No offense, but I really think you need to brush up on your English and start assuming good faith. Just as "dead wrong" is not a personal attack, as you complained in the past, but "oxymoron" is not a personal attack, but rather a term used to point out contradictions. Also, another final warning about complaining about things being pro/anti/bias/propaganda for certain countries or in going to start blocking your IPs again. Keep to the topic at hand, not those disruptive bad faith assumptions. Sergecross73msg me15:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
And what about the mistakes in Russia article?Russia must be ranked 9th as nominal gdp according to IMF as i posted.Let's talk about the quid that is ignored.I'm not interested in the form,i'm intersted in changing the wrong Russia ranking about nominal gdp in the presentation and aside close 2092.151.40.120.34 (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure which is right, but I know that, when there are disputes, they are solved by coming to a consensus, and it doesn't appear that you've been able to really persuade anyone yet. I don't know if you're wrong, or you need to explain it differently. Sergecross73msg me16:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Consensus can be on politic sources for articles like Potential superpower ,but here we have official data from IMF.Consensus doesn't need on official numbers.We haveITALY ranked 8th with 2171 and RUSSIA ranked 8th with 2092.That's no possible.EVIDENCE of mistakes in Russia article is ENORMOUS.Before (no more than 3 months ago) Russia was ranked 9th in the right way and somebody changed it to 8th .Where did he/she get the consensus in the Talk page to change Russia ranking from 9th to 8th?So you ask me to have something that others hadn't.I want an explanation please.A redde rationem in latin.151.40.120.34 (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
It appears others are citing a different source/interpretation, correct? Do you understand their point of view? Try to understand what they're saying to you. If you do, it may help you understand how to convince them of your point of view (or understand that you are mistaken. It could be either. All I know is you saying the same thing over and over doesn't seem to be working.) Sergecross73msg me17:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
You didn't understand the matter in its main points.The only source is IMF data of April 2014.People are talking about GDP PPP ,while i'm referring to NOMINAL GDP as i wrote at the beginning.All nations are ranked by these data.Russia is the only one to do not respect the standard criteria (WHY???????).Russia is 9th according to official Wikipedia standards based on IMF 2014 April data.I'm clear.Somebody unlocked and posted Russia 8th as nominal gdp in the presentation and close 2092 without writing in the Talk less than 3 months ago.So NO CONSENSUS for the WRONG data that are in the article. It's time to check all this by administrators.151.40.120.34 (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Taivo and Iryna Harpy seemed to agree with me (if they din't change suddenly opinion).Anyway i repeat,here consensus doesn't need .Why other people unlocked less than 3 months ago without consensus to change Russia ranking referred to nominal gdp?If they are justified consesus doesn't matter.Russia is just 9th.As you can se in Italy article ,Italy is 8th by NOMINAL GDP in 2014 according to IMF data.151.40.120.34 (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Please stop with that unable or unwilling.You are right and i agree for waiting the editor...but before than the next year.Now i go to dinner.Thanks.Gladio4772 (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I've opened a thread at WP:DRN. Stop making idle allegations of vandalism. This is a content dispute, complicated by the conduct dispute of calling a content dispute vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
ITALY in Italy article is ranked 8th as nominal GDP with 2,171 trillions $ while RUSSIA is ranked 8th with only 2,092 trillions $ according to IMF data April 2014.All data are referred to IMF data of April 2014.Russia with only 2,092 trillions $ can't be ranked 8th neither in the presentation neither aside close the value of the nominal GDP.I already posted in the Talk of Russia the IMF data in the official site of the organization to which all nominal gdp rankings by 2014 are referred.Russia data must be corrected in the presentation and aside close the value 2092.These are official IMF numbers and argue has a small space.If ihadn't to post in this page i beg your pardon.I've never ever been in a dispute before.Thanks.Gladio4772 (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Just to be sure.And now?When will be corrected these 2 mistakes? Honestly who could oppose to these STATEMENTS is in a cul de sac since the beginning.Numbers are numbers.Gladio4772 (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Issue with Crossswords challenging IMF stats as inferior to using direct World Bank stats not resolved. This should be taken up at an RS/N as it would impact on all country infobox template GDP preferences for the source as it is the IMF figures currently used for all. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
1)First of all Iryna Harpy you acted well correcting nominal gdp ranking close 2092.I recognize your good acting in the first correction you did(your name sounds me well because i've a friend in Kupchino-Saint Petersburg named Iryna Alexeevna Kulagina).2)Russia in the article is presented as 8th by nominal GDP ,but it must be added referred to 2013 (IMF or WB data is same) and not to 2014 as it appears."The Russian (why R and not r?) economy ranks as the 8th largest by nominal gdp and 6th largest by ppp in 2014".It appears that Russia is 8th by 2014 when it is 9th.The citation aside is referred in fact to 2013.Correction must be complete. I always wrote about 2 mistakes.Thanks.Gladio4772 (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@Gladio4772: Okay, I've picked up on the fact that the incorrect ranking was also in the body of article under "Economy" and have changed it from 8th to 9th per the IMF GDP (nominal) data. I misunderstood your message and was looking for the "2 mistakes" in the infobox. Fixed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
First of all i recognize all your great job Iryna Harpy since the beginning of the talking.You were the first one to realize to 129... that there was something wrong in all it.You tried to better article (and succeded) and if i have been too "cold" in talking i beg your pardon.I'm bipolar so invalid.My humor changes easily and is unsteady.See bipolar disorders . I hope Wikipedia and other editors and administrators will accept it.This should be in a normal and civil society.I ask you the last thing Irina).My second mistake was referred to the sentence that i reported above at the beginning of the article.It seems that Russian Federation is 8th by nominal gdp by 2014 when reference aside is only for 2013 and Gdp ppp.Gladio4772 (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Fixed Aha. I spotted it. With the infobox, the "Economy" section, plus the lead there were 3 instances of the nominal GDP being presented as 8th instead of 9th. Cheers!
The facts are Russia is the 5th largest economy now and will be number 4 in 2016 and is the biggest in Europe[10].
It is not 8th or 9th, it is 5th. Too say Russia is below Italy is not credible, Russia is the large economy in Europe, the facts I have provided state that claim clearly.
Editors please take note on this GDP discussion that we have an ip hoper hoping ip's and user names on this very topic on Russia's GDP. While I want to talk about the GDP, please we can't have one editor disrupting the discussion, this list is the contribution used by one editor.
I have reported this matter to the Administrators. The list of one ip is Gladio4772 July 22[11], 151.40.120.34 July 19, 2014[12] 151.40.123.202 July 19, 2014[13], 151.40.117.74 July 17, 2014[14], 151.40.13.161[15] , July 7, 2014 151.40.45.125[16], March 17, 2014 - 151.40.95.82[17], April 2013 - Bocca Trabaria[18], March 2014 - 151.40.24.9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.24.9], March 2014 -151.40.7.192[19], Sept 23, 2013 - 151.40.18.30[20], Sept 15, 2013 - 151.40.55.125[21], March 18, 2014 - 151.40.35.236[22], March 18, 2014 - 151.40.9.149[23], March 17, 2014 - 151.40.72.141[24], March 16, 2014 - 151.40.14.179[25], March 16, 2014 - 151.40.83.17[26], March 15, 2014 - 151.40.69.199[27], March 15, 2014 - 151.40.34.218[28], March 15, 2014 - 151.40.120.19[29], Feb 4, 2014 - 151.40.63.30[30], Feb 4, 2014- 151.40.16.167[31], Dec 28, 2013 - 151.40.107.93[32], Dec 27, 2013 - 151.40.27.25[33], Dec 27, 2013 - 151.40.64.77[34], Dec 25, 2013 - 151.40.54.32[35], Dec 23, 2013 - 151.40.41.170[36], Dec 22, 2013 - 151.40.9.139[37], Sept 8, 2013 - 151.40.102.200[38], August 14, 2013 - 151.40.125.50[39], May 10, 2013 – Mediolanum[40], Oct 22, 2013 - Glc72[41], May 21, 2013 - 151.40.11.180[42], May 14, 2013 -151.40.59.151[43], May 14, 2013 - 151.40.60.108[44], May 11, 2013 - Bocca_Trabaria[45]
Trying to help and report this, so we can have a honest discussion on Russia's GDP.--198.23.81.141 (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@198.23.81.141: I will repeat the same advice given Crossswords regarding this issue, being that challenging IMF statistics as inferior to World Bank statistics and rankings is not an issue within the scope of this article. This is not a case by case consensus per article decision. Discussions relating to the reliability of IMF as the universally used source for all articles of this nature should be taken up at an RS/N as, for the sake of parity, it would impact on all country infobox template articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Russia's GDP is over Germany's as the fifth largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity bases of the World Bank GDP ratings. Viewing the World Bank figures show that Russia’s gross domestic product (GDP) totaled $3.38 trillion last year.
Germany is now at number six in the rankings after recording $3.30 trillion in GDP during the same period. The United States topped the rankings with $15.68 trillion, followed by China ($12.47 trillion), India ($4.79 trillion) and Japan ($4.49 trillion).
Russia has moved to fifth place in the ranking of the world’s largest economies by GDP, edging out Germany. The World Bank’s GDP purchasing power parity rating is compiled in international dollars, which have the same purchasing power over GDP as the US dollar has in the United States. GDP at purchaser’s prices is the sum of gross value added by all resident producers in the economy plus any product taxes and minus any subsidies not included in the value of the products. It is calculated without making deductions for depreciation of fabricated assets or for depletion and degradation of natural resources. The GDP rating based on PPP is different from the IMF’s nominal GDP rating, where Russia is ranked eighth with $2.7 trillion.
Russia's Wikipedia pages needs a correction to 8th IMF’s nominal GDP rating and 5th in GDP ppp standings, there is an error and this needs to be fixed.--64.129.3.150 (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2014
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Russia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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. Cannolis (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Russian Federation is 9th in population as opposed being the most populous.
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The CIA world factbook puts it at 10th due to the inclusion of all EU states together. Wikipedia's own article on the subject puts it 9th.
Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion
Crimea, as a disputed territory that is de facto under Russian control is marked in a lighter shade of green on the locator map – and rightly so. But shouldn't the Kuril Islands be marked in the same way? It's the same situation here: a disuputed territory under actual Russian control. And as both Crimea and the Kurils are both very small in comparison to Russia as a whole and hence not well visible on the map, perhaps they should be explicitly mentioned in the caption? Something along the lines of:
Strongly disagree. Kuril Islands don't get UN response (at least UNGA, because in UNSC it's simply impossible), which counters Russian position, but Crimea did get such response. In short: Kuril Islands are controlled by Russia and viewed by UN as Russia. Crimea is controlled by Russia but notviewed as Russia by UN body (except small number of countries). These situations are different. Seryo93 (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any UN resolutions affirming the status of South Kuril Islands as part of Russia. So let's paint them light-green.
The more different parts of Russia are painted in this fashion, the sooner people are going to realise the absurdity of this.Keverich2 (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
its crimea who should be painted dark green, you guys just opened up a box of Pandora by making crimea light green, its obvious if a country controls another territory its part of it in its article, but some people with POV push thought different. So how you gonna paint kashmir and all other conflicts including japans own senkaku islands in future?--Crossswords (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, then I'd suggest that you'd change Olivença (Olivenza) in Extremadura/Alentejo (Spain?) as controlled by Spain and viewed by the UN as Spain... I'm Portuguese and I don't advocate the recovery of Olivença, but it was taken by Spain as a sequence of a breach of a treaty made between Portugal and Spain after the Napoleonic Wars... So, legally it should be Portuguese. Do we really need to worry with such irrelevant issues? Mondolkiri1 (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Муть какая-то
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Почему в колонке, где гимн, флаг, и прочие данные, в исторических периодах нет Российской республики, а дата появления Советской России 6 ноября?
Why in the column where the anthem, flag, and other data, no historical periods of the Russian Republic, and the date of the appearance of Soviet Russia on November 6?
--ФедяФедечкин (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
RUS - name is not coming from Vikings
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is what is wrong with wikipedia. Every dimwit can become an "editor" and pretend to be an expert. Who on earth wrote the nonsense about Rus(sians) being "possibly" Swedish Vikings...!!!!! You people need to get a life and realise that this "wikipedia" is a joke. A quick phone call to a teacher of any Slavic language would explain to you the meaning of the word "rus", to begin with. All I'll say is that it has got NOTHING to do with Swedish Vikings. A quick all to a teacher of history in ANY country would help you put the Vikings in a context long AFTER the word "rus" was invented. It was entertaining to watch ignorants pretending to be ecperts in teh beginning, but now, this wiki garbage is just plain ridiculous. I am not going to shed any light on the meaning of the word "rus". Learn something before you write rubbish about it. It will be even more worthless, the whole wiki garbage, if the authors and/or editors are Russians, but I just cannot see that (although I may well be wrong - there are ignorants in Russia too).
Removal of image and text surrounding Victory Day Parade in Sevastopol
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have encountered some obstructions to removing the following text from On 9 May, 150 thousand people gathered in Crimean Sevastopol to watch Victory Day parade, waving Russian flags and sang among others the Russian anthem.[1] from the Russian Federation section of the article. The text was also accompanied by the use of this image and text:
Do you have any comments to make about the use of an out-of-date map in the section about Russia's foreign relations? Does a world map of this type only have to be accurate regarding this one country, or should it be globally accurate, including neighbouring countries like Turkey?? User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 21:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
It might not have been a good tactic, but I tried to reference Turkey in the section about Russia's foreign relations to highlight the fact the map that attempts to define "continents" and "transcontinental countries" by the membership of nation-states in selected international organizations and forums is out of date. It currently shows Turkey as a member of the Council of Europe but not its Asian equivelent, and therefore seems to imply that Russia is the only country that spans Europe and Asia. I also added "Eurasian" to the caption to highlight that not all authorities regard Europe and Asia as separate continents. They are also seen as two cultural mega-regions or subcontinents occupying the contiguous continent of Eurasia. Unfortunately, I don't know how to do computer graphics or I would update the map myself. Maybe the status of Turkey isn't that relevant for this article, but I'm something of a perfectionalist when it comes to maps. I believe any inaccurate or out-of-date map in this article can reduce it's credibility. I hope the error, even if minor, will be corrected by someone who has the skills to do so. User:ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk) 09:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not particularly concerned as to whether the map is introduced if other editors consider it to be relevant/of value to the article. What I am concerned about is the elaborate text info you introduced with the map regarding Turkey: please see WP:OR. In the first instance, however, the map needs to be updated so as not to require elaborate text info which is more confounding that illuminating. As you are uncertain of how to update the map, I would suggest that you check for assistance at Wiki Commons. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The confusion here is the misuse of the word "transcontinental". The word actually means "across a continent", not "lying in two continents". Panama is a "transcontinental" country since it crosses a continent from one shore to the other. So is Mexico, the US, Canada, Nicaragua, Russia, etc. So in 1869, the first "transcontinental" railroad was completed from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific coast of the US. Find another term if what you actually mean is "on two continents". (I think that "intercontinental"--"between continents"--is the proper term, but I'm not 100% certain.) --Taivo (talk) 09:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Russian Federation (1991-2012)
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I suggest we make a separate article for Russian Federation (1991-2012) because that was a democratic republic and Russia is currently a de facto totalitarian dictatorship. --76.105.96.92 (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
The Russian Federation IS a democracy and it is an expression of a purely bigoted opinion to state that it is "currently a de facto totalitarian dictatorship" what an absolutely nonsense comment to make! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceFlowers2014 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Russian Federation (article heading/section)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The text states "Putin requested and received authorization from the Russian Parliament to deploy Russian troops to Ukraine." However, there is no mention after this that although the request was made the authorisation was never enacted and was very soon revoked by Mr Putin. The way this section of the article is written it gives the strong suggestion that Russian troops were actually deployed as a result of the authorisation - as an appeal to the facts and truth of the matter I'd like to request that an edit is made saying "However, the authorisation was not enacted; Russian troops were not deployed and the permission to do so was revoked by Mr Putin." These are the historical facts of the matter. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceFlowers2014 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
.svg)
_-_Crimea_disputed.svg)
Not done: WP:BALASPS for this article. Requester is welcome to take this to relevant current affairs articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Fixed Aha. I spotted it. With the infobox, the "Economy" section, plus the lead there were 3 instances of the nominal GDP being presented as 8th instead of 9th. Cheers!
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. Cannolis (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg)