Talk:Russia (disambiguation)

Afd

Survived: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russia (disambiguation). `'mikka (t) 00:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguating references to "Russia"

Before the fall of the Soviet Union, there where millions of written references in billions of printed copies referring to "Russias" other than the Russian Federation. It was common to refer to the Soviet Union simply as “Russia”. The distinction between Rus' and Russia, so carefully maintained the article on the etymology of Rus and derivatives was largely unknown outside academic circles. Thousands of these references are inherited by Wikipedia articles. I believe, that for historical articles the reference should be to the “Russia” or Russian State of the time period. In some cases it may be advisable to replace Russia with the name of the corresponding article. In some cases it may be better to leave the visible link as “Russia” and disambiguate the hidden link to the appropriate article. (This comment naturally applies to all countries with long histories. See for example Saxony (disambiguation)) Disambiguating may result in a situation where the user presses the link labeled “Russia” and arrives at Novgorod Republic without really knowing why he got there. A remedy could be labeling the disambiguated page with the template {{Previously|Russia}}, rendered as something like

The subject of this article was previously also known as Russia. For other uses, see Russia (disambiguation)

Some Examples

• Agatha, wife of Edward the Exile appeared on DYK today. The article states ”that the mother of St. Margaret was of Russian royal blood”. I have disambiguated this to Rus' (people).
• The article on Viborg blast stated that ”Vyborg Castle when it was besieged by Russians”. I have disambiguated this to Muscovy.

-- Petri Krohn 09:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:DAB

Petri, your obstinate edits are in contradiction of WP:DAB. There is no ambiguity between Russia and Rugians. Noone would search for Novgorod Republic under Russia. You've been told as much on AfD. Removal of such entries was the reason why the article escaped deletion. You should check Italy (disambiguation) to see how disambiguation pages are usually done. By the way, there is no Germany (disambiguation), although its this country's name that needs the heaviest disambiguation efforts (following your logic). --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In your own article from friday, Agatha, wife of Edward the Exile you have translated Rugorum as Russia, (or was it René Jetté?) A use of the word "Russia" in the English language can thus be a reference to Rugians in the original source. -- Petri Krohn 19:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked the opinion of wikipedians well versed in WP policies on WP:VPP. Here's the answer: One can create something like "list of Russian states throughout history". It could be linked to from the DAB page but even that is not really part of the intended use of DAB pages. Since your efforts do not conform to WP guidelines, your list of historical Russian states will be split from the disambiguation page. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I did notice that you where seeking support elsewhere, but I have not had the time to responde there. I do contest your conclusions and will respond in time. -- Petri Krohn 09:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Leather

Why is there no mention of russia leather? 195.92.40.49 (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Russia, only Russia

@Korwinski: This is the place for entities known as "Russia", not "Rus" or anything else. The appropriate spot for ancestor states is Outline of Russia#History of Russia. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend: I'm sorry to ask, but why are you making edits on subjects that you do not know of and do want to get into by checking references already provided? The states that you had removed are called Russia as at the time there were two of them (Lithuanian Russia and Muscovy Russia) fighting for legacy of Kievan Rus. And its not my personal opinion on how to call them, but Serhii Plokhy's (see), Karen Dawisha's (see), Alfred Nicolas Rambaud's (see) etc. You can literally open article about Kingdom of Rus' and see original King's seal, coin and map where it says Russia. Well Russie(ae) as name is written there in Latin and not in modern English, but you get the point.

Rus, Ruthenia and Russia overall not exactly the same words but still synonyms used simultaneously. And again you removed Kievan Rus', but did you even try to check sources?

And why did you keep Soviet Union in such case there? USSR and RSFSR were not the same entities. And first one was never called Russia. That is officially and not through some "lineal connection". I get the point why it was added there, but it contradicts the reason why you removed the other states. Korwinski (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Your arrogance is ill-founded. Your Plokhy link only refers to Russian states, Dawisha to "Lithuanian-Russian state", and Rambaud to "Lithuanian Russia". Kingdom of Rus' has a map showing "Russia Alba" (White Ruthenia). "Rus, Ruthenia and Russia overall not exactly the same words but still synonyms"? In which fantasy universe? And what does your last link prove? Kievan Rus' is a part of the history of Russia. By that "logic", Great Britain, France, Spain and Mexico could also be called the United States. Finally, the Soviet Union is frequently called Russia by the general public. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to offend you or anything, but you did completely ignore my request to check sources beforehand. And many of your statements say that your either biased or not familiar on the subject.

>>>Your Plokhy link only refers to Russian states, Dawisha to "Lithuanian-Russian state", and Rambaud to "Lithuanian Russia".

I really do not understand what is your point. Sources literally state that there were two Russian states. And that Lithuania-Russia was a dualistic and at the same time predominantly Western Russian state fighting for control of Eastern part of Russia controlled by Moscow. Should we remove Austro-Hungary from Hungary (disambiguation)? United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or Northern Ireland from Ireland (disambiguation)? Should we remove Tsardom of Russia since most sources from that time and many today call it Muscovy?

>>Kingdom of Rus' has a map showing "Russia Alba" (White Ruthenia)

Yeah. That was one of the names for Muscovy at the time, but do check that map again for Russia.

>>"Rus, Ruthenia and Russia overall not exactly the same words but still synonyms"? In which fantasy universe?

For instance Plokhy in his work is calling it simultaneously Lithuania-Ruthenia, Lithuania-Russia, Lithuanian Rus'. And so do other authors. Vernadsky was a Yale scholar and he used Kievan Russia instead of Kievan Rus'.

"And what does your last link prove? Kievan Rus' is a part of the history of Russia."

No, it proves that in English language the very same state can be called Rus' and Russia. And as long as there're sources I see no objective reason to justify your removal.

"Soviet Union is frequently called Russia by the general public."

I know, but it contradicts your argument and the reason why you started this edit war. Korwinski (talk) 08:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Nobody in the English-speaking world calls Kievan Rus' just Russia. Your own Vernadsky says "Kievan Russia", not "Russia", a violation of WP:partial title matches. The rest of your arguments are equally invalid. This is not the place to list every entity that has some connection with Russia. Don't believe me? Ask anyone at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages for another opinion. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Nobody in the English-speaking world calls Kievan Rus' just Russia.

Should I remind you of Wikipedia:No original research. So far you presented us with your own opinion, but nothing else. So source? Kievan Rus' just like Byzantine or modern Taiwan etc. is only a historiographical term to differentiate different states during different periods of times. In modern Russian historiography they tend to exclude it and use "Old Russia" (Древняя Русь) instead. That doesn't mean we have to drop Kievan Rus' term:

Contemporary English lacks satisfactory terms to denote the regions that have since become Belarus′, Russia, and Ukraine and to denote the peoples that inhabited these regions before the development of the Russian empire.

— Four Perspectives on “Old Russia” (Rus′)

This is not the place to list every entity that has some connection with Russia.

a) What do you not understand about Russias? There were multiple states and regions called Russia throughout the history. You left out only ones connected to modern Russia.

b) It's a standard practice on Wiki to include all states which full name includes that name. I myself have never seen anyone call Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth as just Lithuania, yet it is on its disambiguation page. Or what about Roman Empire? Should we remove Eastern Part of it from Roman Empire (disambiguation) as nowadays everyone calls its Byzantine? And what about other states that claimed to be its successors, but are not referred to under that specific name? Have you ever seen anyone call Mexico as United States? That does not mean that it isn't called that. And in case there're too many of them, separate article can be created like this one List of countries that include United States in their name. Korwinski (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

You are wasting far too much of my time with your lack of understanding of what a dab page is for. As I recommended before, ask for others' opinions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages if you want to waste your time. I will not respond any further here, only there. P.S. I've removed the commonwealth from Lithuania (disambiguation) and demoted other entries to See also. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Resolution

It has been two weeks now.

1. Clarityfiend was unable to provide any sources that would justify removal of the information from the page.

2. Required sources that confirm usage of the term by and regarding to other non-Muscovy states/regions (in all forms including just "Russia") were provided.

3. As per Clarityfiend's request I had my sources and reasons submitted to the community. No objection there. Korwinski (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Korwinski: You have acted unilaterally without anybody else's input. That is unacceptable. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Two weeks is plenty of time. Should anyone have any additional sources, I'm willing to check them and review my opinion. Korwinski (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, Clarityfiend is completely correct with regards to disambiguation guidelines. older ≠ wiser 16:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bkonrad: And yet again. I found required source that match these particular requirements. I gave plenty of time for opposite side to provide any like literally any valid sources to support his opinion etc. I don't intend to start an edit war, but unless any valid reasons and sources will be provided I will have to file complaint against the two of you. Korwinski (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Valid reasons have been given, over and over again. And you want sources for something not being called Russia? That's just a bit unreasonable. I can't provide a source for Mexico not being referred to as Russia either. Should I add that to the page? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Your initial request was that we keep places that only be referred to "Russia" in their name. I did my research and provided several sources for each one of them. How's excluding and ignoring reliable sources more "reasonable"? On what grounds did you decide that? What sources do you have to confirm that they cannot be trusted?

Example with Mexico is quiet strange as apart from the obvious, you can't confirm that it can be referred to as Russia either. But that is what I did for Western Russian states/regions. Korwinski (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Korwinski you've repeated your opinion many times over and NO ONE has agreed with your position. Please do not add entries to the page which do not follow disambiguation guidelines. older ≠ wiser 14:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Bkonrad My "opinion" is supported by sources. I participated in discussions about them. I did not refrain from them like you did. I did not see from you or anyone else for that matter even a single source that says I'm wrong or that any of my edits/sources are wrong. And not once any of the discussions led to a resolution that my edits/sources are in any way incorrect or wrong. On top that we had a Roman Empire (disambiguation) case with a very similar situation. Considering that and position of Wiki admins in such cases, I consider consensus on this matter to be established. Again. I don't mind discussion. I don't mind admitting that I'm wrong in case I will be found wrong. So at the moment you either PROVE ME WRONG by starting actual discussion with sources or stop this nonsense. Korwinski (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It is nothing but your opinion. There is no one other than yourself supporting your position. And nothing even in the sources you provide support deviating from disambiguation guidelines (even if some addition entries might be warranted). That is, there are two distinct issues 1) should the additional entries be included and 2) what format should be used. Entries on a disambiguation page MUST follow WP:MOSDAB. older ≠ wiser 16:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Both issues were already covered. Feel free to check discussion above. At the moment it's not "nothing but my opinion", but:

a) you and Pofka violating Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_"get_the_point".

b) you and Pofka violating Wikipedia:Vandalism. You yourself just said "some addition entries might be warranted", but both of you do try to remove all entries instead beforehand. Even though I had already provided sources for each one of them here and you can check them already. Instead right now you propose to remove them and for me to post sources again so you can ignore them again.

As for WP:MOSDAB, that issue was covered already in discussion about Roman Empire (disambiguation). Sticking to outdated rules is not always the best way. These are not my words, but a generalisation of the resolution on that discussion. Also the only "must" in those rules is: "There must be a reasonable propensity for the subject to be referred to by the title and name in combination.". And yet again, that question was already covered. I get your idea, but its basically your view and [I guess, not sure if he still wants to continue this discussion] Clarityfiend's on Wiki rules vs mine and other editors that took part in Roman Empire (disambiguation) discussion. Overall without any particular arguments and sources this will lead nowhere. Korwinski (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Nope and nope. You have not established consensus for these additions -- and even in the event something is to be included, the formatting is in violation of WP:MOSDAB. older ≠ wiser 18:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It is nothing but your opinion. (c). Feel free to report me to a noticeboard. I will be glad to discuss with them your actions and how they meet Wikipedia community standards. Korwinski (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

You are wasting everybody's time. Nobody's with you. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't followed the entire discussion (it's a bit difficult to sieve through all the mutual recriminations here), so apologies if I'm commenting in a direction that has already been thoroughly explored. Clarityfiend and Bkonrad, I'm finding it hard to understand why you're removing for example Kievan Rus' and Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia: both articles support the historic use of the term "Russia" for their respective topics, and so pass the guidelines (either MOS:DABSYN or MOS:DABMENTION, your pick). Of course their inclusion here isn't making any claims about contemporary geopolitics: the section is clearly marked as referring to historical states. These two were also among the top four entries by number of clicks for last month [1], so prima facie the topics appear to be sought by readers. – Uanfala (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I suppose Kievan Rus' is acceptable for the Latin name. I'm a bit more dubious about Galicia-Volhynia. There's a very busy map whose caption claims it's called Russia, but all I can see is a region labeled "Russia Alba" and something further east called "Russi". And I'm on the fence about "Rex Russiae". Translations don't generally merit inclusion in dab pages, in my experience, though that's a bit hit and miss. Also, does it mean "King of Russia" or "King of the Russians"? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Possibly can include Russia as a Latin designation for lands of Rus' but that's it. Mellk (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vandalism: The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.

You yourself as well as Bkonrad admitted to violation of wikipedia rules just because you didn't want to check sources provided by me. The only ones wasting their time here are both of you. In case you don't wish to spend time to look into the sources, why spend so much time on this topic? I mean should we go again one by one about each entry? I mean you just agreed to keep Kievan Rus and you have doubts about Galicia-Volhynia. What about voivodeship? You can't "waste your time" to google "Russian voivodeship" or "Russia Leopolis"? As for the Lithuania-Russia, we both saw what happened during Roman Empire (disambiguation). Korwinski (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

After another quick glance at the contentious articles, it does appear like most of them had Ru(s)sia among the names they were known as at the time. But do these names occur in modern English without quotation marks or qualifications? If not, then when listing those entries, we'd need to be explicit about the contexts in which they were called Russia (was it only in Latin? was it only from a specific POV?, etc). It may also be worth considering Names of Rus', Russia and Ruthenia. That article, and especially the section #From Rus' to Russia, provide an extended overview of the history around those older uses of the name, and we may link to it either in addition to, or possibly instead of, listing each individual entity. – Uanfala (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I was about to suggest using for the historic states a reverse chronological order (more recent at the top): the further we go back in time, the less likely it seems that that would be what a reader wants when they search for unqualified Russia. It turns out, that was actually the order used through most of this page's history (example revision). – Uanfala (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I've restored what was arguably the last stable version of that section [2]: this appears to have existed more or less unchanged for years until the additions from February 2021 [3], and the edit wars of the last six months. Maybe we could start from here and decide piece by piece what we're going to add and remove? – Uanfala (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Uanfala Sorry, I was away. My city was bombed. Didn’t have time to reply or continue with my request to administrators to block two violators of Wikipedia vandalism rules. I will leave latter one for later just to show my good will third time in a row, and frankly due to current situation I won’t be able to actively participate in that discussion.

As for your notes. In short thank you for taking the time, but no. “Quick glance” and “maybe we could start” are basically worthless suggestions that will lead nowhere and this disambig page will remain unchanged and incorrect for years. In case you need more explicit notes, here they are:

A) “we'd need to be explicit about the contexts”. Is current page explicit? No. You might say Wikipedia:Be bold. But it doesn’t work in case there’re guys violating Wikipedia rules and undoing all changes. And after all the discussions, requests and sources provided from my side alone there’s a 3rd party that comes in with a “lets start it over again” and basically does nothing.

B) You can extend mentioned articles, but I don’t see how that relates to this disambig page.

C) I don’t think ”reverse chronological order” is the best way to go. There was a Kievan Rus’, then it was split in multiple Russias that most sources categorise as Western (or Lithuanian) and Eastern (or Novgorod, Pskov and Muscovian), and then Eastern proclaimed itself All-Russia and started to unite all other Russias under its rule. My categorisation was easy to read and navigate. Current one:

1. Excludes all Western Russias and includes only Eastern and All-Russias

2. It just doesn’t look good or readable compared to prior version

D) “I've restored what was arguably the last stable version”. No, you restored prior unconsensused version. So far I:

1. Provided required sources

2. Provided required sources that match only “Russia” reference.

3. Provided required sources that match only “Russia” and were published in past 150 years

4. Submitted request to dismabig administrator discussion page as requested above to see if my edits violate Wiki rules. No objection

5. Took part in admin request submitted by one of the guys above. As you might’ve guessed, no resolution that I was doing something wrong there.

So far other party:

1. Provided 0 (ZERO) sources to support their claim or to dismiss my sources

2. Started admin request regarding my actions that led nowhere

3. Ignored my requests to read my sources and arguments

4. Started Edit war any time they could

So overall that is a de facto established consensus. Now you may side with these two guys that say that there isn’t one. But lets just go over the facts. They ignore me. They ignore you (no response to your statement for almost 2 weeks now). They ignore their own rules. Their claim was based on me violating ”partial match rule”, but:

1. I provided sources that all but Russia-Lithuania can and were references in English sources as just Russia. And even though they’ve admitted that “some” may be fit to remain on the page, they still undid all the entries. And NEVER took any time to check sources and actually keep any of them.

2. Current page includes “Rus Khaganate” and “Novgorodian Rus”. I myself have never seen these two referenced as just “Russia”. But these entries are not about Western Russia and were not added by me, so they are fine by it. Also “Russia! magazine”, “Team Russia” etc. Can I see sources that they can be referenced as just “Russia”? Again, I don’t mind that they are there. But my own edits they undid on the very same pretences.

3. Considering that this page is not very popular while Roman Empire disambig page is, I pointed it out as an example for this page where they had similar situation. Now there was a discussion that sided with my approach for such pages. 0 (ZERO) people agreed with Clarityfiend. Obvious consensus for that page? Ahahah. No. They ignored it as example. And then as cowards they waited out a bit thinking that no one would notice and started "partial match" BS again leaving only states that Clarityfiend decided for himself that can be called "Roman Empire". Even though that half of them obviously should be removed if we stick to the rules that these two are try to imply in this case.

I've submitted a request to the admin notice page to see about these two users breach of multiple Wikipedia rules, but looks like I will need to re-submit it when I will have more time. I hope you will spend more time on this issue before that to see how disruptive these two editors position is. Korwinski (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Stay safe, Korwinski! The last two months have shown us that there are much, much worse things that could happen than bitter disagreements on Wikipedia. I'm grateful that you've still managed to find the time to continue this discussion even in those dire circumstances.

I've had a look at the sources you've provided and I've put together the following subsection, where individual enries can be discussed. – Uanfala (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Individual historic states

Galicia–Volhynia

The article Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia supports the usage of "Rus(s)ia" for the place at the time, so this entry should be added back. – Uanfala (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Lithuania

I've had a look at the references given in this previous revision and the ones presented at the start of this thread above.

The cited passage (p. 105) from Plokhy's Unmaking Imperial Russia [4] refers (not in Plokhy's own words, but in citations of early 20th-century historians, esp. Matvei Lyubavski) to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as "Lithuanian Rus", "Lithuan Russian State" and "Western Rus", but not as just "Russia". Similarly, Rambaud's book on p. 238 [5] uses only "Lithuanian Russia", while reserving the term "Russia" for Muscovy. On p. 186 of History of Pagan Europe [6], the phrase used is again only "Lithuanin Russia". Page 164 of Dawisha cited earlier in the thread [7] is actually in a paper by Prazauskas (Dawisha is only the series editor). It doesn't refer to the Grand Duchy as "Russia", but merely describes it as being regarded by early 20th-century Russian historians as a Lithuanian-Russian state.

So far there's no reference for the unqualified "Russia" being used to refer to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Unless such a source is found, we only have the phrase "Lithuanian Russia", which is a partial title match (WP:PTM). PTMs, if at all included on a dab page, would normally go in the "See also" section (MOS:DABSEEALSO). Still, I can see an argument being made to the effect that this topic is sufficiently similar to the group of topics listed in the main body of the dab page and that it may be best for reader navigation if it's placed under the same heading. So, if someone adds an entry for Lithuania, I won't object (as long as it's made clear what Russia-related name it's known under). – Uanfala (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Muscovy

Grand Duchy of Moscow supports the usage, and so does, among others, the Rambaud passage cited in "Lithuania" above. – Uanfala (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Novgorod

No mention in the aricle Novgorod Republic. – Uanfala (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Rus' Khaganate

The article Rus' Khaganate doesn't seem to have any supporting mention. – Uanfala (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Ruthenian Voivodeship

The only thing that I can see in the article Ruthenian Voivodeship is the Latin name Palatinatus russiae, which may suggest that the name "Russia" may have been used, but ideally we'd need something a bit more definitive. – Uanfala (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)