Talk:Russia

Former good articleRussia was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 13, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 1, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
July 16, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
July 24, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 2, 2007Good article nomineeListed
December 7, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 22, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 18, 2010Good article reassessmentKept
September 29, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
October 10, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
January 30, 2022Good article nomineeListed
April 30, 2022Good article reassessmentKept
February 7, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 12, 2004, June 12, 2005, and June 12, 2006.
Current status: Delisted good article


Toolbox
  • Analysis
  • Citation bot
  • External links

The section about area in the infobox makes no sense

The light green part is administered by Russia and claimed by Ukraine. It is not claimed by Russia. A portion of Donbas region which is under control of Ukraine is claimed by Russia. This is what is given in the infobox.

Area • Total 17,098,246 km2 (6,601,670 sq mi) (within internationally recognised borders) 17,234,028 km2 (6,654,095 sq mi) (including claimed territories) (1st)

I think it should be changed to the following:

Area • Total 17,098,246 km2 (6,601,670 sq mi) (within internationally recognised borders) 17,234,028 km2 (6,654,095 sq mi) (including disputed territories claimed by Ukraine) (1st)

Keep in mind this latter figure also includes disputed territories claimed by Japan. 204.197.177.22 (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What part of internationally recognised Russia is claimed by Ukraine? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information in the infobox contradicts the definitions of control and claim. For example, Russia controls Crimea which is claimed by Ukraine, Ukraine controls Kramatorsk which is claimed by Russia. 216.165.212.4 (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should be only one number that corresponds to the internationally recognized borders, i.e. without the internationally recognized Ukrainian territory. Kuril Islands can be a different matter. My very best wishes (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the light green area must be excluded from the map, at least in the Ukrainian region. One of the reasons: this territory is incorrect/misleading however drawn. This is an area of active warfare and it is constantly changing. My very best wishes (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2024

In the start, there is a transliteration of the word 'russia' in russian into english, my edit request is to change the transliteration from 'rossiya' to 'rassiya,' since 'rassiya' is closer to the russian pronounciation, i would like to edit that. Ouiouioui12 (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you're speaking of is a phonetic transcription to record the sounds of speech. This is a transliteration (or, because we're targeting the Roman alphabet, "romanization"), meant to represent the letters of another script according to some convention (of which there are many for Russian: see Romanization of Russian). Transliteration is independent of sound. To indicate pronunciation, we use the International Phonetic Alphabet and/or pronunciation respelling. As you can see, we do provide that, [rɐˈsʲijə]. Largoplazo (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add a claimed but not controlled area to Alaska? On some Wikipedia articles about countries there’s a bright green area that’s described as “claimed but not controlled” and Russia has recently claimed that Alaska is Russian and that the 1867 sale was useless https://thehill.com/policy/international/4423913-state-dept-putin-alaska-russia/amp/ https://www.newsweek.com/us-laughs-off-putin-alaska-not-getting-it-back-1863137 2600:8801:1187:7F00:4D49:24E1:E870:59DE (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant to make it it’s own thing not reply to you my bad 2600:8801:1187:7F00:4D49:24E1:E870:59DE (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Among the lowest

Hello TylerBurden, I just reverted it back to the stable version, before someone changed it last year. Russia is ranked 32 out of 194 countries in Freedom in the World 2021, that's about 16% out of 100%, it does not mean that it is among the last (as 16% of countries around the world are worse), as this introduction now strongly implies. For example, countries that are at the bottom of the list such as China and Saudi Arabia (which could be considered among the worst), nothing like that is mentioned in the introduction (probably because it's only according to a UK-based private company and non-profit U.S. organization). This version implies that it is at the bottom of the list. China, which is in 156th place out of 167th in The Economist Democracy Index, has only: that it does poorly in these rankings. And I'm not even talking about other far worse countries. That's why I suggested reverting to a stable state where it's mentioned the same way, i.e. it's doing poorly.Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is actually being cited in the body of the article in terms of rankings is 146th out of 167 countries by the Economist Democracy Index, and 155th out of 180 countries in the Press Freedom Index. These rankings are closer to the bottom than they are even to the middle, so per WP:LEAD it seems like a valid summary. Please refrain from changing this again until this discussion has been completed. TylerBurden (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, even worse countries don't have this in the introduction. No consensus gained, I remove the controversial text until the introduction returns to its original state, or a consensus is found to change it, which was added in May 2023. It can also fall under: too long and detailed introduction.Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCONTENT is not relevant, the information is cited and part the article body and thus perfectly valid, as well as at this point long standing. Feel free to add whatever you feel is missing to other articles, but you're not providing any valid reasons to downplay Russia ranking among the lowest in these indexes. TylerBurden (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you, because among the lowest, this strongly implies for the last 10-15 countries, but this is far from this status. I just want the article to be in a non-controversial state again before someone changed it recently. Why, for example, Saudi Arabia (and many others) does not even mentioned this, and yet it is on the 7th place from the worst? All I see is economic, population summary and membership in international organizations. Another thing I don't understand, why do you keep returning GDP per capita to where it was, when it clearly belongs in the economic part of the paragraph (and according to the rules, I tried to separate the different edits)? I don't get your motives.Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where the GDP per capita is is a non-issue, it was reverted because you made it as part of the edit once again changing the ranking portion, I have now implemented it the way you wanted. I will ask you again to read what I wrote and go and try and solve whatever concerns you have with other articles, rather than trying to use them as an excuse to argue in favour of your preferences here. The fact remains Russia is bottom 21 out of 146 on the EDI, and bottom 25 out of 180 on the PFI. Like I said before, that is far closer to the bottom than it is to even to the middle of the rankings which would be average. Russia ranks very low on these indexes and that shouldn't be an issue to show on a neutral encylopedia since it's not Wikipedia's job to appease authoritarian regimes and their admirers. TylerBurden (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't agree with you, but we'll see what others have to say. I've never had a problem with someone contradicting something like this, but at least it will be clarified throughout Wikipedia. We will see if it is possible to always mark them (16%) as the lowest ones (for example, among the EU or other political entities, or during any other international comparisons throughout whole Wikipedia).Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Economics and politics

TylerBurden, I don't understand why you keep mixing these things up in the lead, I don't get your motives. I'm being lenient with you because you're new here, but read next time carefully. First were politics rankings, then GDP and resources (economy), and at the end of participation in political groups. You don't want to claim that the international organization is not a political issue? In the article, of course, it is under the topic "Government and politics". GDP and resources they are on the contrary, of course, under the topic "Economy". Read the rules, the introduction should contain a summary of important topics. Paragraphs should deal with a particular point or idea. All the sentences within a paragraph should revolve around the same topic. So the paragraph should be divided according to the topics, or as I suggested, because I don't want to divide the introduction into unnecessarily many paragraphs (but it is also possible if you prefer this), so at least do not mix the topics together but move them together. You're also starting to break rule AGF, from your answers it seems that you are increasingly assuming my bad faith in editing.Jirka.h23 (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think your edit is an improvement, and better organizes the information. I don't understand what his objection is. DarmaniLink (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
personal dispute on a CT talk page
@DarmaniLink How interesting that you suddenly show up here to argue against me, WP:HOUNDING? TylerBurden (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF - I came across this dispute while looking through your history. The intent was not to hound, the intent was reviewing your behavior. If I was hounding, I would have reverted you, which I did not. DarmaniLink (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DarmaniLink I don't see how you are assuming good faith either, talking about how "I can be reported". If you think I have broken policies, then report me, don't follow me around. It's quite literally against policy. TylerBurden (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you aren't aware that you are breaking policy, you're unlikely to be sanctioned. Reviewing other editors behavior through their edits is very much allowed when they're potentially being disruptive, or overly aggressive. Given you restored a BLP vio, I had every right to do. DarmaniLink (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Potentially being disruptive", sure, like I said if you think I'm disruptive then create a report. Obviously the reason you are here is because I interacted with you elsewhere, so it seems rather questionable to follow me around and join discussions in order to argue against me in unrelated discussions. Or better yet, spend your time on people actually being disruptive. TylerBurden (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TylerBurden I think your behavior on Wikipedia is not the best. Read the rules: "Continue to assume good faith yourself when possible. Be civil and follow dispute resolution procedures, rather than attacking editors or edit-warring with them." He has the right to express an opinion about it, just like anyone else, you don't have to react aggressively right away.-WP:AGF.Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is international rankings on democracy, human rights and press freedom related to what organizations the country is a member of? I'm not opposed to being convinced otherwise, but there doesn't seem to be enough of a correlation for them to need to be to each other. TylerBurden (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained this, above. It seems that you did not read it. I explained that according to the rules it should deal with a particular topic. They are different topics, in the article, of course, it is under the topic "Government and politics". GDP and resources they are on the contrary, of course, under the topic "Economy". Also, why don't you answer me? Do you claim that the international organization is not a political issue? Are you even proposing to move this from the political topic to an economic topic? You also still haven't explained, why your proposed version is better, than what we both agree on (as it at least links related topics together).Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD Says "introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents", nowhere does it say that the location in the body of the article dictates where a line of text is placed in the lead. International rankings have been above what international organizations Russia is a member of for years, and there is no need to reverse that order. TylerBurden (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are talking about. No one is here proposing to change the order rankings and organizations, but move them right next to each other, since they contain the same topic. WP:WBA: Paragraphs should deal with a particular point or idea. All the sentences within a paragraph should revolve around the same topic. Again, you didn't answer: are you really proposing to move this from the political topic to an economic topic (in the body of article)? And why is your proposed version better? Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd to claim that no one is proposing it when that is exactly what your edit did, I'm not quite sure how to respond to you when you don't seem to see what you are doing in your edit. Please don't link to editor essays (which are not policy) when trying to make points, I am not proposing anything either so either you seem to be attempting to put words into my mouth or you misunderstand. Your edit clearly pushed international rankings down in the order from the top of the fourth paragraph into the middle of it. That is changing the order which has existed on the article for years.
Example 1: Internationally, Russia ranks among the lowest in measurements of democracy, human rights and freedom of the press; the country also has high levels of perceived corruption. The Russian economy ranks 11th by nominal GDP, relying heavily on its abundant natural resources, and 68th by GDP per capita. Its mineral and energy sources are the world's largest, and its figures for oil production and natural gas production rank highly globally. Russia possesses the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons and has the third-highest military expenditure. The country is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council; a member state of the G20, SCO, BRICS, APEC, OSCE, and WTO; and the leading member state of post-Soviet organisations such as CIS, CSTO, and EAEU/EEU. Russia is home to 30 UNESCO World Heritage Sites.
Example 2 (your edit): The Russian economy ranks 11th by nominal GDP and 68th by GDP per capita, relying heavily on its abundant natural resources. Its mineral and energy sources are the world's largest, and its figures for oil production and natural gas production rank highly globally. Russia possesses the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons and has the third-highest military expenditure. Internationally, Russia ranks among the lowest in measurements of democracy, human rights and freedom of the press; the country also has high levels of perceived corruption. The country is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council; a member state of the G20, SCO, BRICS, APEC, OSCE, and WTO; and the leading member state of post-Soviet organisations such as CIS, CSTO, and EAEU/EEU. Russia is home to 30 UNESCO World Heritage Sites.
This change also comes right after your failed attempts to change the ranking to "low". TylerBurden (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um, debating with you is very complicated. I don't know what country you're from, but maybe you don't speak English well enough (I don't speak flawlessly either). I'll try to explain, change the order of sentences - means that the order of one sentence will change with another, for example that I would put one sentence after another. But we suggest moving them (rankings and organizations) closer together, we don't change the order, no one here suggests that (and it would probably be useless). These are in the article in the same paragraph, the economic part is in another. Just like the guide advises for writing good articles. I still don't understand how the article is better when you revert the edit, blocking any change to the introduction does not seem like your good contribution to a better encyclopedia.
From what you have written so far, I think that you would like to move some things in the body of the article to another topic (if you contradict that they belong to the political or economic). You would also like to change the guide and remove these recommendations (if you don't agree with it there). But guidelines represent the thoughtful consensus of Wikipedia editors. Although they do not have the full weight that policies do, it is important to follow guidelines as a rule. It is a guide to layout and style and how to make an article clear, precise and relevant to the reader. You can suggest the changes, but I don't think you'll have much chance of changing it.Jirka.h23 (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you agree that changing the order is useless, so then don't. You still haven't linked to what you claim is a guideline that says this content has to be next to each other, and you continuing with personal attacks aren't helping your cause either. You are the one suggesting changes. TylerBurden (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change the map?

Now that Russia has claimed the sale of Alaska is illegal, and is now considered Russian territory, should we change the map to make Alaska as claimed territory? Masachiku (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source where the Russian government formally claims that the sale of Alaska was illegitimate? If the source is only a politician making a claim, then I don't think any change to the map is necessary. michael60634 / talk / contributions 06:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Density ranking

In the info box on the top right, Russia's density ranking is wrong. If you click through to the linked ranking, it is actually the 232nd densest country, not the 187th as currently listed on the page. Could someone who has editing privileges please change this. Thanks! PublicTransitIsCool (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Map

Hi everyone, I noticed that there were a few issues with the map of federal subjects with the Kerson Oblast missing some of the territories that it claims from the Mykolaiv Oblast. On further inspection the map also had a range of different formatting issues to the point at which it would be easier to just create a new map, which I have done. I've also tried to make it colour blind freinds -though the current one appears to already be so as well. Hope this resource is useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kappasi (talk • contribs) 14:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Republics
  Krais
  Oblasts
  Federal cities
  Autonomous oblast
  Autonomous okrugs

Political parties in Russia problem

Good morning,

Russia is classified (rightly) on here as being under an authoritarian dictatorship. So I have a real problem with many of the articles on political parties in Russia on here failing to mention their loyalty to Putin and his regime, and how they fit into this authoritarian system. For example the article on the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the second biggest party in Russia after the Kremlin-sponsored United Russia, fails to mention how it is widely considered to be loyal to the regime and not a serious opposition party. This is despite the fact that this can be verified by a wide range of reliable sources, e.g.:

  • [1]
  • [2]
  • [3]
  • [4]
  • [5]
  • [6]
  • [7]
  • [8]
  • [9]
  • [10]
  • [11]
  • [12]
  • [13]
  • [14]
  • [15]
  • [16]

This means that the articles on many political parties in Russia do not give a realistic overview that is in keeping with the context of the Putin regime. As such, this makes me suspect NPOV issues that allow a pro-Russian or pro-Putin tilt on such articles, providing a false image of there being legitimate opposition in the country when literally all reliable sources say otherwise.

Would esteemed Russia editors be able to assist? I'm not saying that the articles should be about bashing Putin. I'm saying that they should be appropriate to the political context of Russia today. Skin from lip (talk) 07:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you're providing are conclusively supporting a narrative you're asking to be asserted as fact furthermore virtually all are opinion pieces that per WP:RSOPINION should be made clear to the readers these are opinions if this topic were included. It's perfectly WP:NPOV to include the opinions and subjective analysis reported in reliable sources but it crosses the line to assert as fact an opinion regardless how popular an opinion is, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum Jetsettokaiba (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Russia is, like Venezuela, in its final stage of autocratization. Of course something written in 2018 will need to be updated eventually, but things aren’t clear enough to do it all at once. Remember, Chavez never faked any elections, and had a thriving economy, Maduro did that. In the 2000s people were happy that old Yeltsin was gone, and some thought that Putin would bring Russia to democracy… Encyclopédisme (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats an interesting opinion but in so far as we're speaking about editing a controversial page lets use reliable sources and present information in a wp:npov way and avoid presenting opinions pieces as facts. If you have personal opinions and views you wish to discuss try https://www.reddit.com Jetsettokaiba (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for shutting me down, I guess. What I meant to say is that we need to observe the situation and the sources (the academic sources only of course, it’s war time, sadly…). The Russian parties support the war in Ukraine because of nationalism and probably have a minimum of independence vis-à-vis Putin. Besides, the Routledge guide does the job as a source. Encyclopédisme (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors can use conclusions from recent works like The Routledge Handbook of Political Parties - Google Books p. 357, good luck ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source. Encyclopédisme (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is really good material! This seems far stronger and more reliable (and wp:npov) than some of the single author sources used to compile recent changes made to this page. I look forward to using this source to make necessary corrections when I get WP:XC. Jetsettokaiba (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can feel free to request edits on this talk. Firestar464 (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of other occupied areas on the infobox map

I feel if we are including occupied regions of Ukraine we should also include Russian-occupied territories in Georgia on the map, as well as Russian military presence in Transnistria. Current infobox does not show full extent of Russia's military occupations. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These territories are not claimed by Russia. Vanyka-slovanyka (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

should infobox include "authoritarian" as goverment description

Hey All in the China talk page theere ia vote that is related to this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:China#RfC

The question is whether infobox of countries should include information live if goverment is authoriterian. If it is decided that not, we should remove it from this article as well. 85.65.237.103 (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russia&oldid=1219764478"