Talk:Russia/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 19

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2022

Check the Holidays section, and you'll see there are a few sentences repeated twice. Please remove it. Thesickreservoir (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done I've removed a couple of repeated holidays, thanks. Mellk (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mellk: A sentence about the Russian government's oppression over Jehovah's Witnesses have been also repeated twice, once in the Human rights and corruption section, second time in the Religion section. I think it belongs better within the latter, and the first mention in the human rights section should be removed. Thesickreservoir (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, I've moved that to the religion section and changed the wording slightly so to avoid repetition. Mellk (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mellk: There is another repetition. I think the lead should just stick to simply mentioning that Russia is a country, not a "transcontinental" country. That is mentioned in the geography section, with justified explanation. Thesickreservoir (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this one as there are other country articles that have "transcontinental country" there. I'll see what other editors think about that one. Mellk (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mellk:: Alright. But there is a very simple grammatical mistake in the lead's third and final para. It is written that "Russia is a great power and potential superpower" - there should be another "a" before the word potential superpower. And in the lead's second para's last sentence, it is written "Since the turn of the century" - it should be specified which century it is - the 21st. Thesickreservoir (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Thesickreservoir: I have changed "since the turn of the century" to "since then", as 2000 is already mentioned. Is that OK now? Thanks. Mellk (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I rephrased it slightly, let me know if this is better, thanks. Mellk (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mellk: All good, thanks for the fixes. Thesickreservoir (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mellk:: In the Putin era section, very little is written about Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. I believe it needs a bit more expansion, about the scenarios that led to its opening. How about we also add the fact that it is the biggest European conventional war in the aftermath of WW2? That's an important info. The fact that Putin's regime and Russia faced global condemnation, and about the massive Western sanction that have already put the economy in turmoil, also need to be stated. Thesickreservoir (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Thesickreservoir: I've done some expansion there. Mellk (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2022

Russia should be described as a partly developed country rather than a "great power" (Danziger, James M. and Lindsey Lupo. 2020. Understanding the Political World. Pearson). 2600:8803:F308:2000:74E7:487A:172B:5E5D (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Russia has been a great power since centuries, since the times of Peter the Great. Thesickreservoir (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• No change: It might be helpful to all readers and editors if the well-known, long-established term great power were wikilinked to our article about that. It is also worth noting that, regardless of its economic development, Russia is both a nuclear state and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. If Russia were not a great power, there would be no worldwide outrage now about a squabble between two minor powers. The textbook definition is irrelevant. There is nothing to debate here.Textorus (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2022 (2)

Could the large conflict template be removed, and a notice be put instead, as done in Ukraine? The template is too huge and disrupts the lead. Thesickreservoir (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Have removed header - will leave someone else to add whatever notice you or they think suitable. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Religion

Moxy, can you please explain why you reverted my improvements to the section "religion" with the rationale "Omg revert mass image spam and mass charaddition..."? The reason for the first edit with the chart was added in this edit summary. Galleries of images are present in WP:GA articles, for example India#Visual art, and I think the gallery was useful for illustrating the religious plurality of Russia. Tables are already present in the article, see the table "Largest cities or towns in Russia" in "demographics". Then you deleted precise references to the Constitution and to academic publications by Bourdeaux, Fagan, Bennett, Borenstein and others.--Æo (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

During the GA review images were trimmed and charts fixed. No need for big giant chart sandwiching text when the information is already WP:Prose that is the prefered format. As for random section image spam pls see [[ Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Galleries. as for India please see its talk page.... images is an accessibility concern...tlaks are on going... with discussion of downgrading the article.Moxy- 21:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

That's fine, then I will restore the prose text without the table of statistics and without the gallery, but with just with two images. I copy the gallery hereunder so that other users who could be interested in the choice of pictures see it.--Æo (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The gallery under discussion showing the plurality of religions in Russia:

• 
  Saint Basil's Cathedral, Moscow
• 
  Moscow Cathedral Mosque
• Tengrist temple Dom Archy in Yakutsk, Yakutia
  Tengrist temple Dom Archy in Yakutsk, Yakutia
• 
  Atsaysky datsan (Buddhist monastery) in Buryatia
• 
  Stupas of Shad Tchup Ling, a Slavic Buddhist monastery in Kachkanar, Sverdlovsk Oblast
• 
  Rodnover fire ritual at the Temple of Svarozhich's Fire of the Union of Slavic Native Belief Communities, in Krasotinka, Kaluga Oblast
• 
  View of some buildings of Korenskiye Rodniki ("Root Springs"), an Anastasian ancestral settlement in the Shebekinsky District, Belgorod Oblast
• 
  Tuvan shamaness Ai-Churek ("Moon Heart") performing a fire rite in Kyzyl, Tuva
• 
  Russian Hindus celebrating Ratha Yatra in Moscow Oblast
• 
  Syncretic Temple of All Religions in Kazan, Tatarstan

Best not overwhelm one section with imagery trying to give the impression that there is freedom of religion. Should instead add info of its suppression [1].Moxy- 22:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I have added the information about the Jehovah's Witnesses discussed at the page that you have linked. I have supported the information with the following academic study: Knox 2019.--Æo (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The new report 2020 Report on International Religious Freedom: Russia.Moxy- 22:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Æo: Why is there a picture of the Moscow Cathedral Mosque in the gallery? It is a new mosque, built in 2015, and besides.. Muslims make up some 6-12% of Russia's total population. So i found it a little gimmicky. I think there should be only one image, that of the St. Basils, with a caption mentioning it as one of Russia's most popular landmarks like before your changes - or that of a church that represents the Russian Orthodox Church, like the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour. The prose' second para could get a trim, specifically the "other religions part" - as they are too negligible to even mention. Thesickreservoir (talk) 07:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Thesickreservoir: Russia is an immense country encompassing many populations with many religions. The part which is predominantly Orthodox is Western Russia, while in other regions there are big populations, even majorities in some territories, of Muslims, Buddhists and Pagans/shamans. If one thoroughly studies academic sources on the topic, they found that "other religions" are not so negligible; so it is important to mention them in at least a short paragraph. As for the photos, I think that, given that a bigger gallery is not acceptable per style standards, the section should contain at least two pictures, representing respectively the largest and the second-largest religion.--Æo (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Æo: I still don't think there is a need for so many images, when the prose is so large. Just one could have been enough. Almost the entirety of Russia's Muslim population, by the way, also resides in western Russia; namely across some parts of the Volga and the North Caucasus. Buddhists form a very small population; and are mainly found across Kalmykia, and some other republics. I do believe the fact that Kalmykia is the only Buddhist-majority area in Europe needs a mention. Siberia, although sparse, is demographically dominated by ethnic Russians... most of whom are either Christian or non believers.

And Pagans and Hindus?...how many of them are there? A few thousand at best. That's a very small community. The entirety of the Hindu community is made out of some converts. I don't think they need a mention here. There is an article for that. The section has become pretty bloated now. Christians overall dominate Russia, and a large portion of the population is Atheist. The biggest and the sole largely notable religious community after Christians are Muslims. Religion, as a whole, is in decline in Russia. Besides, check the religion section in India, they have a ton of religions there; but I don't see any type of image spam. Thesickreservoir (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Thesickreservoir: I can agree that there is no need of filling the section with pictures, and as it is discouraged by style standards for country articles I have not re-added the entire gallery. I can also accept to reduce the illustration to a single picture: the most iconic church in Russia which is St. Basil. However, I think that the text of the section should be informative, and I don't see any problem in mentioning the regions where Islam and Buddhism are significant and all the "biggest minority" religions in a single line, as it is now. Regarding Paganism and ethnic religions, according to the Arena Atlas 2012 they are more than Buddhists and form a significant part of the population in Yakutia, Altai Republic and North Ossetia-Alania; Beskov 2020 also makes clear that many of those Russians who call themselves "Orthodox" are actually Pagans (as they have reappropriated the term from Christianity, to put it briefly), so I think that mentioning these religious movements in a line is fully due.--Æo (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Æo: You might want to change this source. Its unreliable. ---> Thesickreservoir (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Thesickreservoir: Yes, I am going to remove it. Despite being a rather complete resource about religions in Russia and their organisations, it seems that Popov 2016 has never been actually published.--Æo (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Update religious demographics with 2019 data

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/RUSSIA-2019-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf

RUSSIA 2019 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT

As of 2019:

65 percent of the population is Orthodox Christian

7 percent identify as Muslim

Religious groups constituting approximately 1 percent or less of the population each include Buddhists, Protestants, Roman Catholics, Jews, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Church of Jesus Christ), Jehovah’s Witnesses, Hindus, Baha’is, members of the International Society of Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), pagans, Tengrists, Scientologists, and Falun Gong practitioners. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The statistics on Orthodox Christian are pegged at 66% by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM) in 2021.

https://wciom.ru/analytical-reviews/analiticheskii-obzor/velikii-post-2021/ Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The user "Solidarityandfreedom" has been banned. Apologies: I misread the block tag on the user's contributions' page. However, I want to underline that there is no better analysis about religions in Russia than the Arena Atlas 2012 realised by Sreda in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice as an adjunct to the 2010 census. This was discussed at length on various occasions here. The methodology was census-like, with face-to-face interviews of 60.000 persons from each region of Russia. No other survey, whether from Western or Russian research institutions, has ever matched the quality of the Sreda Arena Atlas. Data from the American Pew Research Center or the Russian VCIOM are drawn from small-sample telephone interviews of around one thousand people, often concentrated in Western Russia and urban centres.--Æo (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I have not been banned?

Also I know this might be really good data. But the fact is, is it’s extremely outdated and often data becomes inaccurate after such a period 10-12 year old. Solidarityandfreedom (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for having said that you had been banned. I read hastily the following tag in your contributions' page: 01:45, 21 January 2022 Cullen328 talk contribs blocked Solidarityandfreedom talk contribs from the page American Solidarity Party with an expiration time of indefinite (Using Wikipedia for promotion or advertising purposes: Disruptive editing, misleading edit summaries, extreme over-reliance on primary sources, POV pushing). I didn't catch immediately that you have been blocked indefinitely on one page only, I thought on the entire Wikipedia.

Regarding the 2012 data, I don't think that they are old. Cultural factors like religion don't change so swiftly to transform the face of a country in just a decade. In many countries of Europe there is indeed a swift transformation taking place, with a decline of Christianity of 1% per year, 10% per ten years, but Eastern Europe seems to be more stable, see for example religion in Czechia, where census statistics indicate that the change over the last 10 years has not been drastic.--Æo (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2022

Replace "Crimea admitted" with "Crimea annexed" under history section. This is a more accurate portrayal of the theft and unilateral annexation of sovereign Ukranian territory in 2014. 207.153.22.11 (talk) 10:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done presuming you mean in the infobox, the body of the history section already writes annexed Cannolis (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Government type

@Mellk: A republic is a democratic form of government, and Russia does hold elections. Although I fail to see what this has to do with sources calling Russia an autocracy. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tartan357: Republics can be hybrid/authoritarian though. While authoritarian, Russia has a semi-presidential system. This authoritarianism is already mentioned in the lead and politics section. Mellk (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not just authoritarianism. Of course republics can be authoritarian. Authoritarianism is a governance style that can be adopted by any type of government. We're talking about autocracy, which is a governance structure in which power is concentrated in the hands of one person. It is inaccurate to state it is a semi-presidential system without qualifying it with the fact that their elections are rigged and the de facto government type is an autocracy. This is verifiable many times over. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Simply, the head of state is not a monarch. Here in the infobox refers to the framework. Mellk (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Monarchy and autocracy are distinct concepts. I have not suggested Russia is a monarchy. And yes, the infobox does refer to the framework. That framework is top-down with Putin completely in control, and suggesting otherwise is a glaring omission. There are plenty of sources, and I can provide more if needed. What is the justification for going against the sources on the government type? The de facto structure is important and verifiable, and separated from the de jure structure by "under the". We shouldn't whitewash the reality, same reason Myanmar is referred to as "under a military junta" and Belarus is "under a dictatorship"—it's not a republic merely because the people in power say it is. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

This is is not what I meant. I meant where the head of state is not a monarch, there is a republic, in its simplest definition. And of course, Russia does not have a monarchy. How the infobox currently is does not contradict with those sources. Mellk (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

It is officially a republic, and in reality an autocracy. Both labels are well-sourced, and both should be included. No reason to tell only one side of the story. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

In reality, Russia is a semi-presidential republic. Even if Putin is an autocrat. Mellk (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

You need to look into de jure and de facto. Both are "real", both are important. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Can we please change the government entry in the infobox to "authoritarian military dictatorship"? Only that does right to the actual situation. In Russia, there is only one psychopathic, narcissistic man who has any actual power. Everything that Putin wants, happens, and nothing that Putin rejects, will proceed. By calling Russia a "Federal semi-presidential constitutional republic", we are following his propaganda. Call a spade a spade and a dictatorship a dictatorship, just like we do with North Korea! Steinbach (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I tried to call it an "autocracy", which is dominant in sources and should be pretty uncontroversial to add. But I was reverted. See the above discussion. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Describe it anyway ya'll wish. But remember, in terms of how much executive authority the president has. The Federal Assembly giveth, the Federal Assembly taketh away. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd say "authoritarian regime" or "illiberal democracy". tgeorgescu (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Easily sourced with academic publications. one source already there in lead [2] ...I have added text and relinked a few articles on the topic that mysteriously disappeared However in practice Russia under Vladimir Putin leadership has been described as a centralized authoritarian state,, occasionally referred to as Putinism..Moxy- 16:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2022

Change

"Moscow, the capital, is the largest city entirely within Europe, while Saint Petersburg is the country's second-largest city and cultural centre."

to

"The country's capital and largest city, Moscow, is also the largest city entirely within Europe. Saint Petersburg is Russia's cultural centre and second-largest city." Brretterr (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done thank you for the suggestion.Moxy- 04:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Hundreds of anti-war protesters arrested across Russia

Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/13/russia-ukraine-war-protesters-arrested

Please write exactly what you want changed and then change above "yes" to "no" Chidgk1 (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Changes

@Chidgk1: I saw you doing a few improvements in the article, so I thought I will help with the sources. I hope you will update them.

For Russia's military power, there are two reliable sources which state Russia still has the second-most powerful military, Business Insider and Newsweek.

For its tank fleet, navy, and air force being among the largest in the world, this source from TRT world could be used.

For Russia's status as a great power and a potential superpower, this book:

For Russia's status as a great power,

For Russia's forest reserves, I think the used source has become too old. So I would trim off the "Lungs of Europe" and Amazon part; and state how the forests of Russia sequester some of the world's highest amounts of carbon dioxide. As stated per these sources.

For Russia's oil and budget revenues and exports, the newest source I could find is one by BBC, published in 2021; which states the oil and gas sector accounted up to roughly 40% of Russia's federal budget revenues, and up to 60% of its exports in 2019.

I don't know why you challenged the CIA World Factbook source, it is well-reliable, and used throughout several country articles without any hesitation. I think it shouldn't be tagged just because it is "old" - Russia's governmental system hasn't changed since then anyway. Thesickreservoir (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Thesickreservoir: Sorry I am doing other stuff - very unlikely to do any more on this article apart for expressing a "still good" or "delist" opinion on the good article review if/when asked. If no other editors are interested in the above and you have time I suggest you update the more detailed articles such as Forestry in Russia and you will soon build up enough edits to get access here. Once the leads of the detailed articles are up to date and well written (and if this article gets demoted from "good" as excerpts maybe not good for GA articles) you might consider excerpting them to this article as I am considering for Ukraine. That way non-contentious parts could be easily edited by all in future. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mellk: Could you update the sources? Thesickreservoir (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Since no one showed interest, @Moxy: can you update the sources? Thesickreservoir (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Will look shortly..--17:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: Could you restore the sentence about Russia being a great power and a potential superpower in the lead? It got unjustly removed. This source could be used to back it, also in the foreign relations section.

In the military section, the sentence about Russia's ground force being the world's largest is a bit dubious, and could be replaced with the fact that it has the world's largest tank fleet, and the second-most powerful air force and navy.Thesickreservoir (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done... military section changes done....as for "great power and a potential superpower" not seeing these links as vital as little info on Russia there that is not already here. Moxy- 21:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: In the Post-Soviet Russia section, the sentence about terrorist attacks could be backed by this source, which mentions the exact number of deaths from the attacks.

In the Biodiversity section, the sentence about Russia's forest reserves could be replaced with this sentence "About half of Russia's territory is forested, and it has the world's largest forest reserves, which sequester some of the world's highest amounts of carbon dioxide.

In the literature and philosophy section, the sentence about Leninism and Trotskyism could be backed by these two sources, as the sentences are unsourced.

For Russia's status as the second-most powerful military, this "reliable" journal source: The sentence got tagged again. Thesickreservoir (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

fly by tagging with zero supporting sources and with guess work reasoning and not coming back to talk is disruptive to say the least. Have added another source. Wil look at rest in a bit.Moxy- 13:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: The issue in the literature and philosophy section got fixed, but a sentence in the Biodiversity section, and one in the Post-Soviet Russia section remain tagged; and can be backed by the sources above. And the military section got pretty much abused with mass tagging, by the same user. He seems to just put his opinion, and that's his only justification for the tagging.

Its clear-cut disruption. China is still behind Russia in military terms, almost all reliable sources say so. One thing I love about this guy is how he never helps with the issues, just tags a bunch of sentences and leaves. Then comes back to re-tagg them. What a lovely person. If someone has such an itch to go around mass-tagging sentences across an article, then he should also help by improving the latter. Or at least try to. That's how it works as far as I know. He's currently trying his best to get this article demoted. Because obviously, it got extended-protected, and not many people can edit now. Thesickreservoir (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Think they are just new to country articles thinking that all stats need to be from this month or somthing. Will take the time to look at the tags see how many are valid and what has newer info. Hoping not a plot to demote article in the long run...lots of anti Russan editing going on all over....but I dont think it is same problem over at Ukraine tags and addition of unsourced matirial.-Moxy- 16:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

thesickreservoir For Trotsky and Lenin I found a source by myself. Russia is not so much my preferred area to edit and I do not know the good scholars in the specific fields. But I know if a phrase on civilian casualties is unsourced, and the by you provided source for the military power of a currently (2022) raging war is of 2016, Wikipedia can do better. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: Huh? I don't know if you didn't notice or something... but I did suggest a source for the civilian casualties above, which, as I suggested, states the exact number of deaths from the attacks. I also tagged you at the GAR page referring to the same source. But you didn't respond. Whatever.

Also, here's a source from a few weeks ago, from CBC News; stating Russia is the world's second-most powerful military, behind the United States.

Thesickreservoir (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

OK will look at all this ...this weekend. Got to see if others that edit country are are okay with putting stats that don't represent the past 30 years. Article just past GA and ....thus as seen stats from 2018 and 2019 are fine. We are going to have a revert problem....when it comes to a few statement. ... don't forsee any reference for them being good enough for military position because it's not for this week. May need intervention in the near future.Moxy- 02:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2022

INFOBOX EDIT Change -
Officially:federal semi-presidential republic - Effectively: centralized authoritarian state.

To -
de jure: Federal semi-presidential republic
de facto: Centralized authoritarian state Blurengo (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: This seems like switching to "more proper" Latin terms for no particular reason other than it looks more academic. Although I may be in the minority here (and feel free to reopen), using the plain English wording is more clear and makes more sense. We want to be as clear as possible - we're an encyclopedia for general readers, not an academic journal or some other writing which requires incredibly precise terminology. casualdejekyll 18:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree best to use simple terms and not have a WP:Seaofblue..... the fact they have to be linked should indicate is not a normal term for all.Moxy- 20:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Isn't "centralized" redundant here next to authoritarian? Could just state it as an authoritarian republic. Mellk (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

All 6 sources emphasize "Centralized"..... best to simply regurgitate the sources.--Moxy- 03:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2022

A revision that was made previously messes with the readability of the page.

The line that reads:

"The city wais a major financial hub in Europe, and hds"

Needs to be changed back to it's original wording:

"The city is a major financial hub in Europe, and has".

I believe this was an unintentional mistake. 72.193.67.195 (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for some reason my cursor was jumping around - will fix now Chidgk1 (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2022

In the transport and energy section, after the sentence "among Russia's 1,218 airports, the busiest is Sheremetyevo International Airport in Moscow, which is the second-busiest airport in Europe." - there are two unnecessary brackets present for no reason whatsoever, they clearly have no goal. Thesickreservoir (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done CMD (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Pro-Russian Czars?

Under History, Imperial Russia, there is the following sentence: "However, upon Elizabeth's death, all these conquests were returned to the Kingdom of Prussia by pro-Prussian Peter III of Russia." It's rather expected that Peter II is pro-Russian. Should this read pro-Prussian? (Sorry if I didn't stick to editing rules, I am new here.)

129.27.152.126 (talk) 07:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

That says pro-Prussian, not pro-Russian. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 07:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2022

To change the form of government from "Officially: federal semi-presidential republic Unofficially: centralized authoritarian state" to "federal semi-presidential republic under kleptocratic oligarchy"

Sources: https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-rise-of-kleptocracy-power-and-plunder-in-putins-russia/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnhyatt/2022/03/14/what-is-an-oligarch-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-russias-billionaires/ Herkullinekana (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. You'll also need more and better sources. The Forbes contributor articles are not WP:RS per WP:RSP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2022

2003:E2:AF32:A841:509E:85DD:CACA:2BBA (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The map of Russis includes Crimea... what disgrace thar Wikipedia shows an illigally annexed territory as Russian!!!! Crimea is Ukraine.

 Not done: It's clearly labeled as "unrecognized territory." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Does the government publish economic data?

Moxy I flagged some 2018 and 2019 info for update but you said they are the latest numbers. I am not a Russian speaker but maybe someone who is can tell us whether the government publishes economic statistics? I realise the 2021 census results have not yet been published but haven't they published basic economic data for 2020? Or are the govt figures unreliable? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Can we get you to put more effort when editing the article. Pls refrain for taagging things without doing some basic research yourself. This article just passed it's GA review. Pls be aware we are encyclopedia not a news paper. Proper analytical stats may take a few years to come out. 2019 is not what we considered outdated on Country articles...... especially cuz the world's went pause because of covid. Every country's going to have a bad 2020-2021 but that doesn't represent the past 30 years of data.Moxy- 02:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure I agree that 2020 was likely not typical in some cases - so if 2021 is not yet known it might be better to have 2019 or a graph or average as you say - however the basic research would be more easily done by a Russian speaker - if you are not one yourself I would have thought there might be some who are interested in improving this article? Or at least getting the "out of date" flag off the "economy" section of ru:Россия and notifying people here to copy figures and sources from there. Or even better put the data in Wikidata and keep it up to date there so all language Wikipedias could read it. A Russian would likely be able to answer the question I asked "Does the government publish economic data?" and whether it is reliable. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Will just wait till data availability .tags removed by third party after asked to review..Moxy- 15:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: In the tourism section, 2020 data remains tagged. Thesickreservoir (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

 FixedMoxy- 00:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian invasion of Ukraine, 2022

The webpage needs an update concerning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, 2022.

The use of phosphorus bombs from President Vladimir Putin's forces needs to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.127.132 (talk) 09:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This is an overview of the country. We have (many) articles on the invasion. See 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

"Global isolation"

As far as I am concerned Russia is not globally isolated. Its commercial, political and cultural ties with Western nations has been severed. Relations with countries in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America continue. That is not "global isolation". The usage of "global isolation" in the lead is unsourced and should either be deleted or changed for something more accurate if proper sourcing is can not be provided. Lappspira (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Trade with a lot of countries is affected by sanctions, difficulties with transport resulting from sanctions, and the threat of secondary sanctions. There is a degree of global isolation. Perhaps someone better versed on the details can clarify or improve the language. —Michael Z. 17:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Pro-Kremlin POV

This is just one of many articles on Russia that seem to convey a peculiar Kremlin POV, and it wouldn't be a surprise if Wikipedia articles weren't targeted as part of the Russian propaganda effort. The most recent example:

• Mentioning at length technological advancements related to the space program but ignoring Gulag, deportations of millions of people and everything bad when summarising Soviet history; (which is comparable to mentioning Autobahn but not the Holocaust when summarising Nazi Germany's history)
• mentioning victory in WWII but not mentioning the attack on Poland.

This is clearly historical negationism and reads very much like something the Kremlin would produce rather than an encyclopedic account of Soviet history.

It comes as no surpise that the same editor attempts to remove a necessary summary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and resulting sanctions and global isolation.

In regard to the space program, it is well known to be based on technological developments outside Russia and a program to recruit a large number of German scientists. Here it was instead portrayed in a nationalist way as something Russians deserved sole credit for. If the space program is to be mentioned at all, the misleading Russian nationalist narrative is not really appropriate. --Tataral (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I suggest not to start an edit war over controversial changes like painting the Soviet space program as mostly German work - why does this even belong in the lead? And it is not even mentioned in the body whatsoever. But sure, you can call long-standing content and the work of other editors as "reads like something the Kremlin would produce", that will go down well. Mellk (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Also how does "Soviet era saw some of the most significant technological achievements of the 20th century" translate to "something Russians deserved sole credit for"? Huh? Mellk (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Um, you edit-warred to remove Gulag, deportations, human rights abuses and even the invasion of Ukraine, to instead add a lengthy sentence on "the most significant technological achievements of the 20th century, including the world's first human-made satellite and the launching of the first human into space." This is undue in the lead, it's an inaccurate representation of how those technological advancements came about (in the sense that they weren't products solely of Soviet history, but of the efforts of several countries), but the most egregious issue here is how this supposed achievement is everything that is mentioned when summarising Soviet history, while enormous human rights abuses, deportations of millions of people, wars of aggression against Poland and other countries, are removed. It's like an article on Nazi Germany that just praised their technological advancements while ignoring atrocities and oppression entirely. This is not the first time we've seen this form of Russian propaganda and historical negationism in Wikipedia articles related to Russia. --Tataral (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I undid your edit. I did not add that sentence about technological achievements, that has been there for many years. Then you decided to restore your changes again rather than following BRD. But you are trying to compare this article to that of Nazi Germany and making baseless accusations of Russian propaganda so things are already clear. Mellk (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I could see Gulag mentioned in one sentence. As for space program. ...Germans were the norm in both super powers....not lead worth. As for the slander....let's stop that now period.Moxy- 01:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

From what I can see, Tataral has already been alerted about discretionary sanctions not long ago and this isn't the first time such personal attacks have been made since then. So I ask her to cut it out. Mellk (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Funny that. You insist that the text here in the lead section that waters down/removes every possible criticism of Russia and the Soviet Union is not yours, but now feel offended when the text – correctly – is described as a highly inaccurate and negationist portrayal of Soviet history in line with its portrayal in Russian propaganda. --Tataral (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

You were casting aspersions in your very first sentence, don't do that please. Mellk (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

OK let's get you to talk about content. The lead mentions human rights about Russia....the topic of this article. Moxy- 02:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The main problem here is the supposed summary of Soviet history that mentions a victory but omits their role in starting the war by invading Poland, and that goes on at length about technological achievements but omits deportations of millions of people, the Gulag and the human rights abuses, oppression and wars/occupations the Soviet Union was known for. That is what I mean when I describe the text as negationist. The article's topic is clearly the entirety of Russia and its history, not just the history after the Cold War. --Tataral (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the poland invasion as lead worthy....nor does any scholar agree that it was the start of ww2. Moxy- 03:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, because of this victory, USSR became recognised as a superpower and RF inherited from USSR. For example permanent seat at UNSC. Or we could mention all invasions (Afghanisation, Hungary, Czechoslovakia etc), purges, Germans behind the space program, Holodomor, deportations, dekulakisation, Katyn massacre, anti-religious campaigns, famines, Gulag, Chernobyl, red terror, and so on, for sake of bashing. Mellk (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Though really, it is not supposed to be a summary of Soviet history. But I do not think the current version is ideal either. Mellk (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree something is missing there in the lead. The intro makes it look like everything was peachy in Russia and the USSR throughout the twentieth century until the first-ever glitch of “backsliding” later. There ought to be a at least a nod to the fact that communist ideology led to some of the most infamous and massive human-rights abuses in world history. And this has left a major legacy over the Russian Federation and much of Eurasia and influenced the current war. —Michael Z. 03:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Let's say something like..The Gulag labour camp system was expanded in this period. Stalin also fomented political paranoia and conducted the Great Purge.... this way we're linking to articles that going to detail. Moxy- 03:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks out of place to me. The mention of technological achievements makes sense to me, since there is an entire section on science and technology including space exploration. Mellk (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I have tried the following ....think it fits well...Following the Russian Revolution, the Russian SFSR became the largest and the principal constituent of the Soviet Union, the world's first constitutionally socialist state.The Gulag labour camp system was implemented during this period and the Great Purge took place to solidify power..... Moxy- 03:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be best to be bit more general, so mention industrialisation and the costs that came with it. Now that I think about it, if we were to expand this paragraph, industrialisation is absolutely needed as well. Something like transformation into industrialised nation but at the cost of millions of lives, maybe Soviet Union lead has something for inspiration. Kind regards. Mellk (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I think industrialization and economic recovery is implied by them becoming a superpower. Moxy- 03:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Industrialisation was mainly during 1930s and was major factor in being able to defeat Germans. It wasn't until after WWII it was recognised as a superpower (at this point there was still economic devastation and another famine). I mentioned as the rapid industrialisation is one of the main important topics in Soviet history (idea of from agrarian to industrial powerhouse in few years). Mellk (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Lets add something simple with a good link. A New Economic Policy resulted in a period of industrialization. Moxy- 04:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

NEP was Lenin's. Stalin reversed this and launched the five year plans and collectivisation. Mellk (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, I made the attempt, with it being more general since Great Purge and Gulag specifically do not cover the other millions of lives lost such as in the famine. What are your thoughts? Mellk (talk) 04:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks OK ....I added a link to the 2 eras about deaths. Moxy- 04:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I changed it to Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin as there is a dedicated article, or do you think the original link is best? Thanks. Mellk (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I don’t understand why zero in on the Gulag and the Great Purge with a microscope. These are specific results of much larger things. The Soviet Union was an ideological totalitarian empire that instituted state terror, committed ethnic cleansings and mass killings, murdered millions of its own citizens, supported Hitler in starting the Second World War, spawned communist China and North Korea, and captured a hegemony over Eastern Europe, all in the name of communism. Surely a few words to inform the reader by referring to the gist of this are in order in the lead. —Michael Z. 14:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

State terror in Russia long predates Soviet Union, tbh. Mellk (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The article is not about the Soviet Union. IMO it gives undue weight to go into detail on the history of the Soviet Union in the lead. (t · c) buidhe 22:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2022

A few months after 2022 Russia started a war on Ukraine for oil 82.16.48.121 (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian invasion of Australia

As russia is invading Australia we need to put a section in the article describing the Russian invasion of Australia.46.114.5.13 (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

That would be World War 3. Do you have a source for it? tgeorgescu (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Lol what PatricioZavala (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Some changes suggested

Sport section needs a sentence about FIFA's recent suspension of Russia's national teams and clubs, barring them from all competitions, due to the war. Thesickreservoir (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no mention of how Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 in the Putin-era section. I find that a bit absurd. The war was the first that took place in Europe in the 21st century. Thesickreservoir (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 April 2022

My request is to add the following open access journal to the Further reading section:

• Breslauer, George W. and Colton, Timothy J. 2017. Russia Beyond Putin. Daedalus (journal). Alexvpg (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

¨Vladimir Putin has shifted from autocracy to dictatorship¨

Source: https://www.economist.com/briefing/2021/11/13/vladimir-putin-has-shifted-from-autocracy-to-dictatorship — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExoQuest (talk • contribs) 10:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Possibly false claim about becoming large wine producer

“ Wine has become increasingly popular in Russia in the 21st century, as the country is becoming one of the world's largest wine producers.” — I don’t think the cited source has any evidence on this. Furthermore, cited source is based on an interview with a top-level Russian propaganda figure (Dmitry Kiselyov), so I would take everything he says with a grain of salt. 185.165.160.153 (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Probably is false. In 2014 it was #14 in the List of wine-producing regions, with less than 10% of the top 4's volumes. I'll adjust. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I changed the source. Mspriz (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Out of several hundred countries, being in the top 14, makes you one of the largest in the world, by a large margin. 10% of the top 4's volume is a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.239.195.102 (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Why Is There No "War With Ukrain" (Or Something Like That) Section?

I think There Should Really be A Section Talking About The Russia And Ukraine Situation Right now , Because It Should Also Be Stated here And Not Only On The Ukraine Article.Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus

Russia#Putin era.--Moxy- 17:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Amended section title. Zach (Talk) 12:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Quick note Zacharie Grossen (if you weren't aware) - as this is a major page, and likely has a lot of links to it, it's usually best to use {{Anchor}} when changing section header names, so that incoming links aren't broken. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for the suggestion. Zach (Talk) 14:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

"Russia and Ukraine situation" Should probably be the title for the section itself Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I know right. I think it should be added maybe not right now but it should be definitely added. PatricioZavala (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Russia spent about 1% of its GDP on research and development

Is it many or not? How many of the research and development belongs to military industry? The Russia's Silicon Valley deserves mentioning, Russia decided stay underdeveloped. https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/06/the-short-life-and-speedy-death-of-russias-silicon-valley-medvedev-go-russia-skolkovo/ Xx236 (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Human rights and corruption

Rights of Russian soldiers should be mentioned. The Committee of Soldiers’ Mothers of Russia (CSMR) https://rightlivelihood.org/the-change-makers/find-a-laureate/the-committee-of-soldiers-mothers-of-russia-csmr/ controlled the army, now it does not any more.Xx236 (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Religion

The section does not explain integration of the government and Orthodox church.Xx236 (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Update economic statistics

Maybe update economy stats in infobox. New data by IMF in april 2022: [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuntneare (talk • contribs) 14:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Mellk (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2022

Asdrtf (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I would like to ask for edit because i have found fauls info

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CMD (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Russia is not Rus

Hi, user:Mellk, this edit restores a false implication made by the successive sentences. The series lists the East Slavs, Kyivan Rus, the Duchy of Moscow, and without defining it, simply continues with “Russia had vastly expanded,” equating the four. Historians tell us that Russia is not Rus. So we can’t mislead the reader to imply it is, or tiptoe around what is Russia. Needs rewording. —Michael Z. 23:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mzajac: hello, I do not really see Muscovy as being equated to the East Slavs etc here, especially with "among its principalities", but I removed it as the "first" "Russian" state is not mentioned in the article and there isn't really a straightforward answer to that. But to improve, I suppose Tsardom of Russia can be mentioned and so we have the first entity known as "Russia". Let me know if that is better. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

That doesn’t seem sufficient to distinguish them. An alternative might be to define Kyivan Rus as the precursor of Belarusian, Russian, and Ukrainian nations. Or if the identity of Russian lands were more clearly outlined. —Michael Z. 23:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

What about referring to Kievan Rus' as the first East Slavic state? It seems to often be referred as such [4][5] and supported by the body. Mellk (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Well that is fine, but doesn’t dispel the possible impression that East Slav is synonymous with Russian, or that Russia is the sole inheritor of Rus. It might be informative and directly relevant to this subject if “among its principalities” were expanded to list the ones that were to become part of the Russian national identity. —Michael Z. 01:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

What do you suggest for expanding the part about the different principalities? I think the problem is for it to not become too long/detailed. Mellk (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Well then how about just clearly stating that Russia is not Rus? —Michael Z. 04:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Calling it the first East Slavic state is not sufficient? I don't see the issue here, it's not like it's called the first Russian state here. I am not sure what you would consider acceptable by clearly stating that Russia is not Rus that would be written in an encyclopaedic way. Mellk (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 April 2022

Add Chechen Republic to preceded by with the year "2000" Loganp23 (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ASUKITE 15:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Expulsion from Council of Europe in lead section

Right now, I’m of the opinion that since the expulsion “event” isn’t notable enough in its own right for a stand-alone WP article, that it isn’t notable enough to be in the lead section. (The existing piped link for the expulsion leads to a section of a broader article)

My questioning is rooted in two key grounds:

• Recentism

• Bias

I’m opening to re-considering my perspective in light of new information. I also briefly skimmed across the titles of the talk page threads and didn’t find anything about the matter, so if it’s already been concensused via full discussion, then I’m on board. But please link me to the relevant discussion if possible.

I’d like to know what the general pulse is out here about it, and if there is none, this thread can reveal it.

Thanks everyone Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The way it entered the lead was likely not through recentism or bias, but path dependence from prior text. That said, removal makes sense. CMD (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Moxy- 02:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: ok the path dependence thing makes total sense, hadn’t thought of that before, thanks for informing me! Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: you agree with Chipmunkdavis about both path dependence and removal? Or only path dependence? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Both this month's additions to the lead removed. As per no consensus seen here aND above. As a GA article we have multiple editors here that cite WP:OWN#Featured articles. Moxy- 02:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: Recently user added a sentence to the lead with wrong grammar. Stuntneare (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

pls elaborate. Moxy- 21:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: A sentence about Russia's rank on the Transparency International Corruption perception index has been added to the lead on 6 June, but the sentence is worded incorrectly. And is positioned weirdly as well. Stuntneare (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed as per this edit... and edit summary Moxy- 22:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2022

Change the subtitle of "Soviet Union" to "The Soviet Union" Sxtay calm (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Per WP:THE (which applies to article titles, so I think it can likely be extended as guidance for section names), definite articles are usually avoided. Country names are given as examples of when not to use "the" in a title:

• United Kingdom, not The United Kingdom
• United States, not The United States

― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Mistake

Russia has not been formed since the times of Kievan Rus'. There are only some territories there, but it is not directly related now 185.115.37.228 (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Largest exporter of wheat

In the agriculture section, its disputed that Russia is the world's largest exporter of wheat... despite newer sources still mentioning how it is so, and that it accounts for more than 18% of the international exports. The tag should be removed. Also, there is an error after the last sentence, the number "20" is written for no reason. Stuntneare (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Source added from your source and lost 20  Fixed Moxy- 14:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: In the sports section, the sentence about the Russian Grand Prix is tagged for no reason, but it needs to be updated. The Russian Grand Prix was indeed held at the Sochi Autodrom, but its contract got terminated by F1 in wake of the invasion. There should be a sentence for the 2022 suspension of Russian national teams and clubs from international soccer competitions by FIFA and UEFA in the first para.

And in the demographics section, the word "multinational state" is tagged, but why exactly? Russia is a multinational state, and the source backs the statement. And in the economy section, a source from CIA World Factbook is tagged as being "old". The data in the source is from 2017, but I cannot find any new sources. Most country articles on Wikipedia use The World Factbook as a source, so I do not think tagging it would be appropriate. Stuntneare (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Stuntneare: If you hover over the tags you will see the reasons I added them - as nothing to do with wheat I will not detail here Chidgk1 (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: I couldn't find any newer sources for the sectors of the economy. Stuntneare (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

My tags are nothing to do with wheat. If you want to discuss them please could you start a new talk page section otherwise everyone will get confused. Thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Changes?

@Chidgk1: You tagged a sentence in the Agriculture section, asking for quotes for verification, here's two:

"Across Eastern Russia, wild forests, swamps and grasslands are slowly being transformed into orderly grids of soybeans, corn and wheat. It’s a process that is likely to accelerate: Russia hopes to seize on the warming temperatures and longer growing seasons brought by climate change to refashion itself as one of the planet’s largest producers of food."

"Around the world, climate change is becoming an epochal crisis, a nightmare of drought, desertification, flooding and unbearable heat, threatening to make vast regions less habitable and drive the greatest migration of refugees in history. But for a few nations, climate change will present an unparalleled opportunity, as the planet’s coldest regions become more temperate. There is plenty of reason to think that those places will also receive an extraordinary influx of people displaced from the hottest parts of the world as the climate warms. Human migration, historically, has been driven by the pursuit of prosperity even more so than it has by environmental strife. With climate change, prosperity and habitability — haven and economic opportunity — will soon become one and the same. And no country may be better positioned to capitalize on climate change than Russia. Russia has the largest land mass by far of any northern nation. It is positioned farther north than all of its South Asian neighbors, which collectively are home to the largest global population fending off displacement from rising seas, drought and an overheating climate." Stuntneare (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok thanks - the second is quite long so suggest you add the first in the “quote” parameter of the cite Chidgk1 (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Agriculture and fishery

Wheat in Tomsk Oblast, Siberia. Russia, along with Ukraine, is often referred to as the "breadbasket" of Europe, due to its rich, fertile soil. Russia and Ukraine, together, account for 29% of global wheat exports, 80% of the sunflower oil, and 40% of its barley exports.

The agriculture and fishery section has no image attached to it, so it looks a little empty. How about adding this image with this caption? Would be a nice addition. Stuntneare (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I have added the image here, but without the caption, as while there seems to be space for the image itself, the caption was long enough to substantially increase the vertical space taken. If the content is that significant, it should probably be worked into the actual body. CMD (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: The data is important and should be added to the main para itself. Stuntneare (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Inland waterways

In the transport and energy section; there's some wrong info. Russia's inland waterways aren't the second-largest, but the largest in the world, backed by the CIA source given. Stuntneare (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

done - thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: Some other data could be updated. In the economy section, its written that Russia is the twentieth-largest exporter and importer (2020); but according to newer data by the International Trade Centre in 2021, Russia is the thirteenth-largest exporter and the 21st-largest importer.

Updates

• In the Economy section, its written that Russia is the twentieth-largest exporter and importer (2020); but according to newer data by the International Trade Centre in 2021, Russia is the thirteenth-largest exporter and the 21st-largest importer.
• In the Sports section, a sentence about the Russian Grand Prix being cancelled is tagged as ill-sourced; it could be backed by this source. Also, a sentence should mention the 2022 suspension of Russian national teams and clubs from international soccer competitions by FIFA and UEFA.
• In the Transport and energy section, this sentence should be added in the first para: Russia is the world's sole country to build and operate nuclear-powered icebreakers, which aid freight transport across the Northern Sea Route. Stuntneare (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• In the Agriculture section, this sentence could be added: Russia, along with Ukraine, is often referred to as the "breadbasket" of Europe; due to its rich, fertile soil. Russia and Ukraine, together, account for 29% of global wheat exports, 80% of the sunflower oil, and 40% of its barley exports.
• In the Climate section, along the last sentence about climate change, there should be a mention of Russia's increasingly thawing permafrost.
• In the Science and technology section, the last sentence about satellites should be updated. Russia, as of December 2021, has 169 operating satellites, according to the source given.

I was in the process of actioning these when I noticed the access dates and then took a closer look at the icebreaker claim (which does not seem to be in the source). Are these sentences being copied from elsewhere, and if so, where? CMD (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: You can see the talk page discussions above... I copy-pasted a few sources I had put in the talk page earlier, but got ignored. So I decided to make a list about the data that should be updated. Earliest discussion about these changes date back to June. About the icebreaker claim, here's another source that claims Russia is the sole country operating nuclear-powered icebreakers. Stuntneare (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, if it's your work that's fine. I have updated points 1, 2, 5, and 6. For 3 I'm not sure how that's due, as I haven't read many high-level sources on Russia's economy. For 4 it would be preferable to get Russia-specific figures (can still say it is part of breadbasket if needed with that source). CMD (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Thanks for the help.

• In the agriculture section, with the previous source, it could be added that Russia is a part of the breadbasket in Europe. But I couldn't find reliable sources that mention the exact percentages of Russia's wheat, barely, and sunflower oil exports - but almost every source puts Russia as either the first or second-largest exporter. Along the sentence of Russia being the largest exporter of wheat, it could be added that it is the the largest producer of barley and buckwheat, and among the largest exporters of maize and sunflower oil; and that it is the leading producer of fertilizer, per this source from the Food and Agriculture Organization.
• In the Government and politics section, the sentence about Russia experiencing democratic backsliding is backed by a blank book source, which could be replaced by this study from Harvard. Another issue I found is within the infobox, there are excessive sources backing the government type, which widens it significantly. This could be backed by one, single source given in the government and politics section about Russia being an authoritarian state since Putin's arrival. Secondly, the input about the Declaration of State Sovereignty in the formation section should be shortened to simply Declaration of sovereignty, to reduce the infobox's width.
• Recently, large parts of the Post-Soviet Russia section were trimmed as "recentism", but I believe these sentences are very important, as they back some claims from the lead, and should be restored: Putin went on to win a second presidential term in 2004. As a result of high oil prices, a rise in foreign investment, and prudent economic and fiscal policies, the Russian economy grew significantly; dramatically improving Russia's standard of living, and increasing its influence in global politics. Putin's rule increased stability, while transforming Russia into an authoritarian state.
• The sentence about Yeltsin leaving office as highly unpopular was also removed, but is important, and should be readded: Yeltsin left office widely unpopular, with an approval rating as low as 2% by some estimates.
• The para about Russia's invasion of Georgia is very short, and should be merged with the last para.
• In the economy section, the sentence about Russia's economic sectors are tagged; as they need update. However, the data is from 2017, and is from the CIA World Factbook, a source most other country article use. I tried to find newer sources for the sectors but couldn't find one. Many other countries have data dating back even further, but not tagged.
• In the demographics section, the sentence about Russia being a "multinational state" is also tagged for no reason. It could be modified to "multiethnic" to avoid confusion. Stuntneare (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Updated agriculture, backsliding source, added break tags to the infobox as "Declaration of sovereignty" feels potentially confusing. I removed one source from the government type infobox field but did not take further action there as this touches upon the de factor/de jure government analysis which in my experience has not achieved much consensus anywhere. Possibly no sources are needed there, if a source is included, optimally it would have a quote to explain why it is there. I restored some of that text, but tweaked for concision and to remove unsourced text (the CNBC source was particularly overinterpreted there). I did not include the Yeltsin unpopularity, as I don't see why that is important. Merged invasion paragraph and removed clarify tag, for the multinational state tag I expanded slightly based on the source. CMD (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Thanks a lot for the help. In my opinion, the sources backing the government type are excessive and unneeded, since there are sources in the main body itself. They can be removed. Cheers and thanks again.

@Chipmunkdavis: Sorry for the ping. But seeing how some data was removed from the lead recently, the last sentence of the lead's third para could be modified, which currently stands as: It ranks low in international measurements of freedom of the press and civil liberties and has high levels of perceived corruption.

It could be expanded to: It ranks high in international measurements of standard of living, household income and education; having universal healthcare and a free university education. However, Russia ranks low in measurements of human rights, freedom of the press, economic freedom, and has high levels of perceived corruption.

Stuntneare (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of these ranking sentences in general, and more specifically the additions don't seem to be within the current article text. CMD (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Many other GA or FA class articles have this type of layout. The sentence about HDI is present in the infobox, while the data about education and healthcare sentence is present in the healthcare and education sections, respectively. These were present in the lead itself before suddenly being removed recently. However, the other additions aren't, could they be worked into the article? For example, by expanding the Human rights and corruption section? Stuntneare (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Some do, but that doesn't make them good. A ranking is almost meaningless, it is purely relative comparison which does not give specifics on the actual situation of the country. Rank changes are pretty uninformative too, a county can improve on a certain factor yet in ranking, or become worse at something yet on a ranking. Not sure where HDI is in your proposal, but it is an interesting example. The HDI is classified as "very high", which is at least slightly informative. A ranking of 52 though? Given that puts it out of the top quarter, it's not a ranking that would make readers think "very high". The article can always be added to, but for these reasons I am never a fan of relying on rankings as a way to mention them in the lead. (The education section does not specifically note university is free, although I think I see where that might be implied now.) CMD (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

So do you suggest removing the rankings entirely from the lead, given that it was also added recently? I believe the sentence about university education and healthcare could be restored. Stuntneare (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

My view is that rankings are a poor way to express ideas in the lead. However, with regard to the wider topics, I have not followed changes in the lead nor taken a look at how due weight might match mention in the article and mention in reliable sources. CMD (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Why is Russia not marked as "under a dictatorship"?

Belarus is marked like this, but why not Russia? 85.115.248.233 (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is based on what is found in reliable sources. If you have such sources declaring that Russia is under a dictatorship, you are welcome to add such content. But do read what's behind that link carefully, to be sure that your sources ARE reliable. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It's no longer considered a democracy by international watchdogs and they jailed the leader of the official opposition. I'm not sure if dictatorship is the best signifier - perhaps someone more specialized with relevant research material may wish to interject? It's very obviously no longer a constitutional republic in the sense that it claimed to be 10+ years ago. I think this is something that should be re-visited carefully and urgently.--107.190.3.177 (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

It is not a dictatorship because most Russians support Putin or his allied parties. A tiny urban elite is against Putin, but that is in a country wherein Stalin is still being considered a great leader by many. Or, if they think lowly of Stalin, they still support Russian imperialism. Gorbachev and Yeltsin might be regarded as heroes in the West, but rank-and-file Russians regard them as weak, impotent leaders. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Level of support is not a determinator of dictatorship or not, even if it is accurately gauged. Anyway, I believe most academics in the field will say the RF has an authoritarian government, not a dictatorship currently. Sorry I don’t have a reference at hand. —Michael Z. 15:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

After the crackdown on speech in the last two weeks, this may well be reevaluated. —Michael Z. 16:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Russia is a defacto dictatorship. I dont understand why this article follows Putin's propaganda and suggests in the infobox that it is a democracy.

"Government Federal semi-presidential constitutional republic[5]"

In the German Wikipedia it says in the infobox: "De jure semi-presidential republic (federal republic), de facto defective democracy with autocratic to despotic features", which is much more accurate. The Ukraine gets a lot of support nowadays but not from the English Wikipedia, which prefers to stick with Putin's propaganda. Nulli (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It is "more accurate" only as a description of appearances, because Russia apparently holds elections whose outcome is predetermined (according to the U.S. State Department). But de facto, as is clear to anyone who has closely followed the news in 2022, it is most definitely a dictatorship. 2601:200:C000:1A0:6175:949A:164C:2C34 (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources claiming Russia is a dictatorship. It is an authoritarian democracy. Also supporting Ukraine or Russia shouldn't affect the articles. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view on everything. Just because you support Ukraine you should not mark Russia as a dictatorship. Bilikon (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Authoritarian democracy is an oxymoron. Russia is a dictatorship. Politicians are no longer democratically elected, dissidents are jailed.Wikijules29 (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wikijules29: You might want to read illiberal democracy.

And I'll tell you what is the problem with such tyrants: they organize a well-oiled propaganda machine (ideology vs. reality conflict). And then they get seduced by their own propaganda machine. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source subtitled: Vladimir Putin’s dictatorship and an academic source Chidgk1 (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

currently described as a centralized authoritarian state....."Authoritarian regimes may be either autocratic or oligarchic in nature and may be based upon the rule of a party or the military".....pls review Håvard Bækken (2019). Law and Power in Russia: Making Sense of Quasi-Legal Practices. University of Oslo - Norwegian Institute for Defence Studies. pp. 64–. ISBN 978-1-351-33535-5.Moxy- 03:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

If you look at the wikipedia page anocracy you'll find a map that shows Russia is an anocracy (meaning partly democratic and partly authoritarian). 87.21.116.135 (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

If Wikipedia were infallible, then you would have a good point. 2601:200:C000:1A0:6175:949A:164C:2C34 (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

A dictatorship is characterized by an UNELECTED leader or group of leaders, among other things. Russia holds elections, and although they are not fully democratic, it still probably means that Russia is not a dictatorship. It's probably authoritarian though. Suasufzeb (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Ivan IV (the "Terrible")

The description of his rules is imperialistically biased. He was cruel (oprychnina) and destroyed Novgorod democracy. Xx236 (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC) The book Skrynnikov, R. G. (2015). Reign of Terror: Ivan IV is quoted ignoring anything about the terror "In 1572, an invading army of Crimean Tatars were thoroughly defeated in the crucial Battle of Molodi". sSuch information is available probably in any basic history, the book is about the terror.Xx236 (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

If you want to call him terrible, sure, but that's because of him typically being referred to as that, not directly because he did bad things. Neutral point of view is necessary in Wikipedia. Suasufzeb (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Add Russian invasion of Ukraine, 2022, to the lead

It's a major event that warrants being mentioned in the 'history of' in the lead. Arguably it's as important as the events such as constitutional crisis of 1993 which we do mention. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

They have done this many t times since the 1990 like Georgian war-Chechen War- etc.. .....so lets say something like has taken military action against Post-Soviet states including ......Moxy- 12:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) One of these led to the restructuring of the national government. If that's where Ukraine end up going, then sure. Otherwise, I don't see any reason to treat it different than the Chechen Wars. GMG^talk 12:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support It definitely belongs in the lead, and it is fundamentally different and more significant than the other events named above (not that they were insignificant). It is an international conflict. It includes the first annexation in Europe since WWII and alleged goals have included régime change in an independent state and total occupation of the biggest country inside Europe. The strength of forces and geographical scope are an order of magnitude larger than those conflicts, actually the biggest European conflict since WWII. The response has been massive military aid to Ukraine and international isolation of Russia, and results include unprecedented military losses and economic damage. Russian actions have already been classified as genocidal.[6] —Michael Z. 18:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

  I agree to this. In terms of NOTABILITY, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is leagues more notable than any of the other "special military operations" that Russia has conducted in the past. The 2022 invasion has received international attention, to such a degree that not even the tiniest or most distant of countries can ignore it. Indeed, I would even go so far as to argue that the 2022 invasion is the closest we have ever come to World War III in the post-Cold War era (that is, if you don't regard the Cold War itself as WW3). Even though there are only a few direct military belligerents in this war, the number of indirect belligerents (whether military or economical) is significant and global (i.e. not just regional players). This is, for all intents and purposes, a world war. Ironically, it is illegal to refer to this conflict as a "war" in Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The lead is already overbalanced with history, failing MOS:LEADNO. It doesn't really mention anything on culture or geography and barely touches on the other section headers. I would be happy with a mention along the lines of Moxy and a general reduction of the two paragraphs into one summarizing the history. Aircorn (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose It's classic recentism, and almost certainly an attempt to highlight how evil Russia is. HiLo48 (talk) 04:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Regarding “recentism,” in terms of European wars this one already overshadows anything else of the last 77 years, including the state’s thirty-year existence. Its historical significance is on the scale of the fall of the Soviet Union that created the Russian and Ukrainian states, and existential for the second-largest state in Europe. Russia's international aggression is at least as important as its democratic backsliding and authoritarianism mentioned in the lead, and the direct consequence of them. Regarding “evil,” please do reread that guideline and tell us how it relates to reporting a top act of international aggression since WWII. —Michael Z. 18:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  The vast majority of countries around the world are opposed to this war. Citing it as an example of "Russophobia" is quite frankly not convincing. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Per others above definitely undue, and we probably shouldn't have the constitutional crisis of 1993 there either. CMD (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Why is it "definitely" undue? Please provide reasoning, and not just "as what other people have said". Be specific, and clearly outline your views on the topic. Otherwise, your opinion is effectively irrelevant. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support mentioning in the lead. taken military action - that's quite the euphemism for a country invading two small neighboring countries, installing a puppet regime in one of them, and now invading and waging a prolonged war against a large neighboring country, including committing documented war crimes. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Russia and its predecessors have undoubtedly taken similar actions many, many times. CMD (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

    No one has taken such actions since the Second World War and signing of the UN Charter in the first half of the last century, and the following proliferation of nuclear weapons. —Michael Z. 18:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

    That is both a very limited time frame and almost certainly not true. CMD (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

    The timeframe is over twice the age of the Russian Federation. How is it not true? If it’s not true, perhaps you can find a comparable example in Category:Annexation, but I think this has already far surpassed any of them. —Michael Z. 18:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

    Post-WWII annexations include the 1961 annexation of Goa, annexation of Golan Heights and East Jerusalem (both conquered in the Six-Day War of 1967, with legislative incorporation taking place in the 1980s - Golan Heights Law, Jerusalem Law), 1975 Indonesian invasion of East Timor, just to name a few. Some of them were reversed outright, some are still operational-but-contested-internationally (Golan, EJ), and still others got international recognition and aren't contested any longer (Goa). In any case, the claim that 2014 event was the first annexation in the world since WWII is, indeed, not true. Just as CMD said. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

    EDIT: I've confirmed from closer analysis that Seryo93's comment above is indeed a misquotation of what Mzajac said. Mzajac never said "[the] 2014 event was the first annexation in the world since WWII", as Seryo93 has implied above. | Just to add to this conversation, I think you are misquoting @Mzajac here. As far as I can tell, he never precisely said that the 2014 event was the first annexation in the world since WWII. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

    "No one has taken such actions since the Second World War and signing of the UN Charter in the first half of the last century, and the following proliferation of nuclear weapons.". And yet, there were many post-WWII annexations waaay before 2014. Seryo93 (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    If you actually read what is being said, @Mzajac is saying that "no one has taken such actions" in reference to the comment made by @Space4Time3Continuum2x. And what Space4Time3Continuum2x has said is "that's quite the euphemism for a country invading two small neighboring countries, installing a puppet regime in one of them, and now invading and waging a prolonged war against a large neighboring country". Nowhere in these quotes by these two users is there the mention of "annexation". Indeed, Michael Z (Mzajac) does say "first annexation in Europe since WWII" in a separate comment higher up, but he does specify "in Europe" here, rather than "in the world". Overall, I think you need to first practise your English-reading abilities before you can accuse people of saying certain things. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    For the record, I think Space4Time3Continuum2x is referring to Georgia and Chechnya in the comment "invading two small neighboring countries, installing a puppet regime in one of them". Chechnya is not really a proper country at the moment (although it historically was), but it was a de facto state during the 1990s. Russia certainly did invade Chechnya and install a puppet regime there, i.e. Kadyrov. With that being said, Chechnya was always legally recognised as Russian territory by the international community, unlike Georgia. And obviously, Ukraine is the "large neighboring country". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    Exactly. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC) Chechnya was always legally recognised as Russian territory by the international community - what's the source for that statement? Chechnya#Soviet_rule says Russia claimed that under the Soviet constitution Chechnya did not have the right to secede but it's unsourced. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    I would say that the United Nations and most UN member states considered the borders of the Russian Federation to align with the borders of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, under the principle of "uti possidetis juris" (Latin for "as you possess under law"). As part of the theory of the succession of states, when one political entity legally succeeds a preceding political entity, it should conventionally retain the exact same borders as its predecessor. The Russian Federation was pretty much universally recognised to be the legal successor of the RSFSR, which means that the United Nations and most UN member states would have recognised the RF's new borders as being the exact same as the RSFSR's old borders. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    This is basically the exact same principle that applies to the cases of Georgia (vs Abkhazia and South Ossetia), Azerbaijan (vs Artsakh), Moldova (vs Transnistria), and Ukraine (vs Crimea, Donetsk PR, and Luhansk PR). After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the internationally-recognised borders of each of the successor states was the borders of the former Soviet Republics. Some of the former autonomous republics within the USSR broke away at around the same time (during the 1990s), but all of them did not receive a substantial level of recognition from the international community. Chechnya is basically to the Russian Federation as Abkhazia and South Ossetia are to Georgia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    As for what Mzajac's "first annexation in Europe since WWII" comment refers to, I'm pretty sure he's talking about the Crimean Peninsula, specifically. Obviously, Russia is also in the process of annexing other areas of Ukraine, but it hasn't finalised these actions yet. The first part of Ukraine that Russia annexed was Crimea, back in 2014. Arguably, Crimea was part of Russia in the past, but Russia willingly ceded Crimea to Ukraine in the 1950s or so, and Russia recognised Crimea as part of Ukraine from the 2000s and onwards. The problem with Crimea is not the fact that Russia is ruling Crimea now, but rather the fact that Russia's method for getting their way in this dispute was against the norms of international law. It may well have been the case that Russia could acquire Crimea through legal measures (e.g. paying Ukraine a huge sum of money, providing defence guarantees, etc.), but Russia instead chose to use aggression and coercion in order to get what it wanted. This is why the Crimean annexation shocked the entire world (well, mainly the West). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    Admittedly, Russia's actions towards Crimea are similar to India's actions towards Goa. With that being said, I think there's a major difference between these two disputes. The difference is that Goa was not a piece of a nearby country but instead belonged to a really far away country, that being Portugal. On the other hand, Crimea belonged to Ukraine prior to its annexation by Russia, and Ukraine is only just next to Russia. So, in the Russia-Ukraine dispute over Crimea, it's hard to find sympathy for Russia as opposed to the India-Portugal dispute over Goa. In India's case, they could claim "colonialism!" in order to justify their annexation of Goa. On the other hand, in Russia's case, the colonialism argument doesn't work since Ukraine is local to the region. So, Russia has to resort to arguments like "Ukraine is a fake country that belongs to Russia" or "Ukraine is committing genocide against ethnic Russians" or "Ukraine is a puppet of NATO and the West, therefore it's colonialism". Etc. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    Here's another significant difference between the Indian annexation of Goa and the Russian annexation of Crimea. According to the "Annexation of Goa" article on Wikipedia, "the war had lasted two days, and had cost 22 Indian and 30 Portuguese lives". A two-day war taking 52 lives is not very significant from a military or humanitarian point-of-view. Geopolitically, yes, of course this conflict was significant. However, on a military or humanitarian level, this conflict barely caused a scratch. In the Russian annexation of Crimea, I think the loss of life was perhaps not too high. But the Russian ("Russian-backed separatist") takeover of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic was extremely bloody. And the subsequent 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has caused an enormous amount of suffering and the loss of life. Furthermore, between 2014 and 2022, the DPR and LPR separatist republics continued to engage militarily with Ukraine, resulting in even more deaths throughout that period. Also, the Russo-Ukrainian War has been going on for over eight years now. That's a lot longer than the apparent two-day length of the Indian annexation of Goa. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    It doesn't really matter much. If we measure by the scale of military action, then it would be obvious, that Russia warred many, many times in the past. If we measure by the fact of the annexation, then again, Russia annexed many territories in the past, and, likewise, Russia wasn't the only state that did so. Seryo93 (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

    I'm not sure that Russia's history of imperialism is something to be proud of. Indeed, India has imperial elements to its history as well, just in a different context to Russia's. Obviously, by the time of the British Raj, there wasn't too much imperialism happening in India. In any case, the facts that I presented still stand. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

    @Seryo93 - Just to let you know, I've analysed your comments above more closely, and I am indeed very certain that you've misquoted Mzajac. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, I can't say. But a misquotation is a misquotation. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

    The key counter against singling out 2022 hostilities in the lead is the "Russia and its predecessors have undoubtedly taken similar actions many, many times.". And this is what my comment was about. Russia engaged in wars several times before and annexed territories several times before. Yet, neither of these conflicts is mentioned directly in the lead, except WWII. Seryo93 (talk) 11:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

    The problem is that what @Mzajac is talking about is not just annexations but instead a wider topic, that being "aggression" in general (not to mention genocide, imperialism, colonialism, war crimes, "might makes right", etc.). Annexations is only a small part of what he is talking about, yet you are treating it as the whole thing, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Indeed, not all annexations are characterised by aggression. For example, China's annexation of Hong Kong was relatively peaceful because the United Kingdom willingly ceded the territory. It's the same with the United States' annexation of Alaska; the US purchased the territory legally from Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

    I'm not exactly sure what I would call your logical reasoning in this present conversation, but the closest I can come up with is "gaslighting". Again, I don't know whether you are doing it intentionally or unintentionally. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

    For the record, I personally don't really buy the "appeal to history" argument. I mean, sure, yeah, Russia has done imperialism about 1000 times in the past. However, the problem is we are not living in the past, we are living in the 21st century. Russia pretends to be a civilised country, and it carries itself as a world leader, for example, occupying one of the five permanent seats at the United Nations Security Council. If Russia is so eager to go back to the barbarism of the previous decades and centuries (not to mention that almost all countries around the world were similarly barbaric at various points in the past), then the entire civilization of the entire Earth is doomed, basically. Most other countries on Earth are at least making an attempt to develop concepts of human rights and a civilized international order. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

    To me, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine would be comparable to the United States just suddenly launching an all-out invasion of Canada, or China launching an all-out invasion of South Korea (not quite Taiwan, which is a more complex issue). Russia is literally the biggest country in the world, and it's trying to conquer a neighbouring country that is reasonably significant in size. Another example... Australia just suddenly deciding to invade and annex New Zealand, genocide and all. I'm from Australia by the way... Such an action would be unthinkable, even though Australia technically has a (weak) historical sovereign claim to New Zealand. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

    I said no one has taken such actions since the Second World War. Please don’t bother arguing against some hyper-specific factoid and pretend you’re addressing g what I wrote.

    No state has conducted a mechanized invasion of a country of over 40 million population and 600,000 sq km area with the intention of conducting régime change, annexing its land to its own territory, and destroying it as a state and nation, levelling its cities, killing and wounding hundreds of thousands, displacing over fifteen million, forcibly deporting millions, violating prohibitions of the Genocide Convention, while threatening nuclear escalation, creating an artificial famine affecting the food security of millions in the Middle East and North Africa (and possible cascading effects), and endangering the post-WWII world order, and heavily damaging its own international reputation, armed forces, and economy.

    And it’s not just me.

    • Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: “The world is in the midst of the most dangerous European security crisis since World War II.”[7]
    • New York Times: “A Russian invasion of Ukraine would be unlike most wars in 80 years”[8]
    • RFE/RL: “the largest war in Europe since World War II.”[9]
    • NATO: “Biggest Security Crisis Since World War II”[10]
    • United Nations: “Not only is Ukraine the largest humanitarian disaster in Europe since World War II, it's also the target of the ‘fastest and most generous’ outpouring of support ever seen for a conflict.”[11]
    • United Nations: “Ukraine has fastest-growing refugee crisis since second world war”[12]

    Russia’s war in Ukraine appears in the lead of Ukraine. Since you bring them up, the Six-Day war is mentioned in the lead of Jordan and Israel, and the invasion of East Timor is mentioned in the lead of East Timor.

    The eight-year war is significant enough that it has spurred changes to the lead section:

    • “Disputed territory” on the map has been increased and the map caption has a link to Russian-occupied territories
    • “Crimea annexed” was added to the infobox “Formation” section, so apparently this war acquisition is more important than dozens or hundreds of historical territorial changes
    • “Area” and “Population” in the infobox have been updated to account for the occupation in Ukraine
    • The DLNR territories created and occupied as a result of this war have been added to note [d] in the lead
    • Since the war started, Russia’s “great power” status, “potential superpower” status, HDI ranking, military ranking, Council of Europe membership, and IIB membership have been dropped from the lead.
    • Russia’s military expenditure ranking in the lead is now out of date.

    Why not mention the event that binds all of these together?

    This war is very significant. —Michael Z. 17:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    Excellently said. I think the problem here is that a lot of the editors of this Wikipedia article are Russians. Now, normally, that wouldn't be a bad thing. However, at the moment, it is illegal to write on the internet any criticisms towards Russia with regards to the war in Ukraine (invasion), which is so illegal in fact that you aren't even allowed to call it an "invasion" or "war" in Russia, but rather are forced to call it a "special military operation". Indeed, Russia has been trying to force the international community to call it a "special military operation" too, primarily through its status as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Furthermore, Russia is currently accusing Wikipedia of spreading anti-Russian pro-Ukrainian propaganda, to the point that it is taking Wikipedia to court and is threatening to ban the website in Russia. So, all of these actions that Russia is currently taking means that Russian editors, especially those who are physically based in Russia, are pretty much unable to write any criticisms about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or else face the possibility of being arrested or even worse. This partially explains why there is such a big pushback to not mention the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in the introduction of this article, disregarding personal opinions. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    Except on Russian Wikipedia, it is referred to as an invasion and aggression. Enough walls of text please. Mellk (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    The Russian Wikipedia does not correspond exactly to the English Wikipedia, and I'm also not active there anyway. For example, the Russian version of list of states with limited recognition lists extra entities in comparison to the English Wikipedia version. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

    I think it is also valid to point out that (1) there must be non-Russian editors of Russian Wikipedia, such as Lithuanians, Ukrainians, and foreigners who have learnt Russian, and (2) some of the editors of Russian Wikipedia must be living overseas. My comment above was mainly directed towards Russian editors of Wikipedia living directly within the borders of Russia. I believe that these people truly are limited in their capacity to edit articles relating to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in a truthful manner. This includes some of the editors within this very discussion, as far as I can tell. This is a valid fact to point out. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

    Most editors of Russian Wikipedia are certainly Russians living within Russia, this has been surveyed, and it is quite obvious when using it for those who understand Russian and Russian topics. So this is indeed irrelevant. Mellk (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

    Regardless of whether it is relevant or not, in your capacity as, I presume, a Russian Wikipedia editor... Is my statement true or false? Is it true that it is illegal to refer to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine as a "war" or "invasion" in Russia? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Too recent. Stuntneare (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support A country actively committing genocide becomes the single most important piece of information, worthy of note above all else. Colinmcdermott (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

So that is two for oppose, 3 for support. Let's move forward and construct a suitable piece of text that describes this. Colinmcdermott (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The way it was added is a strong no from me, MOS:LEAD states As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate. I don't see why you think this should be added on a GA, and then discuss how exactly it should be worded. Moxy (talk · contribs) is probably more familiar with this. Mellk (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I have removed it. A reminder that this is not a vote, and even if it was, those numbers seem wrong. CMD (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Weak Oppose too recent. I have checked Serbia, the country that started the previous large European war. The lede does not mention it. The lede of Yugoslavia indeed mentions the war but it might be because it was the end of the federation. Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  The lead of Ukraine mentions this war. —Michael Z. 13:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  Changed my !vote to Weak Oppose but still think it is too recent for the lede Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  The international conflict this is belongs to is now several years longer than WWI, WWII, the Russian Civil War, or the Crimean War.  —Michael Z. 16:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I presume (without knowing) that whenever any sovereign country with 100+ million population has independently and unilaterally performed a full invasion on another sovereign country with ~30% its population, it has merited a mention in both countries' lead sections. If my presumption is true, then I support; if my presumption is false, then I oppose. CraigP459 (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support - The problem with citing the "too recent" argument is that it is absolutely clear at the present stage that this war is going to be a prolonged one with profound consequences for the future. Of course, Wikipedia is not a "CRYSTAL BALL". However, I think the likelihood of this war suddenly ending tomorrow as opposed to dragging on for months or years to come is extremely low. This war is undoubtedly the most significant conflict to have taken place in Europe since at least the Yugoslav Wars (it's a bit of a stretch to say "since WWII", admittedly). In terms of my other reasonings, you can read my various reply comments above. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  The impending effects on European and global security, on the balance of power and trade, the anticipated recession in Russia are all supported by reliable sources, and do not constitute WP:CRYSTAL. No, we don’t know, for example, by exactly how many percent the Russian economy will have shrunk by 2023, but we do know that right now, current financial data and current forecasts are showing drops in trade and production and effects on the economy directly resulting from this war. —Michael Z. 17:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Russia a terrorist country

9 may 2022 Lithuania's parliament has designated Russia a terrorist country and its actions in Ukraine as genocide. https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAP/7ccfdcc0cf8511ecb69ea7b9ba9d787b https://www.npr.org/2022/05/10/1097911440/lithuania-russia-terrorism-genocide-ukraine?t=1653761441335 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DariusMar (talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC) DariusMar (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Darius

This is not the Lithuanian government's encyclopedia, nor the Russian government's encyclopedia. It doesn't matter what a bunch of partisan politicians say. Political statements alone do not change facts. The Impartial Truth (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, of course, that political statements do not change facts. But it does seem to me that if the Southern Poverty Law Center declared Russia to be a hate group, that point would be in the first or second paragraph. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center is a partisan special interest group that is funded nearly entirely by one political party in the US. They are even less of a reliable source than a politician. You must be sure what you cite does not argue from a conclusion but instead towards one. The Impartial Truth (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I quite agree! And how many articles in Wikipedia say that the SPLC lists this or that organization as a hate group! Uporządnicki (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

It's possible that Russia is, was or will become a terrorist state. However, just because lithuanian government said some things doesn't mean Russia is a terrorist state. Provide reliable sources if you want to indicate that Russia is a terrorist state, but not Lithuania just saying some things without proof. Suasufzeb (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources say that Russia has been designated a terrorist state by at least one sovereign state. Academics are also saying it is terrorist. These statements are encyclopedic information about Russia, and perhaps they merit being stated in the article about the country. I’ve listed a few reliable sources on the question below, in #Terrorist state. —Michael Z. 16:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Terrorist state

RuZZia is a terrorist state, how much blood,deaths , terror it must show before the wiki is updated for what it is? 184.145.219.95 (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Neither your opinion, nor mine, is what determines how Russia is described in the encyclopedia. If you have a published, reliable source to cite that shows that Russia has been designated a terrorist state, please do; otherwise, this declaration will not be made in this Wikipedia article. General Ization ^Talk 19:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Tha Parliament of Lithuania stated that Russia is a terrorist state. It also fits definition - if one agrees that al-Quaeda is a terrorist organisation then Russian government does same things in Ukraine but on a greater scale. --Htarlovx (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

There is definite proof that Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization, it's not just because some people said it. Reliable sources need to be listed to prove that Russia actually is a terrorist state. Suasufzeb (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Was terrorism not mentioned in articles on Al-Qaeda after it was designated terrorist by courts, states, governments, and academics?

• Escritt, Thomas (2021-12-16). "German court accuses Russia of "state terrorism" over 2019 Berlin park murder". Reuters. Retrieved 2022-08-02.
• "VR [Ukrainian parliament] recognizes Russia as terrorist state, bans military symbols Z and V". Ukrinform. 2022-04-14. Retrieved 2022-08-02.
• Treisman, Rachel (2022-05-10). "Lithuania designates Russia as a terrorist country, a global first". NPR. Retrieved 2022-05-10.
• Medina, Eduardo (2022-07-28). "The U.S. Senate passes a resolution seeking to label Russia as a sponsor of terrorism". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-08-02.
• Ward, Alexander; Desiderio, Andrew; Forgey, Quint (2022-07-28). "House group moves to label Russia as terrorist state". Politico. Retrieved 2022-08-02.
• Tenzer, Nicolas (2022-07-29). "Putin's Russia is a Terrorist State: Should it be Written into Law?". Tenzer Strategics. Retrieved 2022-08-02.

 —Michael Z. 16:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Would need academic sources over what is here and at State-sponsored terrorism#Russia as per WP:EXTRAORDINARY and WP:SOURCETYPES.Moxy- 17:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The facts that Russia has been designated terrorist by Ukraine and Lithuania, and that the US Senate and a Congress committee are seeking its designation by the USA, are easily sourced from the news.

The fact that academics have considered and some have argued that Russia is terrorist is also easily sourced from their writings and others that reference them. See Tenzer above, and, for example:

• Motyl, Alexander J. (2014-04-14), “Putin’s Russia as a State Sponsor of Terrorism,” World Affairs.
• Kuzio, Taras (2015-01-22), “Is Russia a state sponsor of terrorism?,” New Eastern Europe.
• Byman, Daniel L. (2018-04-30), “Russia is a state sponsor of terrorism—But don’t treat it that way,” Brookings Institution.
• Kuzio, Taras (2022-06-08), “Is Russia – legally – a ‘state sponsor of terrorism’?,” EUObserver.
• Jim Jones (judge) (2022-07-25), “Russia is a state sponsor of terrorism — and should be treated that way,” The Hill (newspaper).

The question isn’t whether Russia is or is not a terrorist state. It’s whether the debate over the question is is notable enough to mention or discuss in the article. Seeing as other states have designated Russia a terrorist state, I believe it is.

By the way, including this question in the article is not WP:recentism, because the debate has been ongoing since at least the 1999 Russian apartment bombings, the 2014 start of the Russo-Ukrainian War and mass murder on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 by the Russian armed forces, and the 2015 start of the Russian military intervention in the Syrian civil war.

 —Michael Z. 18:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Must be better sources then media junk. Scholarly vs. Popular SourcesMoxy- 18:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 August 2022

According to the latest situation in the European continent, we, the sovereign Ukrainian people, ask Wikipedia to recall the name of a country, which started and still support the unprovoked full-scale war against Ukraine. Taking into account the firing of hypersonic missiles "Kinzhal" and other long-range missiles, with which Russia fires residential complexes and schools, hospitals and kindergartens, we demand to call Russia a terrorist country. Until this fact is confirmed at the international level, Russia will continue its crimes against humanity. Anastasia NSN (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kleinpecan (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Science and technology

The image of Mir used previously has been deleted, so this image could be used. Calesti (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The previous image had not been deleted and has been fixed. SpinningCeres 02:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)