Talk:Russians/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

"warmth, sincerity, high intelligence, pride"

"Russians are characterized by warmth, sincerity, high intelligence, pride, and poor self-esteem" -- Woa, The Russians sound so beautiful and artistic. --Menchi 12:53, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

are characterized. Noone says that it must be true. Nikola 07:30, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Minorities in China

It's pretty weird that the page on Russians is part of the Ethnic minorities in China series. Or was part of it - somebody with the IP address 210.240.188.81 just rewrote completely in some not-so-good English: apoivre 00:50, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

That was I. I just corrected some of the typos I made in the first run as well.

I restored the Chinese part. olivier 19:28, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

Russian vs Rossiyanin

QUOTE Note: sometimes the term Russian is used to refer to any citizen of Russia. In the Russian language there are two separate words, one for an ethnic Russian and one for a person of any ethnicity that holds a Russian citizenship UNQUOTE

This is not true. There is no clear difference between statehood and ethnic belonging in modern Russian language. Русский - Russki or Russkij (sometimes used as substitute for Velikoross - see below) and Российский Rossijski (mainly pertaining to the State) are interchangeable terms.

The term Великоросс - Velikoross (Great Russian) pertaining to ethnicity or to the descendants of the population of greater Novgorodian and Muscovite duchies and their vassal states has been suppressed by the Soviets in the 1920s and 1930s (since the term supposedly belittled other people) and is not generally used.

Russkij and Rossijskij are adjectives. What he was talking about was Russkij/Rossijanin apoivre 13:06, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

210.240.188.81 changed former Soviet republics to the near abroad stating that it is not the same (see his comment in the ppage history). I am reverting it back - first of all, because near abroad doesn't sound very English and anyway the Russian phrase only applies to the ex-USSR republics. Russia does border on a few countries which were not in the USSR but nowhere do ethnic Russians constitute a sizeable minority, possibly apart from the USA (which falls into North America and is thus covered in the article): PDRK, China, Mongolia, Poland, Finland and Norway. apoivre 13:06, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the term near abroad. You can google for it and find a number of articles, in English, which use the expression. But, if someone doesn’t like it, I’m not going to insist on using it. However, I am going to change, former Soviet republics to neighboring countries. It’s not clear to all readers, which countries were former Soviet republics and there are a significant number of Russians that live in other neighboring countries.

To the readers above, there is a clear difference between Russkij and Rossijanin. Russkij refers only to ethnic Russians, Rossijanin refers collectively to all citizens of Russia.

The difference is rather political. "Rossijanin" is a recently invented politically correct term for denoting citizens of Russia. However, "Russkij" is still used in both sences of ethnicity and of citizenship. And also for denoting citizenship, "Russkij" is more widely used than "Rossijanin". [[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 08:12, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rossijanin dates at least from the eighteenth century in the present meaning of subject -- or citizen -- of the Russian state. Lomonosov and Karamzin use it in that meaning. A. Shetsen 05:24, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree, I was not aware about use of this word by Lomonosov and Karamzin (and Pushkin), but thinking a bit, I found that "revived" maybe is a bit misleading word, because it wasn't used as official denoting of Russian citizens. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 06:28, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• From the "ОСНОВНЫЕ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫЕ ЗАКОНЫ РОССИЙСКОЙ ИМПЕРИИ", (Fundamental laws of the Russian Empire" 1, 1906:

"29. Российские подданные обязаны платить установленные законом налоги и пошлины, а также отбывать повинности согласно постановлениям закона."

• From Karamzin's treatment of the treaty between Kievan Rus and the Byzantine Empire, 907 AD

"Если подозрение Олегво, как говорит Нестор, было справедливо: то не Россиян, а Греков должно назвать истинными варварами Х века. Победитель требовал 12 гривен на каждого человека во флоте своем, и Греки согласились с тем условием, чтобы он, прекратив неприятельские действия, мирно возвратился в отечество. Войско Российское отступило далее от города, и Князь отправил Послов к Императору. Летопись сохранила Норманские имена сих вельмож: Карла, Фарлафа, Веремида, Рулава, Стемида. Они заключили с Константинополем следующий договор [в 907 г.]:

I. "Греки дают по 12 гривен на человека, сверх того уклады на города Киев, Чернигов, Переяславль, Полтеск, Ростов, Любеч и другие, где властвуют Князья, Олеговы подданные". Война была в сии времена народным промыслом: Олег, соблюдая обычай Скандинавов и всех народов Германских, долженствовал разделить свою добычу с воинами и Полководцами, не забывая и тех, которые оставались в России.

II. "Послы, отправляемые Князем Русским в Царьград, будут там всем довольствованы из казны Императорской. Русским гостям или торговым людям, которые приедут в Грецию, Император обязан на шесть месяцев давать хлеба, вина, мяса, рыбы и плодов; они имеют также свободный вход в народные бани и получают на возвратный путь съестные припасы, якоря, снасти, паруса и все нужное".

Греки с своей стороны предложили такие условия: "1. Россияне, которые будут в Константинополе не для торговли, не имеют права требовать месячного содержания. - II. Да запретит Князь Послам своим..."

I think the bolded words, especially the last one in bold italics, prove my point that the words were used in its "politically correct modern meaning": the adjective by 1906, the noun as far back as c. 1800, when Karamzin was writing his history. Keep in mind that the Primary Chronicle, which Karamzin was examining in the now-burned Trinity Codex, distinguishes between the tribes under control of Kievan Rus at the time (Hypatian Codex, c. 1425):

• І се суть инии языцЂ, иже дань дають Руси: Чюдь, Весь, Меря, Мурома, Черемись, Мордва, ПЂрмь, Печера, Ямь, Литва, ЗимЂгола, Корсь, Норома, Либь; си суть свой языкъ имуще, отъ колЂна Афетова, иже живуть на странахъ полунощныхъ.

The word Rossiyanin used in the discussion of a treaty between sovereign states can, I think have only the connotation of "subject" or "citizen". Karamzin wrote in c. 1800. I can see the objection: a "subject" is not a "citizen". Hmmm. Really, now! Are you convinced? I am! A. Shetsen 17:05, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Plainly amazing. I'd be extremely gratefull for a link to something (modern) that refers to etnicity "Rossiyanin". This discussion is completely retarded and pointless. "Russkiy" refers to ethnicity (национальность), while "Rossiyanin" - to nationality (гражданство). Maybe that was a mistake (национальность - nationality have absolutely different meaning).

I'm russian and here's what I say. There is difference between русский(russkij) and rossijanin(россиянин). The first means "one of russian nationality(национальности)" and the second "one of russian citizenship". And these ain't adjectives now. Adjectives also, but now they are nouns, there are some nouns in russian language that like adjectives and stressed like adjectives but they are nouns. -Andrei-

Sorry, nationality means in english "гражданство". I meant this word in russian. Ethnicity of course.

About writers. Traditionally writers (of any ethnicity) that worked on Russian territory desribed as such:

• Русский писатель - pre-1917
• Советский писатель - post-1917, pre-1991
• Российский писатель - post-1991--Nixer 15:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Alaskan Russians

It's a pity that they are not even mentioned. They have been living in Alaska for more than 150 years.

Russian-dominated Transnistria

Russian-dominated Transnistria separatist region

According to the last census, Transnistria has no Russian majority and they are only the third ethnic group, after Romanians and Ukrainians. They surely dominate the politics of Transnistria, but, the affirmation is not very clear. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 08:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Ideological motivation + Australia

I removed some of your edits back to my old version. Russians who migrated to the Baltics were not "ideologically motivated" or anymore loyal to the Soviet Union than Latvians were. Most were simple people who migrated to the region because of economic benefits, for example they were given jobs and/or housing there. In many cases Russians filled the jobs (factory workers etc.) which the locals were less willing to do. You nationalist propaganda aside, it was the Soviet KGB (with both ethnic Latvians and ethnic Russian members) who were killing/deporting ethnic Latvians (as well as ethnic Russians) in the Baltics, not Russian immigrants who settled there. I have also added Australia back to the list of countries with Russian communities; Russians immigrants in USA, Canada,Germany etc. are already mentioned in population section under North America and Western Europe respectively. (Fisenko 20:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC))

Actually, I'm not a "nationalist," I have no ethnic roots in either Russia or the Baltics, and you should avoid making accusations like these.

The original text made a declarative statement along the lines that "ethnic Russians were singled out," which (whether you believe it to be true or not) is not NPOV. You have to qualify a statement like that, and if there is a controversy, you have to provide both sides, which I hoped to do by adding some historical and present-day context, the position held by some of the governments, the concerns expressed by the CE/EU, and the opposing view. If you think some of this was mis-stated or lacked substance, or missed something out, fine, edit it, and add detail to it. But the point of Wikipedia is to provide balanced coverage of issues, not to advance one viewpoint and delete anything that disagrees with it. --ProhibitOnions 00:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above user. I am on the record of opposing russophobia many times in Wikipedia but for the sake of neutrality and encyclopedicity the position of Baltic governments on how they respond to the discrimination charges should be given. Also, a word or two should be said about the merit of their arguments but not from the POV of WP editors, but from POV of serious publications, European Council and Strasbourg court decisions (there were a couple) and publications in reputable papers. The details should indeed go to the Baltic Russians article. Irpen 16:32, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Church attendence + the Baltic states

Church attendance: Russia is one of the few European countries with rapidly growing church attendance in contrast to much of Western Europe were religious attendance is in decline.

Former Communist countries including Russia are experiencing a rather dramatic revival of Christianity nowadays; I seriously doubt any surveys that say the opposite based on my personal experience (I visit Russia regularly).

About the Baltics: the language exams are far from being "basic". They are rather complex examinations that include knowledge about national constitutions, history etc. Most native-speakers without secondary education have little chance of passing these kinds of exams. Elderly Russian-speakers or Russians from low-income families with little education have almost ZERO chances of passing them. Compared to standard citizenship exams in let's say Canada or Australia these exams are extremely difficult. That's aside from the fact that nowhere else people who were born and grew up in certain countries are never required to write citizenship exams (regardless of historical reasoning). This practice would be called nothing but discrimination anywhere else. In any case such lengthy paragraph on the Baltic is hardly relevant in the article on ethnic Russians, you should add your comments to "Baltic Russians" article instead.(Fisenko 06:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC))

Religion

We are talking here about religious believes of ethnic Russians not religion in Russia. There are virtually no ethnic Russians who are Buddhists, Judaists, or Muslims.

Also very few Russian describe themselves as agnostic or atheists. Most Russians desribe themselves as Orthodox. (Fisenko 16:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC))

This is an interesting assertion, even if you include those Russians who might feel themselves to be "culturally Orthodox" but don't actually believe in the religion.

I said that "many" Russians regard themselves as atheists, agnostics, or other non-religious; I regard this as an uncontroversial statement. (In my experience, I'd say about a third of them do.) There have been a number of studies done on the subject, for example [[1]], which suggests that the level of religious belief in Russia is around 40 percent. Again, even if this study is off by a significant margin, it's clear that "many" Russians regard themselves as non-religious, as is the case in most European countries.

As far as the other religions go, I simply added a clarification, which you can delete if you feel it to be superfluous; however, many Russian Jews I have talked to consider themselves to be ethnic Russians, as do some Buddhists (such as in the Rostov na Donu region) and, possibly, a few Muslims. As the later passage in the article asserts that the absorption of eastern ethnicities is one of the notable features of the Russian ethnicity, and that the Russian government itself has stated that these religions are "essentially Russian," I felt the clarification to be germane.

Please note that the removal of a sentence is not a minor edit.

user:ProhibitOnions

Population count

Please confirm the anon's change in numbers in the following edit:

16:01, 4 July 2005 83.138.50.146 (→Population)

mikka (t) 4 July 2005 23:36 (UTC)

Mr. 65.9.114.141 if you insist what changes you recently made to this page are "facts" please provide your references (links to respectable academic studies etc.) before you make any changes to the page. Numbers I posted on this page have been taken from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html and http://www.perepis2002.ru/content.html?id=11&docid=10715289081463 for example. Fisenko 03:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

http://www.iea.ras.ru/topic/census/doc/tishkov2002-2.htm

Clearly you have not read what I changed, for then you would know that there are no population statistics for my numbers; they are estimations. In a mid-20th century Chinese census, the population of Chinese living in China was overestimated by almost 1/3. Why? - corrupt government - As you can see from this, census estimations are not always accurate. The Russian census doesn't take into account the difference between a Russian-speaking minority and a Russian-speaking Russian unless explicitly stated through Federal Republic semi-censuses and the like. Greece claims Greece is 98% Greek; yet we know it does this because it does not recognize most ethnic minorities. If we want genuine numbers for an encyclopedia like this, then we should probably trust older Russian censuses more than todays, when politics were less liberal. If my memory serves me right, almost a century ago the main Republic of Russia was only 65% or so Russian (I can confirm this later). If the 80% number is true than that would be a 20% increase (during a time when immigration and emigration was illegal); sorry -- doesn't make sense to me.

What Republic of Russia a century ago ? In 1905 Russia was still an Empire. Obviously a century ago territory of modern-day Russia was more ethnically Russian than today, ever since 1950s/60s ethnic Russian birthrate was declining while some non-Russian especially Muslim minorities experienced rapid growth. For any encyclopedia only official academic information is used. It is no place for arguments about what percentage of ethnic Russians is "pure" and who can be considered an ethnic Russian. (Personally I would say any one who a) identifies himself as a Russian b)has a Russian cultural heritage (language, religion etc.) and c) (this is a very debatable/contested argument) has some Slavic ansectry/"blood"). Obviously by "population of Russia" in the article it only refers to citizens of Russia, nobody ever counted illegal immigrants. Also nobody denies that there are many people with mixed ethnic backgrounds in Russia, however, there are no such academic terms as "part Russian" or "part whoever" in any demographical study, in any nation (in this case it is up to an individual to identify or not himself as a Russian).

PS: Numbers you keep writing in the article are not mentioned in your reference (http://www.iea.ras.ru/topic/census/doc/tishkov2002-2.htm). Fisenko 07:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Population count + 68.215.119.68 changes

68.215.119.68 please discuss it on talk page before you make any changes to the article , otherwise a complaint to Wikipedia administration will be submitted against you. Your reference : http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=IBR20050106&articleId=375 is an article from Kavkaz Center - a Chechen terrorist mouthpiece, which is unlikely a credible source for an academic article about ethnic Russians. All my numbers are official estimates from a variety of sources (Russian government, CIA, United Nations etc.) in regards to ethnic Russians. Fisenko 20:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

There are other sources, they are just difficult to find; and it is likely that any I throw out you will find a "problem" with. Some minor calculations from a 1920 census to todays can prove that the Russian population could NOT have skyrocketed as much as it did. Why don't we put both statistics on the page. See if you agree with what I do.

This is not a debate forum about the Russian population numbers. Rules of Wikipedia are clear, preference is always given to more known academic and official figures. I would be happy to see your arguments and references here, before you make any changes to the article. To start please provide a reference to your "1920 census" ( I was not aware there was a population census during the Russian Civil War when different parts of Russia were under various hostile governments).

PS Just curious, why don't you like the phrase "neighboring countries" ?? Fisenko 20:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

1920 is just an example; it can be 1930/1910 whatever. I changed neighboring to bordering because then my statistic about there being 14-15 million is correct. At least put a "this article is disputed" label at the top if you don't wish to present both sides of the population debate.

What both sides of the debate ? The side of Said Ibrahayev from Kavkaz Center+ Anonymous with IP 68.215.119.68 against any official statistic on the other side? You haven't presented a single credible source to prove your estimates. "whatever" is not an academic argument, before making any changes provide date, year, publication etc. for any census you are refering to. Fisenko 21:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Kazakhs, Tatars, Siberian peoples, Caucasians, and displaced Soviet groups who register as Russian SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED as Russian. Easily said and done. I myself am a Russian and see no need for blatant Russian nationalism on this encyclopedia.

I do not see a need for a blatant racism either. If a person registered himself as Russian (ethnic) in a census, he is russian. Times of ethhnic purity are long gone in these time of pupulation mobility and ethnic mixing. mikka (t) 17:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Religious views

Maybe "many" is not the best word to use for a number of Russians who have atheist/agnostic views, but "some" is even more misleading implying that such number is rather small. The fact is that these views are significantly widespread and even many of those who consider themselves "orthodox" have an agnostic attitude toward religion or view being orthodox as part of their Russian heritage and tradition rather than religious beliefs. Yes, I know that such views towards religion are common among other western nations but I think saying "predominantly orthodox" creates a rather misleading picture. It is correct to say that Orthodox Cristianity is a dominant religion, of course, but is not the same as to say that Russians are predominantly Orthodox. I would love to see some unbiased research on this, but in the meanwhile we should come up with less implying phrasing, I think. --Irpen 19:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You can change it any way you want, I was reverting anonymous edits and edited yours by mistake. However, the info about many people being only culturally Orthodox and church-attendence being low already mentioned in the article's "Religion" section. The only number I ever read about religious attitude in Russia was something like 75 % consider themselves Orthodox (were baptized, celebrate religious holydays like Easter etc.) , while only 10-15 % attend Chuch service regularly. To say something like "many Russians have atheistic beliefs due to many years of Communism" would imply situation in Russia is radically different from the rest of Europe...which is not the case anymore, even in such centeres of Catholicism in the past like Spain and Italy church attendence (esp. among the young) is dismal nowdays.

PS Do you like my picture ? :) I got the idea from Serbs and Bulgarians article ... Fisenko 19:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I like the picture very much! We should clarify the CP status of Sharapova's pic sometime though. As for the rest, I entirely agree with everything you said. I find it hard to believe, though, that 10-15 % of Russians attend church regularly, but it may be me, who's mistaken here. I will change "some" by "many" in the table and we'll see to find some more exact statistics and analysis. Just plain statistics may be not enough though. See, the last paragraph of Ukrainian_language#Independence_in_the_modern_era for an example of possibly misleading statistics. --Irpen 21:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Deleted section

Very funny. Laptyom shchi hlebat... mikka (t) 02:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Russian Warriors

Although Russia has been involved in many international conflicts and wars during its tenure hear on the Earth, it has been one of the least sucessful countries in wining major conflicts and battles. Russia has lost more soldiers in battles than any other country since the foundation of war (smaller countries and past empires numbers are adjusted to represent figures in 2005). Most of these casualties have to do with the Russians lack of knowledge on how to properly fight battles and conflicts. Soldiers, at least in wars past, were often send to the front lines without any training, supplies or even weapons. They were generally sent to the line without weaponry or armourment, only to find that they were going against a highly trained, heavily reinforced, and heavily armoured enemy. It is well documented that soldiers trying to retreat or failing to obey orders by their superiors were shot on site. Recent research is beginning to emerge that shows that almost 53.5% of all Russian casualties in wartime or conflict were caused by another Russian.

Sad but true. History doesn't lie--Gephart 03:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

But those who tell it do. mikka (t) 02:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

See this link. Should be add it to talk:Russophobia? :) --Irpen 02:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It is generally advisable to take what is shown by Hollywood with a grain of salt. Kazak 00:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Russian ethnical makeup

Here is a nice article abouth the genetical makeup of Russians, maybe someone would like to transfer some of the facts from it into the main article