Talk:Russia/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

File:Russian Federation (orthographic projection) - Annexed Territories disputed.svg

Some of the territories have been recently deannexed. BTW - why the Kuril Islands are not shown in an another color? Xx236 (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The map shows the territories claimed by the Russia, not specifically controlled ones SwampKryakwa (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

1) An WP:infobox “summarizes key features of the page's subject.” Ukraine’s Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia oblasts and their “annexation” aren’t even mentioned as part of Russia in this article, so they certainly don’t belong on a map in the infobox.

2) This outline does not conform to a WP:NPOV. Putin signed a law naming four regions annexed by Russia, but his own office said they have no defined borders and they “will continue to discuss that with residents of these regions” (between torture sessions?). In other statements, with a bit less Potemkin institutional circus, he has also claimed all of Ukraine.

There is no solid basis for this particular outline on the map. It is problematic for us to show it.

An infobox is for persistent and uncontroversial data. Like the territories occupied by Russia for seven years, labelled as such. Not this, which can be compared to a Russian propaganda POV. —Michael Z. 22:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Defederalisation and Presidentialization of Russia

Russia is much less federal that it used to be before Putin.

https://georgiatoday.ge/prof-alexander-etkind-on-russian-defederalization-and-the-expected-outcomes/

' Defederalisation Under Putin and Medvedev.' https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780203804490.ch12

https://www.rferl.org/a/Russias_Federation_Myth/2140036.html

The needed changes are fundamental, should be discussed here.

Xx236 (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

https://verfassungsblog.de/russian-crown-presidentialism/ Russian Crown-Presidentialism Xx236 (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

https://staff.ui.ac.id/system/files/users/rosa.evaquarta/material/whiteputinpolpresidentialisation.pdf The Presidentialization of a Semi-Presidential Regime: the Case of Russia 2010!! Xx236 (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

https://www.marshallcenter.org/en/publications/security-insights/presidential-administration-command-and-control-nexus-putins-russia-0 The Presidential Administration: The Command and Control Nexus of Putin’s Russia Xx236 (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Why is Russia not marked as a terrorist state?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Considering all the actions that RF has taken, they should be considered a terrorist state. Why is it not reflected in the article? 77.219.13.195 (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Already under discussion in #Terrorist state, above. —Michael Z. 16:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Because it is not a terrorist state. Michael60634 (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Russia has murdered more civilians than the terrorist Islamic State.

Therefore Russia is a terrorist state. 95.91.204.142 (talk) 23:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Because it has not been designated as one. Stop trying to make Wikipedia biased, this article needs to be protected to avoid silly claims like yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.180.251 (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2022

Edit "History" subsection to denote Russia's formal annexation of Ukrainian regions of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk regions as of 30 September 2022, despite international protest. Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-63077272 BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not an administrator but I understand you need to write the exact words you want added Chidgk1 (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

 Already done ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 22:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Possible to make POV template link to particular talk page discussion?

Not sure which neutrality discussion the template is about - is it possibly to make it point to the particular discussion? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Chidgk1, this [1] is the edit that established the POV-tag in September. It appears to be related to this [2] edit conflict. Lappspira (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I am on mobile now so cannot figure out template params. Could an admin add details such as “reason=map” or somesuch and make the link go to a map discussion? Chidgk1 (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah I see now - on the POV tag please

add "talk=Talk:Russia#Russian_Annexation_of_Luhansk,_Donetsk,_Zaporizhzhia,_and_Kherson"

as that seems to be the first discussion. Then close all the other discussions of the map as duplicates Chidgk1 (talk) 06:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Template removed by Stuntneare ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 22:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Naczi reborn in 2022.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After starting a war in Ukraine, this country should be marked as new Naczi regime in 2022. What they did in Ukraine is not someone should forget. 89.10.159.43 (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The topic is discussed in articles about Russian nationalism, extremist nationalism in Russia, Putinism, and Rashism. It’s a glaring omission that the official ultranationalism and revanchism#Russia that’s led to an unprecedented war of aggression in Europe is not even mentioned. —Michael Z. 16:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Unless Russia starts persecuting jews. They arent nazis. Anti Semitism is a tenant of Nazism and there's no reports of Russian Jews being attacked. So no they are not Nazis. 2603:8080:AC00:CA6:895C:2391:9C6B:C66D (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Being an anti-semite doesn’t exactly make you a Nazi though, although it is one of the core tenants/beliefs of Nazism. Senor0001 (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

One could make the argument that Russia supports national socialism.

For instance, Russia disdains liberal democracy, parliamentarism and anarchism.

Furthermore, by destroying Jewish monuments in Ukraine, Russia has supported antisemitism, and by denying the existence of the Ukrainian culture, Russia paved the way for scientific racism.

Putin has also said that Russia needed more space to grow, which implies that Putin means to conquer more Lebensraum for the Russian master race.

I suggest that we mark Russia as a national socialistic state. AlbrechtVonWallenstein (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you happen to be from Lindas, Norway? Senor0001 (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not condoning the actions of Russia but,the Russian government is not Nazi in any way. But the Russian government is definitely not a democracy and is more Authoritarian. It is extremely Authoritarian, which may become Totalitarian. PatricioZavala (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

'Consolidated Authoritarian regime' according to Freedom House. It is more than 'more Authoritarian'.

'not Nazi in any way'?

• 'aggression was the gravest charge against the accused' Nuremberg trials
• propaganda similar to Nazi one, fanatic society, Gleichschaltung, 'Z' replaces Swastika
• The Russian Orthodox Church acts like "German Christians"
• https://theconversation.com/putins-fascists-the-russian-states-long-history-of-cultivating-homegrown-neo-nazis-178535

Xx236 (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not Russia is now Nazi (or Naczi, if you, uhm, prefer), Wikipedia does not assign labels. It reflects what supposedly (allegedly?) reliable sources say. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The conversation article is not a source that proves that Russia is itself neo-nazi. It does state that Russia collaborated with neo-Nazis, but collaborating with neo-nazis is not the same as being a neo-nazi regime, even if the source is reliable. Suasufzeb (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Similar propaganda, Russian orthodox church "acting like German Christians", "fanatic society", "Fanatic society" do not indicate that Russia is a neo-nazi state. It only shares similarities between them. The Nuremberg Trials don't really prove in any way that Russia is itself neo-nazi. Suasufzeb (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Russia is under an authoritarian government, Russia committed war crimes in Ukraine, but authoritarianism is not necessarily neo-nazism. You need to know it's exact definition, and provide reliable sources actually indicating Russia is neo-nazi itself. Suasufzeb (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Russian annexation of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk and Luhansk

Russia annexed these territories, so should the change not be reflected in the map? At least as disputed territory(light green)? Sng Pal (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The map should be updated to indicate the de facto zone of control as with Crimea. Vivaporius (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

No, since February 24 the de facto territory of Russian military occupation changes from day to day, and it’s now shrinking. That doesn’t belong in the infobox, which should give us persistent, defining information about this state. Russia does not control any of these Ukrainian oblasts in toto.

The “annexed” territories are even more ephemeral. There isn’t even a statement defining their boundaries. Is it the occupied territory, the borders of the respective Ukrainian oblasts, or even more? The Russians have added an occupied bit of Mykolaiv oblast to their partially occupied “Kherson”, and recall Putin’s 2014 imaginary “New Russia” claim which became nothing after his proxies failed to occupy it all, or even two whole oblasts.

The Crimea situation is fundamentally exactly the same, the only difference being that Russia has de facto controlled all of it for longer.

Putin can sign papers claiming Crimea, Donetsk oblast, Zaporizhzhia Oblast, New Jersey, or my back yard. None of that is a reason to add any of these places to a location map of Russia. —Michael Z. 05:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The good thing is that because Russia is treated differently compared to other countries, Russia claiming your backyard would not be shown on the map, whereas if any other country did so, it would (provided your backyard was large enough lol). Whether they only claim what they occupy or the whole oblast, doesn't matter (it would matter if they were any other country though) Since the Russia map ignores uncontrolled claims, simply colour in what they control and claim. Since Russia doesn't claim Mykolaiv Oblast, whatever they control there isn't Russian territory, so there's no need to put it on their map.

There it is with the scare quotes again. "Annexed" can't be in scare quotes, as a real annexation just happened. If you read reliable sources on the event, you'd know that the word "illegal" is in quotes, not the word "annexation".

Remember that Crimea is de jure part of both Ukraine and Russia, not just Ukraine. That's the definition of "disputed territory", conflicting legal claims. But it's de facto only part of Russia, obviously, since only one country can control a territory at a time.

Also remember: Ukraine claims Crimea but doesn't control it. This would be analogous to Russia claiming New Jersey. If you believe claims without control shouldn't be represented on the map, then that means you want to change most Wikipedia country maps. Why don't you personally start on the Ukraine map and remove Crimea as being light green? Make it grey instead. I personally would disagree with this change, I think claims should be shown on the map, but if you think claims are meaningless, then by all means go and remove it.

Now I think you're starting to understand why people like myself want to see the annexed regions shown on the map. It's not because of "Russian nationalist sources" or whatever other boogeymen you keep talking about. It's very simple: objective reality. But again, as I said earlier, the annexations should not be shown on the map at all until it's ratified by Russia (this is when you'll find out the exact definition of the annexation's boundaries are). So not only will we know exactly what Russia claims, but it'll be officially de jure and therefore is officially disputed territory and therefore can be shown on both Russia's and Ukraine's maps. Until then, only Crimea should be coloured in. Peter Njeim (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Well Russia doesn’t permanently control anything, because there’s an active war. Until yesterday it controlled Lyman, for example. If this is really the rule, then what belongs in the infobox is Crimea and territory SE of the pre-February 24 line of contact in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, because that is what’s been controlled for seven years and that’s what every source labels “occupied before February 24” on its maps to this day.

The changing possession of territory during an active conflict does not belong in a country infobox. It is not defining data about the countries on the map.

And no, if it were a real, completed annexation, then it wouldn’t be light green on the map at all, would it? There wouldn’t be an article in Britannica titled “Crimea, Ukraine,” the United Nations and international courts would not refer to the peninsula as “temporarily occupied” by the “occupying power” following its “attempted annexation,” and the air base in Belbek probably wouldn’t be on fire right now. That’s Crimea. The fake “annexation” in mainland Ukraine is even more of a farce, because no Russian soldier has yet set foot on some new parts of fake “Russia” and they are being pushed further from them as we speak, and no other independent country on the planet recognizes it nor is likely to.

And Crimea is not de jure part of Russia. The attempted annexation is even contrary to Russian law, and Moscow is guilty of aggression, which contravenes two articles in the criminal code of the RF. This will get sorted out if the RF ever gets an independent court.  —Michael Z. 21:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

It's been added and taken out like 2 times. I believe it should be shown in light green because Crimea is in light green. Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I am almost retired from Wikipedia but this is really too much to stay silent. On the map it is shown as disputed land which is actually not even controlled by Russia, and is actually considered Ukrainian by the overwhelming majority of countries. The only area which should be colored is Crimea. The current representation is POV and OR, at least until reputable sources considering these areas "disputed" are not cited. These areas have just been partially occupied, it's a very different thing. Silvio1973 (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

"and is actually considered Ukrainian by the overwhelming majority of countries" is not a factor in the map colouring, as Wikipedia's map do not follow the POV of other countries. It follows the de facto control, which you properly allude to later in your message.

"These areas have just been partially occupied". No, they've been annexed by Russia, therefore their intention is to permanently keep the territory. Russia has changed its claim due to the annexation, and those claims must be represented on the map. Anything else would be a violation of NPOV, as you'd be choosing to view the map through a specific country's lens. This isn't showing Russia's lens by the way. What should be shown is what they both "claim and control". That means not showing the whole of the 4 oblasts as being Russian, but the parts of those 4 oblasts that Russia controls as being Russian. Hopefully you understand this, as this is how every other map on Wikipedia is shown, in fact they show even more (you can see what I mean here: Talk:Russia#Why is the map for this article using different coloring than other countries' articles?). Peter Njeim (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's map do not follow the POV of other countries. It follows the de facto control is completely made up. As is the idea that because Russia has annexed the territory that it no longer occupied Ukrainian territory. See for example the Guardian continuing to refer to the territory as occupied. nableezy - 23:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there a single “every other” map that shows territory in an active war zone? The map of Azerbaijan seems to have been updated after the 2020 war.

But if they’re not controlled, then they haven’t really been annexed, have they? What Russia controls is fluid, changing from day to day. Yesterday Lyman, today not, tomorrow who knows? The dynamic line of contact in an active war zone doesn’t belong in an infobox locator map. The map should show the pre-February 24 stable occupied territory, just as most maps in journalistic sources do. —Michael Z. 02:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Completely agree. The annexations have taken place in the context of an ongoing full-scale, active war, and the fighting encompasses the territories involved, which are not fully controlled by Russia. In particular, it seems bizarre to have an infobox country map (which generally show internationally accepted borders in one colour, and stable de-facto borders in another) which contains unrecognised claims that are only tenuously held and will almost certainly change within a small time frame as the front line moves with the conflict. It also seems to be treating Russia's illegal annexation as a fait accompli, when there's no evidence currently this is the case. For these reasons, I firmly think the infobox map should stick to the borders (included disputed areas, such as Crimea) antebellum and exclude any new claims made since the start of the invasion, as there's no way of telling whether they'll be reflected in the final outcome, both in terms of who will end up controlling what (de facto borders) and who will end up claiming what (de jure claims). If, for example, Russia miraculously met with major military success in the coming weeks/months, it might expand its claims. If it were forced out of many territories, maybe it would settle for renouncing its claims except Crimea, or except Crimea and Donbas. There's no way to tell as of now. Jr8825 • Talk 04:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with a compromise of this showing pre February DNR/LNR borders in green in the Russia infobox map Tweedle (talk) 13:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Territories of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Croatia controlled by Serb forces 1992–1995.

I agree, as well. This is very slippery territory Wikipedia is entering now. Had Putin declared that whole of Ukraine is now Russia, would we accept a map showing all of Ukraine in light green? If Wikipedia had been around in 1992, during the Yugoslav Wars, would we accept a map of Serbia with light green areas in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina? Considering that the war is still ongoing, and the areas keep changing (and we don't even know which exact borders Russia is imagining as its own), and that the UN rejected the annexation and referenda, the map should be restored to the previous one, with a status quo. It is occupied territory. It isn't part of Russia.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• Too soon. Let's revisit this topic in the new year. :) IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree 100%. This is an active war-zone, not like Crimea which Russia seized and effectively controlled thereafter. Russia could claim all of its former Soviet territories (which is not entirely unthinkable for someone like Putin), would Wikipedia show all those independent states as light green then? No, because that is ridiculous. I am okay with Crimea and the formerly rebel-controlled areas in the Donbas area being highlighted as green, everything else is merely occupied. Besides, Russia does not even control the entire light green area. Timothy2b (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Well the problem with that is that we do indeed show areas officially claimed by a government on existing location maps. I would point to Venezuela's claim to Guyana as one, China's claim to Taiwan as another, and India's claim to Kashmir as yet another. Morocco is yet another example where, like China, it lays claim to an entire region occupied by what is an internationally-recognized country, invalidating the previous statement: "Had Putin declared that whole of Ukraine is now Russia, would we accept a map showing all of Ukraine in light green?" The answer to this would be—given Wikipedia's prior behavior—yes. And all of this is to say nothing of Israel. In three of these instances, none of these nations have effective control over the regions or countries they claim as their own, yet we display them on the location maps. The only difference here is that it isn't politically acceptable to display it in Russia's case for the annexed regions, and it seems that none of the arguments here hold up given the examples I've presented. As it stands, Russia only officially claims the annexed regions as part of Russia, and has effective control over most of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, and Donetsk, and complete control over Luhansk and Crimea. I see no reason to break with our past stance on claims to lands outside the effective control of a given country, or annexations not recognized by the international community. Either we stick to our previous actions, or hold all such examples to the same standard we are now holding this article too. Vivaporius (talk) 04:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Differences:

1. This claim is a week old.
2. This claim does not include borders described that we can map.
3. This claim came during a major conflict where territorial control is changing.
4. Russian claims are changing often and dramatically in the last days, weeks, months, and years, and often contradict each other at the same time.
5. This claim isn’t in the article text.

These are reasons it doesn’t belong in the infobox, which is to summarize info from the article, especially stable defining data.

(Russian forces do not control all of Luhansk oblast.)  —Michael Z. 15:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

There are issues here:

• That doesn't hold water since the age of a claim is still a claim.
• It does as we can clearly show Kashmir and the areas of Guyana that are claimed by another country.
• The zones controlled doesn't matter. What the nation officially claims does. China doesn't own an inch of Taiwan, yet it is shown on their map since they lay official claim to the island. Syria's official government only controls 70% of the country, yet we still display Syria with 100% of the territory the government claims.
• It doesn't matter since Russia stated through their own official channels they are the rightful owners of those four oblasts in addition to Crimea.
• It does not need to be explicitly stated in the article text anymore than Russia's eighty plus federal subjects need to be listed to be shown on the map.

As I stated before, the claims of a nation are shown in their location map regardless of legality or effective control, and this has been upheld for several nations aside from the five I have down below. Your argument would be perfectly acceptable if we didn't have countless examples proving the exact opposite of the claim you have posited. Either you maintain the standard or you change it for everyone. At the end of the day, a nation doesn't have to own the land to have it displayed on their location map. You can't pick or choose now that it's Russia. Vivaporius (talk) 04:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

1. does hold water, because the infobox is not a news ticker. 2. I don’t know what you mean about Kashmir and Guyana. The Russian government does not have borders for their claims. Their occupation administration has stated that some parts of Mykolaiv oblast have been added to Kherson oblast, so we know they are not necessarily the official Ukrainian borders. The Kremlin has said that the borders are still under discussion. For all we know, they still plan to push to the Dnipro and add more whole oblasts to these oblasts. So there is no line to put on the map. 3. “Taiwan” says “The ROC maintained its claim of being the sole legitimate representative of China and its territory” in the lead, but that article’s infobox map doesn’t reflect this claim, so it appears it’s not mandatory and we can apply good judgment. 4. Putin also claimed all of Ukraine, and parts of several other countries, through the official channel kremlin.ru. 5. The federal subjects are not in the infobox map, but that’s neither here nor there: displaying borders of part of Ukraine as part of Russia is an outstanding and controversial assertion. We can’t make up these borders and put them on the locator map when the Russian government itself hasn’t even done so. —Michael Z. 22:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

1. The infobox is there to provide a quick overview of the statistics of a nation, including the lands officially administered and claimed by that country. So I repeat, your argument does not hold water.
2. Then you haven't been paying attention to my point. Venezuela claims half of Guyana, but does not hold or administer any inch of it. India claims all of Jammu and Kashmir, an area which would include Pakistan's Gilgit-Baltistan province, which yet again, India does not hold or administer in any way. Yet we display the claims of Venezuela and India on their locator maps. So what the Kremlin claimsis under discussion doesn't matter since the "people's republics" that held the annexation referendums have official borders, and those areas were officially annexed by Russia, giving us a de facto border until the de jure borders are established under Russian law. The previous map showing this on the locator map for Russia adequately displayed this information, and 99% of people following the annexation know what Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk look like on a map.
3. An asinine argument given the weight of evidence is still on my side. You cannot discount the claims of the other nations I demonstrated with a very weak argument that Taiwan's claims aren't displayed on a locator map. And this is an incredibly disingenuous argument given that we have the historical ROC map listed under the others within the infobox, which are still valid given that Taiwan's current and previous governments never disavowed their claims. The ROC still claims Mongolia and Tuva, and we include that within its locator map since they are still valid.
4. Yet it officially claims under Russian law that the four oblasts of Ukraine aside from Crimea are territories of Russia. There is no official claim to all of Ukraine within Russian law, and Putin's claims are still subject to Russian law. Ergo, what Putin says has no legal weight unless it's backed up by a legislative move officiating the claim, hence the massive referendum and ceremony he had to hold to bring the occupied territories into Russia.
5. Outstanding and controversial to individuals such as you ignoring a pattern of action present on Wikipedia for nearly twenty years. Not to the bulk of people looking for an encyclopedic depiction of what nations officially claim to own as integral parts of their territory. You are making very half-arsed arguments as to why these claims shouldn't be depicted on a locator map, even though the full weight of evidence on the subject on Wikipedia is against you. You attempted to make what you thought was a clever retort citing Taiwan as an example, only for me to do only cursory investigation on the issue and find that yes, all of mainland China is depicted as claimed by Taiwan, as well as Mongolia, Tuva, parts of Pakistan, Tajikistan, Myanmar, and India. Again, it appears that the only reason anyone would not want to display these claims on the map would be for personal or political reasons, neither of which have any place on a site claiming to be a source of encyclopedic information. Vivaporius (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

   • Appears to be false: the "people's republics" that held the annexation referendums have official borders. Not in their own illegal “constitution” and “laws,” not “by Russian law,” and also directly contradicted by the Kremlin last week. If you have a source, pull it out.
   • Not an argument, and also false: 99% of people following the annexation know . . ..

   @User:Vivaporius, please review WP:NPA and strike these:

   • An asinine argument
   • individuals such as you
   • the only reason anyone would not want to display these claims on the map would be for personal or political reasons

    —Michael Z. 15:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing within WP:NPA to indicate "the only reason anyone would not want to display these claims on the map would be for personal or political reasons" is a personal attack against you, unless you are implying that somehow it is. So I have issue with striking it out and will leave it there until reason is introduced as to why it should be removed.

Not an argument, and also false Strikes me as being rather pedantic when it's hyperbolic statement that most people know what those four oblasts are, and that they know what their borders look like. That said, you have yet to address the rest of my argument and the fact that you provided a misleading claim about Taiwan's claims in your previous post. And no, that isn't a personal attack. It's a fact. You deliberately provided a misleading statement about it and got caught.

Not in their own illegal “constitution” and “laws,” not “by Russian law,” and also directly contradicted by the Kremlin last week. One would say the same regarding the Golan Heights, but Israel annexed the region according to "Israeli law", and it is displayed as Israeli territory even though it isn't internationally recognized. Again, we are holding Russia to a different standard than we hold all other nations too, and there is no reason to do so. The massive weight of evidence as I cited before is against you. And keep in mind, if Dictator Bob decides to annex Florida one day, are we going to start saying "Oh, well, since Dictator Bob didn't say what Florida's borders are, we can't really display them on the map!" That argument follows no logic, and the only one advocating for a different standard here is you. Therefore, I fail to see why I need to introduce new evidence laying down what the borders for Kherson Oblast and Zaporizhzhia Oblast look like within Russia, especially when Donetsk and Luhansk have already stated what their borders are. Borders which mind you, militiamen from both regions cited as not wanting to be deployed beyond. So clearly they exist somewhere. And when Russia occupied all of Luhansk Oblast, the Russians themselves stated that they took full control of it, so even they knew where the borders were. Why we somehow have some difficulty of figuring out where these borders are is beyond me. Vivaporius (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Vivaporius, please strike this: you lied about Taiwan's claims in your previous post. And no, that isn't a personal attack. It's a fact. You deliberately lied about it and got caught. —Michael Z. 16:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Michael Z Striken. And I apologize for the sharp tone of my language. Now, please address the rest of my argument. Taiwan's claims are represented within the infobox and anyone can see that reflected. This is true also of Israel, Morocco, Venezuela, India, Pakistan, and China. As I stated before, I maintain the weight of evidence is against you. Vivaporius (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Examples of unrecognized territorial claims on Wikipedia

• 
  Venezula's claims in Guyana
• 
  China's claims in India and Taiwan
• 
  India's claims in Pakistan and China
• 
  Morocco's claims to Western Sahara
• 
  Israel's claims to Palestine and the Golan Heights

But ...

• 
  Locator map of Taiwan’s territorial claim
• 
  Locator map in the article Taiwan

Except...

• 
  Locator map in the article Taiwan, plus all of its claims included in the actual infobox

Russia was the world's fifth-leading destination for international students in 2019, hosting roughly 300 thousand

The situation has radically changed. Xx236 (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

https://thepienews.com/news/russia-students-suffer-sanctions/ Xx236 (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2022

Add (Russian) next to "Российская Федерация". StrawWord298944 (talk) 17:53, 12 October 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. There are only 2 instances of "Российская Федерация" in the entire article, once in the infobox and again in a source. Neither instance would be appropriate to add ([[Russian language|Russian]]) to. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The Russian translation of the country's full name is already mentioned in a footnote. Kleinpecan (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

aral-pan 10

why the russia is the largest asia? 131.226.82.207 (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Political divisions

• "According to the constitution, the Russian Federation is composed of 89 federal subjects"
• "some were later merged" - has the constitution been changed accordingly?
• how many federal subjects are there? Such information should be explicitly given.

Xx236 (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2022

Russia's GDP and GDP per capita figures do not correspond to the figures given in source 12. Please double check those figures. 2604:3D09:1377:B300:FD5D:FAA0:9662:351C (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Updated source and all figures to October 2022 IMF estimates Mikelr (talk) 07:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The number of countries that Russia borders (lead section)

In the lead, it says that Russia borders 16 countries. If we exclude South Ossetia and Abkhazia (which are excluded currently), which are unrecognised, Russia only borders 14 countries by land. Russia is in very close proximity to two other countries by water, namely Japan and the United States (which are included currently), but I wouldn't call this a "border". Indeed, I would say that Russia and China are tied in having the highest number of national borders (not including multiple borders with the same country), both having 14 borders according to the "neutral" version of the world map. India claims Pakistan's portion of Kashmir, so India believes that China has only 13 borders, but as I said, this is a non-neutral interpretation of the map. I believe that it is an NPOV violation to assert that Russia's two "maritime" borders with Japan and the United States count as real borders. The lead section should be changed accordingly. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Fixed it by finding a source and stating what it says.  —Michael Z. 15:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

One should also take note that China's own interpretation of the world map is different too. I myself do not support any of China's territorial claims outside of its de facto territory, but China's claim to Taiwan means that China technically believes that it has two narrow maritime boundaries with Japan (or the Ryukyu Islands) and the Philippines, respectively. Meanwhile, China's claim to the South China Sea Islands (with its Nine-Dash Line) means that China thinks it has narrow maritime boundaries with Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia (as well as the Philippines). Going by the opposite viewpoint, from Taiwan's perspective (viewing itself as a country), China could be said to have fifteen borders, with the 14 UN member states plus Taiwan. Taiwan controls the Kinmen and Matsu islands, which are located extremely close to China. Meanwhile, the main island of Taiwan itself is pretty close to China anyway. If we are going to use the arbitrary definition of sea boundaries, we could come up with all sorts of ways to define the world map. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

New location map

Russia on the globe, with disputed Kuril Islands (1945–present), and occupied territory in Ukraine (2015–2022) shown in light green.

@M.Bitton has kindly created a location map on my request, showing the Kuril Islands (as before) and the long-term occupied territory of Ukraine in light green (Crimea and the DLNR behind the relatively stable Minsk agreements line of contact, February 2015–February 2022). I hope this is an improvement and can be acceptable to everyone participating in several discussions about it. —Michael Z. 18:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Previous relevant discussions currently on this talk page:

1. Talk:Russia#Russian Annexation of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson
2. Talk:Russia#Annexed territory
3. Talk:Russia#Why are the disputed territories not shown on the map
4. Talk:Russia#Why is the map for this article using different coloring than other countries' articles?
5. Talk:Russia#Annexed territory borders have yet to be defined
6. Talk:Russia#Russian annexation of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk and Luhansk
7. Talk:Russia#What does light green colour stand for?
8. Talk:Russia#File:Russian Federation (orthographic projection) - Annexed Territories disputed.svg

I suggest we consolidate all of those in this new thread, if further discussion is necessary.  —Michael Z. 18:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Mzajac Even if we can’t show the of southern and easter Ukraine due to there not being any defined borders for annexation, shouldn’t we at least mention it in the caption/note? I feel like it’s pretty important MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure how you envision that. The caption is there to support the map, not to extend its coverage to other things: it probably shouldn’t mention the lack of ratified border with Estonia, or the presence of Russian forces in Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Syria, or Africa either.

The war of aggression and annexation is mentioned at the end of the “Russia#History” section.

Better to add them to the lead than overload the caption. —Michael Z. 19:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

References

The problem with this map is, Russia did not claim those two areas back then. So it is misleading. Either we use pre 2022 claim (only Crimea) or current claims (4 oblasts+Crimea). Beshogur (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Not misleading, but it’s not a simple situation. It is Russian claimed territory that has been persistently controlled for seven years by Russia and its “republics” that are now “annexed” by Russia. It has been shown this way for most of the current conflict in journalism. The Institute for the Study of War maps call it “Russian-controlled Ukrainian Territory before February 24.”[3] New York Times now calls it “line of contact before invasion” and “approximate line separating Ukrainian and Russian-backed forces before the invasion.”[4]  —Michael Z. 21:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, let's continue the conversation down here since it's less of a mess than the above. Beshogur makes a good point, and it seems that we are making up new rules as to why we won't display the current territories controlled by Russia on the map. It doesn't make sense to show the territories controlled prior to the war when Ukraine hasn't made any gains south of the Dniper River for several months now. Journalists other than the New York Times, like the BBC are using new maps for the conflict. And as I mentioned before, Wikipedia has a history of displaying the claims of other nations on their locator maps regardless of their effective control in those regions. Vivaporius (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

WHy isn't Alaska shown as disputed? https://www.foxnews.com/us/russia-alaska-california-fort-reparations-sanctions Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Because Russia officially sold the territory to the United States in 1867, and signed laws and treaties to that effect, waving its territorial rights to Alaska and officially recognizing it as sovereign American lands. AND because there is currently no official legislation in Russia laying claim to Alaska as there is to Ukraine, or as there is for Venezuela's claims to Guyana, or for Morocco's claims to Western Sahara. The demands of a single lawmaker in Russia do not carry the full legal weight of a legislative action officially laying claim to a territory as was done with the four oblasts recently annexed by Russia. That said, I feel this argument is disingenuous. Vivaporius (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Russia's hope of annexing Alaska is close to nil. There are barely any Russians living in Alaska -- it is fully "Americanised" -- plus Russia wouldn't dare to attack the United States in the way that it has done to Ukraine. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Vivaporius, are you now proposing a map of areas controlled? Who is going to create and keep updating such a map? The map being disputed is of areas claimed.

Where is “south” of the Dnipro? Ukraine is making significant advances on both the left (Kharkiv, Donetsk, and Luhansk oblasts) and right banks (Kherson oblast). The Russians have made no significant advances in months, only inching along towards Bakhmut since April. Dunno what advances have to do with the location map of Russia, anyway. The infobox is not a news ticker: it oughtn’t display a day-to-day map of fluid lines of conflict during an invasion. That is the not “new rules” that we should follow.  —Michael Z. 14:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

One would think the same people here on Wikipedia who update most of the maps of ongoing conflicts across the planet, such as for Syria, Ethiopia, and South Sudan, and have consistently done so for the last eleven or twelve years now. As someone stated earlier, there are individuals who live for this sort of stuff, and the map could easily be maintained in an updated status every one to two weeks. There is simply no logic behind any arguments against it, especially when for seemingly random reasons Donetsk and Luhansk are displayed on the map in their 2014 areas, but when Luhansk controls at least 90% of its oblast by Russian and Ukrainian reckoning.

"South" of the Dnipro being Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. But for the purposes of clarification, the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts. And if Ukraine is making such advances inot those areas, then surely we can update any such map with the changes in territory as we have done for countless maps on the site. And please don't say that's not the purpose of a map or something similar, because the current map for the Syrian civil war alone has been updated at least ~130-150 times since it was created back in 2016. As for these "rules" you keep citing regarding the infobox, would you please share them for the whole class to see? I would like to see the basis of your argument as to why the map should be updated even to show the oblasts officially annexed by Russia as has been done for several nations with internationally-unrecognized claims on Wikipedia. Vivaporius (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Another example that reflects this principle is the location map for “Ukraine,” showing “Location of Ukraine (green) / Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine at the start of the 2022 Russian invasion (light green).”  —Michael Z. 15:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The light green zones are the areas that were occupied back in 2014. It's been eight years now and eight months into the invasion itself. The map has changed, and we aren't adhering to our encyclopedic mission if we aren't displaying the changes on the ground because some of us believe the infobox isn't a news ticker (and I would still like to see the purported rule on that). Ukraine hasn't controlled Kherson for eight months now, and its coastline has been reduced to what is effectively a sliver on the western end of its internationally-recognized borders. No one here is saying that we need to "paint the map" for Russia, but only that until Ukraine has regained control of one or more of the oblasts annexed by Russia, the annexed oblasts should be displayed as regions Russia has officially claimed as parts of its territory. The same as we have done for Morocco, Pakistan, India, China, Taiwan, Venezuela, and Israel. We can't have shifting standards of what is and isn't displayed just because it's Russia. If you argue we shouldn't display the changes for Russia, then you need to do the same for all of the countries I cited and more. Vivaporius (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this viewpoint due to the "CRYSTAL BALL" nature of the dispute. Russia's occupation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts could go on only for a few more months, or it could go on for several years. We cannot predict what the future outcome of this conflict will be, and we don't even have a good idea of when it might end. Indeed, in the cases of Western Sahara and the Kuril Islands, those conflicts are still ongoing with no end in sight, and we've taken the status quo position, regardless of how long it might have existed for. The current status quo is that Russia is occupying and has "annexed" (at least on paper) four territories of Ukraine (i.e. not including Crimea, which was annexed several years earlier from Ukraine). However, Russia doesn't completely control these four territories, so there will have to be a distinction between the parts that are under Russia's control and under Ukraine's control. Unfortunately, this is the part where it gets messy, because the front line of the war is always moving, so people will have to update the line of control practically every day until the war comes to an end or a "stable situation" arises (without the war necessarily coming to an end). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean that Russia occupies the four oblasts? The whole territories? Xx236 (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned that there is a line of control. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, there’s no reason to show the Donbass but not the oblasts which have been claimed by Russia for the same amount of time. Sure it was controlled by pro-Russian, maybe even Russian puppet governments depending on who you ask, but it was never officially claimed by Russia until recently MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Looks like @user:RayAdvait reverted the map[5] without participating in the discussion here. —Michael Z. 14:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

This is pointless. Show the map of Russia in its internationally recognized borders. That would be the most conservative and correct decision at this point. Anything else risks Wikipedia turning into a promotion (or silent complicity) for Russian ethno-nationalist irredentism and reward for territorial claims.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Then you would need to do the same for Morocco, Venezuela, Israel, China, India, Pakistan, Cyprus, Serbia, and Somalia. I don't see too many other people here arguing that the borders shouldn't be shown for political reasons. But thank you for coming out and saying exactly what I was warning against, and proving what the real reason is for why we're all of a sudden changing years long policy on Wikipedia in displaying unrecognized claims on locator maps. You're doing us all a great service. "Silent complicity" by remaining consistent. Haven't laughed that hard in some time now. Vivaporius (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not a native speaker, you are one, sorry if I misunderstand something. You write "the borders". But we do not know which borders, the front in Ukraine is moving daily. Xx236 (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Political system

• multi-party representative democracy
• References 2007, 2005, (and CIA Factboo).

but

• centralised authoritarian government (infobox). The page should be integrated, we cannot accept several contradictory informations.

Xx236 (talk) 08:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

There are sources for that claim in the infobox. Russia has changed enormously in the last 15 years and it was considered a semi-democratic/hybrid regime in the 2000s. Today no more: let's see what the 2021 edition of CIA Factbook says... Lone Internaut (talk) 11:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

CIA Factbook says “Government type: semi-presidential federation.” Also, “Russia shifted toward a centralized authoritarian state under President Vladimir PUTIN (2000-2008, 2012-present) in which the regime seeks to legitimize its rule through managed elections, populist appeals.”[6]  —Michael Z. 21:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Russia#What type of dictatorship.Moxy- 14:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Russia is not a dictatorship

The main page says Russia has become a dictatorship — this is wrong at best and propaganda at worst. While Russia is certainly an authoritarian state, calling it a dictatorship is incorrect. 146.200.180.251 (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

FYI - there are four sources given in the country infobox. 2A02:AA1:1623:58B5:CD6B:5BF4:D56A:F8BD (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@2A02:AA1:1623:58B5:CD6B:5BF4:D56A:F8BD Still you can't call Russia a dictatorship while other countries like Egypt, Venezuela, Iraq or others aren't labeled as dictatorships. Bilikon (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

We can and should if a significant proportion of reliable sources do so; in fact, we would be violating our own policies by not doing so. We do not choose how to describe the subjects of our articles based on how the subjects of other articles are described. See WP:V and WP:OR, among others. General Ization ^Talk 20:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know if those other articles are right or wrong, but you’ll have to provide an argument with evidence from sources to convince all of us here. Easier to just discuss sources relevant to this article, as that’s what really matters. —Michael Z. 19:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, er, the required change has been made, and apparently, it is much more proper now.

Thanks a ton! And let's hope Wikipedia maintains this neutrality Sng Pal (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I oppose this controversial change. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: I think your initial change itself was controversial and should have been discussed first. From what I can see, the refs in the infobox were for "centralised authoritarian state". Mellk (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't remember changing the infobox but yes you are right it should match whatever it is decided the lead should say. I did not think Russia being a dictatorship was controversial but obvious nowadays. However if you want changes in the lead to be discussed beforehand you could add a hidden comment similar to the one on climate change which says "Please do not change the content in the lead section without prior discussion" Chidgk1 (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

It seems someone changed it to "centralised dictatorship"[7] before "centralised" was removed[8] and then ECP. This just got caught in the middle of the edit warring after the annexations were announced. Mellk (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Sciptaen, Suasufzeb, Sng Pal, Moxy, Mzajac, Jr8825, Temp0000002, Mellk, Xx236, Xx236, Vivaporius (I don't know if IP users can be notified) Sorry if you have to repeat your arguments but I was getting confused with the same subject being discussed in so many different sections of this talk page. So I closed the rest (except the one with the tag which only admins can answer) - hope that is OK with you guys. Also I see the discussions are mostly very polite and well reasoned which is great. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Chidgk1 That is completely acceptable. Thank you for the notification. :) Vivaporius (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the lead should say that Russia is a dictatorship because it is supported by several reliable sources and the word "dictatorship" is easier to understand than "authoritarian state". Chidgk1 (talk) 10:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

As per WP:SCHOLARSHIP we should use the best sources and provided them to our readers. Allways pick reliable scholarship over media...this is best for reasearch. Moxy- 11:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy The German Institute for International and Security Affairs appears to be a reputable research institution Chidgk1 (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The word dictator has clear definition of absence of separation of power, and this is well understood by those people who are learned enough to not call dictator random people. There is nothing that can classify Russia, in its real definition, a "dictatorship". Despite what Westerners say, Russia has a democratic constitution and Putin is not unbound to act as he pleases. It is so shameful that someone has to make clear this basic vocabulary that is unmistakenly connected to western misinformation as those who claim Russia is a dictatorship talk about the invasion of Ukraine which itself is western bias, looked from western point of view and without neutrality by writers. Temp0000002 (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you that Separation of powers is fundamental to democracies nowadays. Although theoretically Russia might have this, in practice it does not - for example according to https://www.ideopol.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/1.-ENG.-Pomeranz-final.pdf "Russia has never embraced a notion of separation of powers or the other legal prerequisites broadly associated with the rule of law. Instead, it has pursued a “unified state” where the ruling power (or party) controls all the three branches of government and ultimately is not held accountable to the law" Chidgk1 (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Look, I can find anyone that says any country is a dictatorship, it's not hard at all to do so, the problem is not your understanding of sources but the bias of writers who lied in those sources. I cannot do more than pointing my finger at the problem, now you have to find the problem itself. I ask God to make your search easy, inasmuch as you care about the label of Russia or you just want to make your point. Temp0000002 (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I think with Venezuela being called a dominant party republic; Russia surely can be labelled at least as an authoritarian state. I'm pretty sure labelling Russia as a dictatorship is a tad bit far too much and is blatant western propaganda.

Besides, while freedom levels in Russia are too low for Russia to be called a democracy, there is, without doubt, a system of checks and balances (for example hardliner nationalists criticizing the generals)

Simply put, there are local leaders, like Kadyrov, who are Putin loyalists

but, influence and in a way therefore control the way Russia is run.

Sng Pal (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The word is easier to relate to, no doubt. But they are different, right? In fact, they are a lot different, and it is much more proper if the term [[authoritarian state]] is used in place of [[dictatorship]]. Sng Pal (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

At this point, it could be considered a dictatorship CracksInTheFloor (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

What type of dictatorship

I keep seeing the same debate about if its a dictatorship or authoritarian state.....this is a misunderstanding of the use of terms. Historians refer to dictatorship as a form of authoritarianism or totalitarianism (with hybrid versions). So what is being talked about in this case - is has Russia, that has a "dictator" moved from authoritarianism to totalitarianism? Moxy- 14:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Belarus a dictatorship but Russia a centralised authoritarian government?

Would it not be correct to label Russia as a republic under a dictatorship? From what I understand, the sources say that Russia is an authoritarian state, but wikipedia should aim to use information that reflects the reality of today. Putin has practically no existing constraints and is largely seen as the only person with actual power in the nation. The label of dictatorship is correct, and there are sources that back this up.

Belarus was labelled a centralised authoritarian government some time ago before it was edited back to a dictatorship. Belarus is a dictatorship similar to that of Russia. CracksInTheFloor (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:Russia#What type of dictatorship and Talk:Belarus#What type of dictatorship for the basics. Wondering if we should dumb it down and say "authoritarian dictatorship" Moxy- 00:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand and I have looked at those talk posts, but an authoritarian regime is not the same as a dictatorship. My point is that Russia is a dictatorship in practice. Chidgk1 changed the government label to a semi-presidential federal republic under a dictatorship but the label was then changed back because the refs said centralised authoritarian government. 207.136.202.106 (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Not sure people are looking at sources. We currently say authoritarian because the sources are identifying the type of dictatorship. XxDictators regimes are termed ‘authoritarian’ or ‘totalitarian’ with many getting their own term if they're historically significant. Nazi were a "Totalitarian Regime" with there own term Nazism.

What we should be debating is has Russia's dictatorship changed? ..Source One .... Source 2. Moxy- 22:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I implemented a change I suggested above see article. Moxy- 23:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy There is a source that says Russia has turned into a hybrid totalitarianism but there isn't enough unbiased information on this yet. "Under an authoritarian dictatorship" would be completely fine (for now). CracksInTheFloor (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree....we need something peer reviewed. This is why it hasn't currently been added. Just pointing out that we're having the wrong debate. Moxy- 23:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as a dictatorship that is not centralized or authoritarian? Aren't those necessary features of any dictatorship? It feels redundant. 25stargeneral (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@25stargeneral Generally dictatorships are, but the label is correct regardless. I agree with Moxy's decision. CracksInTheFloor (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I would agree about removing centralized.... but there are different kinds of dictatorships as seen by all the sources. Moxy- 23:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

OSCE Membership

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe#OSCE involvement in Ukraine (2014-present)Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The Council of Europe has recognized the terrorist nature of Russia. Should this be mentioned in this wikipedia article?

The international organisation Council of Europe has recently recognized the "terrorist nature" of Russia because of autocrat Putin´s "reckless and hateful narrative and spiteful contempt of the most basic human rights and rules of international law". https://pace.coe.int/en/files/31311/html#_TOC_d56e748 I respectfully agree and therefore we should mention in this article that Russia displays a terrorist nature ever since it attacked Ukraine. Please note that the Council of Europe has explicitly stated that Russia has a terrorist nature. AlbrechtVonWallenstein (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this should definitely be mentioned. This is a notable and important statement, it characterizes Russia well, and almost all European countries support this view. Joreberg (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

No, because Russia is not a "terrorist state". Michael60634 (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Michael60634, this is about what the Council of Europe says. Whether this is actually in reality true, isn't the point. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 09:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

And your source is? Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Citations in Terrorism in Russia#2022.  —Michael Z. 14:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Federal Security Service

The page does not mention FSB. FSB means more than FBI does. Xx236 (talk) 07:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-Protected-Edit Request

Please change the "or the Russian Federation" in the first sentence to "known formally as the Russian Federation", as that is Russia's official name. Thank you. Praxeria (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Last time I made that change I was told both "Russia" and "the Russian Federation" are co-official, hence the "or" instead of "officially known as". Yue🌙 07:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Former National anthem

Add Patrioticheskaya Pesnya (lit. The Patriotic Song) as the former national anthem of Russia from 1991-2000. Do this so that it is consistent with the Soviet article, similar to having The Internationale as the anthem before 1944. Nag-Eedit si Mang Robert (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Articles about current entities generally prioritise current symbols, as they do not have the temporally defined scope articles about historical entities do. CMD (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2022

Change the Russian occupied territories map to those areas which the country actually have the control. In simple words requesting to remove the claim area marked in light green from the map to only occupied and controlled areas to be highlighted in light green. ReaperLonely (talk) 11:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Russia. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. in this case, since it's a file, the proper place for this would be File talk:Russian Federation (orthographic projection) - Annexed Territories disputed.svg in Wikimedia Commons, where changes can be discussed there or in the Commons:Graphics lab where images can be requested. 💜  melecie  talk - 12:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2022

Under the Cuisine section:

Change "and shashlyk are p in Russiapular meat dishes."

To "and shashlyk are popular in Russian meat dishes." 96.225.77.86 (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done have corrected to "shashlyk are popular Russian meat dishes" - which is how it read prior to what looks like an accidental error made along with another edit Cannolis (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The article is far from being Good

I have listed a number of my comments Talk:Russia/GA4, the only answer was 'list secondary sources'. There are thousands of books about Russia. Xx236 (talk) 11:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

"It is requested that a map or maps, showing locator map for Russia with persistently occupied territories 2015–2022; details at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop/Archive/Sep 2022#Orthographic map of Russia with long-term occupied territories, be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Russia or Ukraine may be able to help!" ??? Xx236 (talk) 11:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Holidays

'Two major Christian holidays are Easter and Trinity Sunday' but at the beginning Christmas is listed. Some integration is needed. Xx236 (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The lead

I think the lead became more complicated to read through after Zeex.rice recently edited it. Should the previous version be restored? Calesti (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Not going to lie, it's not my finest work. I'll revert it. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 22:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Zeex.rice: The rest of the work is definitely an improvement. But I still think the lead should not have any references. The lead is meant to be a summary of the entire article, not an exclusive piece. I believe the sources should be moved, what do you think? See Canada for example. The refs were also recently added. Previously the article was reference free. Calesti (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

There are three references in the lead; one of them (after the land boundaries part) doesn't seem necessary at all since the wikilinked article expands on the topic itself. However, I'm not sure about whether the references reinforcing the claim of democratic backsliding and authoritarianism (under Putin) qualify in the same way. You can remove them if you like, but I'm not sure if it'll be an uncontested edit (for the latter two) if you do, since many editors like to tread very precisely (almost nitpicking sometimes, in my experience) when it comes to describing such qualities of a country. ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 15:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

They are there because there is always a problem as per MOS:LEADCITE. Unlike Canada other FA country articles due have them Austraila Moxy- 16:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

"censorship of mass media and internet"

Only one source referenced, no details. Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-Confirmed-Protected edit request on 13 November 2022

In the lead, please change "or the Russian Federation" with "officially known as the Russian Federation". Thank you. Praxeria (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Both short and long names are official. —Michael Z. 23:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Praxeria Both "Russia" and "Russian Federation" are official names according to Section 1, Chapter 1, Article 1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

Here is the text:

"The names 'Russian Federation' and 'Russia' shall be equal." Michael60634 (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Child abductions in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

The abductions should be mentioned. They are part of state policy. Similarly transfer of adult Ukrainians against their will. Xx236 (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

This is part of the larger topic of Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (and specifically the allegation of the crime of incitement to genocide is widely supported by reliable sources).

The article about Turkey, for example, mentions both Armenian and Circassian genocides, including in the text and the lead. The numerous historical genocides that occurred in Russia or were perpetrated by Moscow are strangely completely absent here.

In the high-level context of this article, this also belongs to the reasons for and goals of the Russian war against Ukraine, which would belong in this article as well.  —Michael Z. 16:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Germany is another example that mentions two genocides, with the Holocaust in the lead (although it is not called a “genocide” specifically).  —Michael Z. 20:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Please don’t…

…try to use MOS as a flimsy excuse for obviously POV motivated edits [9]. Volunteer Marek 19:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Except I also said your changes were unsourced and undiscussed. You changed "perceived corruption" to just "corruption". Why? This is based on CPI which measures perceived corruption. You add a sentence in the lead not mentioned anywhere in the body and then random unsourced changes to use as an excuse. Mellk (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mellk: if your issue is with whether the corruption is “perceived” or not then change that part rather than doing a complete blind revert. Combined with your previous attempt to use “MOS” as an excuse for your edit warring it’s kind of obvious you are just inventing any, no matter how thin, excuse for POV edit wars. Volunteer Marek 20:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

You cannot claim that everything you don't like is POV pushing. Please stop with that nonsense. Michael60634 (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Your changes

• changed “occupied” to “disputed”. This is a POV pushing issue not a MOS issue.
• removed any mention of the economic stagnation that led to collapse of Soviet Union. Right now, quite hilariously, the article makes it seem like SU just decided to dissolve itself out of the blue and voluntarily, maybe because it was just so tired of all that prosperity, technological advancements and well being (which is what the text now suggests)
• removed Russia’s ranking in terms of PER CAPITA GDP. Who cares about total GDP?
• removed the fact that the European Parliament has designated Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism.

NONE of these are MOS issues so please stop pretending and inventing excuses for edit warring. Volunteer Marek 20:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

No, you made a bunch of unsourced changes which were problematic. Another example was changing the map caption, where islands claimed by Japan are also shown in light green, but you changed it to occupied territories of Ukraine, which is obviously wrong. This was not a blind revert and there was no good reason to just simply restore all your changes. I explicitly said in my edit summary that there were unsourced changes alongside MOS, I am not even sure why you are pretending that I only said MOS, this is obviously false. Mellk (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The changes were to the lede which doesn’t require citations if these are present in the body. Which they are. And it’s also false that my edits were unsourced since I did provide sources for the economic data.

So, let’s see.

Your first excuse for reverting was that it was a MOS issue (it wasn’t)

Your second excuse for making a blind revert of many changes was ONE word (perceived) in ONE edit out of half a dozen

Your current, third excuse, is that the changes were unsourced, even though they weren’t.

Let’s see if we can set a new record here for making up excuses to justify POV driven edit warring. Volunteer Marek 21:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

My edit summary [10] says unsourced changes. I have no idea what economic data you are referring to, maybe you should actually check the changes made. You would have a point if those changes did reflect the body. And I've explained to you why your revision was inferior, so you can keep making things up but you are not going to fool anyone. Mellk (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

For starters, the Economic stagnation, which you removed, is discussed in the body in the section entitled “Cold War”. Who’s making things up? Volunteer Marek 07:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Likewise, you removed the sentence about the European Parliament, despite the fact that it was sourced. While claiming that you were removing it because it was unsourced. Who’s making things up? Volunteer Marek 07:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mellk: you should step down with regards to Russia related articles, you seem to have a bias towards whitewashing some of its obvious negative features. You claimed that including the mention of 2022 sanctions against Russia and the European Parliament designating it a state sponsor of terrorism were Wikipedia:Recentism, even though the sanctions were imposed already in February. Likewise, even though the resolution of the European Parliament is recent, it is a major development that warrants a mention.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

https://www.riigikogu.ee/en/news-from-committees/foreign-affairs-committee/riigikogu-declared-russia-a-terrorist-regime/ Estonian Riigikogu declared Russia a terrorist regime in October. Xx236 (talk) 10:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I reverted you, and you, without even bothering to discuss with me, are already trying to command me to "step down" from an entire topic area. This is not called WP:AGF and shows that YOU have an issue with working collaboratively.

Also, the EU Parliament resolution is symbolic and means nothing. Unlike say the U.S. state sponsors of terrorism list which actually leads to a whole next level of sanctions. But why it should be in the lead and not even mentioned in the body, which does not follow MOS:LEAD and IS recentism, I dunno I guess this is not pushing a POV or whatever. Mellk (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention that this issue has been discussed over and over in the talk page before, but I suppose fuck discussing and just do what you want. Mellk (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mellk: it seems you are just blind reverting anyone who makes edits to this article even if the info is well sourced or summarizes the text. You failed to respond to my last comment yet continued to edit war with others. I concur with those others - perhaps it's time to step back. Volunteer Marek 16:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I have explained why I have reverted. Just because it is sourced does not mean it belongs in the lead, you know this well, this is so basic. You could have discussed this normally, but from the very beginning you have only been hostile to me and making false accusations, again showing you are incapable of working collaboratively with someone with a different opinion on how the article should look. So this comment is just hypocritical (especially about "blind reverting"). Mellk (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

And you created this discussion for what reason? To try to improve the article? No, just to attack me without even pinging me. Mellk (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, seeing as how you used false pretenses for your reverts (MOS! nothing to do with MOS. UNSOURCED! no, actually it was sourced! ONE WORD! But you revert ALL changes) I think I've been cordial enough. Volunteer Marek 20:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding a statement in the lead about something not even mentioned in the body and therefore not reflecting the body, even if it is sourced, does not follow MOS:LEAD. The other changes were unsourced, the one to do with the map was wrong. And these changes were also undiscussed, which I also explicitly mentioned in the edit summary, because the changes you tried to make were on something that have been discussed a bunch of times before. These three things I mentioned in the edit summary. I reverted because I thought it was a bad edit. Instead of just asking me politely why exactly I reverted you, you assumed bad faith, claimed I used MOS only as a cover and went on a tirade. If you want to discuss how to improve the article, then respond, otherwise this is a waste of time. Mellk (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Except… those things ARE mentioned in the body. Just like the other stuff WAS in fact sourced. So let’s see. False claim of MOS relevance. False claim of “unsourced”. False claim that you were only changing one word. False claim that it’s not in the body… did I miss anything? You’re on, what, fourth irrelevant excuse for your edit warring? Just say “IJUSTDONTLIKEIT” and save us all a bit of time. Volunteer Marek 00:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

This was NOT in the body when you made the edit.[11] I don't see the point in pretending otherwise. Mellk (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

It was when you reverted. Several times. Which shows that this whole “it’s not in the body” is just a fake excuse. Volunteer Marek 05:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The diff is there. Mellk (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

This diff? Where you’re removing it from lede even though it’s in the body?

Or maybe this diff? Where you’re removing it from the lede even though it’s in the body?

Yup, the diff(s) are certainly there. And they show exactly what I’m describing. Volunteer Marek 05:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a completely different edit though, days after you started this section. You were reverted by someone else because they thought it was undue, and I agreed, hence the revert there. Now, anything to discuss to actually improve the article? Mellk (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

omg, it’s NOT a completely different edit, it’s exactly the stuff we’re talking about - you edit warring to remove any mention of the EU parliament designation from the lede under the false pretense that “it’s not mentioned in the body” (it is). How. In. The. World. Is. Normal. Conversation. Suppose. To. Be. Possible. With. You? Volunteer Marek 05:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

It is a different edit though. Originally this was not mentioned in the body, so this was not a false pretense. Alongside your other changes. Now, the question is whether this is due or not. I do not think this is, you can disagree with this, that is fine, but what is not fine is making accusations. Mellk (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

It. Was. Mentioned. In. The. Body. When. You. Removed. It. Twice. Under false pretenses. Now you’re just jumping to a different excuse.

And that’s the thing. I *am* trying to “improve the article”. But you object to these improvements and just blind revert myself or anyone else who tries to improve it. By edit warring. And you try to justify this edit warring with one false excuse after another (MOS! Not in the body! Unsourced! Only changing one word (no youre not)! … You’ll be citing WP:FANCRUFT and WP:PORN next, anything to justify the simple WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT) There’s both a serious POV and a WP:OWN issues here and as others have asked, you should really step back from this article. Volunteer Marek 05:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

My edit summary reflected the article at the time of reversal. I did not cite MOS when this was also in the body. Unless you can show a diff where I reverted citing MOS while it was mentioned in the body? Mellk (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

More importantly, I am interested in why you think this EU Parliament resolution belongs in the lead. It's nowhere near anything like the U.S. state sponsors of terrorism list, though even those don't get mentioned in the lead. Mellk (talk) 05:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

You made those claims when you reverted. Like you said diffs are right there. And yes, we all know you don’t think it belongs in the lede. Your multiple reverts make that perfectly clear. But other editors obviously think otherwise. Why should you get your way rather than (at least) three other editors? Volunteer Marek 13:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The designation as a state sponsor of terrorism is a major development and clearly belongs in the lead. --Tataral (talk) 02:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Would you please remove 4-letter words? Xx236 (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

For a more productive talk pls see #The lead does not mention the warMoxy- 16:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Yes, please improve the article by more mass-tagging, 300 more paras of criticism and UKRAINE in the lead, and finally deranking the article. Make it quick, alright? Cause this is so boring. Its more boring because there are no active editors of the article. Someone just comes after a week to revert and then another "discussion" starts. Also this article is clearly written by Vladimir Putin. Calesti (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Volunteer Marek 13:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course you do not get it, how will you? Along with possibly 3-4 more editors? The agenda is clear. But I can not take you seriously since you claimed something as wild as "who cares about nominal GDP?" with so much confidence just before. Of course no one cares about nominal GDP. We clearly do not measure economies by nominal standards. What even is that? When people casually talk about China inevitably becoming the world's largest economy in the future, of course they are referring to nominal GDP PER CAPITA. Right? China will jump from 65 to 1 very soon.

Also, the Russian embassy has conspired against Wikipedia by writing this article. I mean, just 4 paras for human rights and corruption? The Russian embassy is constantly talking about oligarchy, corruption, kleptocracy, and authoritarianism, dictatorship, Ukraine blah blah blah. Such freedom. Nah... Russia seems more free than the giga liberal Canada nowadays. We need 700 gorillion paras about Putin. I mean the embassy set government type to dictatorship, BRAVE. Calesti (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Right, another recently created WP:SPA account pops up with the same POV. Volunteer Marek 22:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Everybody who disagrees with my perfect point is a troll, a Russian paid bot. A POV bot. Are you under the payroll of Putin's chef? Calesti (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

European Parliament declares Russia state sponsor of terrorism

European Parliament declares Russia state sponsor of terrorism and I believe it should definetly be mentioned in the article. DiGriW (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

It should definitely be mentioned but Putin´s bots are blocking everything negative about Russia in this article unfortunately. AlbrechtVonWallenstein (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I tried adding it. It was removed. Volunteer Marek 23:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I have noticed that Mellk has a Russian IP address and that he constantly removes edits that concern Russia´s sponsorship of international terrorism, even though these edits are backed by reliable sources.

We should contact an admin and tell him to ban the user Mellk from editing this article immediately. AlbrechtVonWallenstein (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@AlbrechtVonWallenstein: Yes, yes, yes! Ban all Russians from Wikipedia. Contact the admins fast. So we can add more undue stuff to the lead. But in my opinion this article should be renamed to "Symbolically certified terrorist state by EU parliament" and replace the entire article by one sentence: and here it is Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine. In the meantime, put some more tags so people have a little trouble reading that one sentence. Calesti (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I partially agree with you, this page could be replaced by a picture of Ukrianian victims of Russian imperialism.

People living in Russia are terrorized by Russian government, they are not allowed to criticize the war, they may be imprisoned.Xx236 (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Calesti Stop exaggerating. It's obvious that that guy is extremely biased and has to step back. He's removing these changes just because he doesn't like them. DiGriW (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Explain to me why the EU Declaration should not be mentioned in this article. Is it too insignificant? Does it not concern Russia in your opinion? It is not POV pushing to mention this declaration in this article. AlbrechtVonWallenstein (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@AlbrechtVonWallenstein: Unless you are visually impaired, it is mentioned in the history section. But it does not belong to the Lede. Excess. So much excess in the lead....the declaration is absolutely redundant. It has no effect whatsoever. It has the same effect as your mother calling you naughty. We should add a sentence about the rocket strikes and power outage in Ukraine to the lead too. Do you agree? If not, you are most definitely a paid Russian bot. How about a sentence about Zelensky's heroic government to the lead? Calesti (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

• This content is currently included in the Post-Soviet Russia (1991–present) and this is sufficient. The designation is made by a political body rather than representing scholarly consensus, so it's undue in the lead. Separately, the section cites the EU parliament itself; secondary sources should be used instead. There's no need to conduct original research based on a press release; for any substantive position taken by the EU parliament, reliable secondary sources will likely exist. If secondary sources do not cover such positions, then this content would likely be undue for the articles. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Wait, so if the US Congress designates Russia a sponsor of terrorism, then we can't include that in the lede because the Congress is not a "scholarly consensus" but "political body"? That's not how it works. It would obviously be notable and we would. We are not saying that Russia *IS* a state sponsor of terrorism (perhaps for that we would need "scholarly consensus") we are saying that the European Parliament designated it as such. And we all know that secondary reliable sources are trivial to find in this case. Volunteer Marek 22:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

What is the scholar consensus about Russia? Is 'Kherson annexed'? (Note a) Xx236 (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The terrorism may include influencing this Wikipedia both by Russian trolls and by attacking critical editors. Xx236 (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

https://restofworld.org/2022/russias-6-month-war-on-wikipedia/ Xx236 (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Military

Xx236 Zweite (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Prominent Theme.

While . military but OP.

In Ukraine.
Besides that . Anything is discussed here; Genocide of Jews / Circassians / Arami etc. May I perhaps , too ? To improve something . e.g. because of Espionen - Krig. Against "Putin - Russalnd" ( Russia led by Mr. Vladimir Putin ). Espions - war on the part of Russia military. In the first place, - on the part of military espions. This is not a cold war. The opponent's are heavily armed! Attack against militia and against Securitée Fédérale. So , already two directors of armed opposition have fallen victim.(One , ala The Hero Of Russia !). The third . Supposedly not in very good health. (What about family members, nobody knows.) The question comes up by itself. "What geet 's and that on ?" What relevance? For Wikipedia users. Military espions are clever schemers! you force . you advertise . you recruit . Everyone should help them. At least , - something . A publishing . an improvement. A supplement. Against "Putin - Russia". Wrong , - not . If one or the other wiki user is too busy. represqaria ! physical injuries ! methylmercury . Midiffication's of military toxin "Novichok"! (Directly on Buss No. 88.) But military espions are soft and delicate. With an academic education. Always give - "one more chans". I think . That should arouse some interest. e.g. improvements - completions. Several years long. In Wikipedia.For hundreds of thousands (also, for Pochodzeniovzi). Regarding: "Vladimir Putin are to blame for the sinking of the Kursk 141". Has some consequence. (If he even noticed :) .)

so Xx236 Zweite (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

What is this? Xx236 (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Xx236 Looks like it's spam. And it seems that person might be trying to impersonate you. Michael60634 (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Basic question

Do Russian citizens support the genocidal war, so they are co-responsible, or are they vicitms of totalitarian system? Xx236 (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

This is not a forum. Please just close your reassessment one way or the other. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The page is of low quality and quite many editors refuse to accept basic facts accepting Russian propaganda. The Note a misinforms and is biased, noone wats to cooperate and I do not want to start an edit war. Xx236 (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure, sure. Let's keep this "reassessment" going on for a few more years! There will be a trillion more tags and more undue expansion to the lead by then. Please go further and flood the talk page with more nonsensical questions that you can just Google. Best wishes. Calesti (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"The page is of low quality and quite many editors refuse to accept basic facts accepting Russian propaganda."

Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it low quality and/or Russian propaganda. Michael60634 (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Not the right place for this. Go ask somewhere else. Wikipedia is not a forum. Michael60634 (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. (November 2022)

This article contains text that is written in a promotional tone. (November 2022) Xx236 (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 December 2022

Write a section on the front page about how the Russian economy crashed by 40% in the first decade after the USSR collapse. Jishiboka1 (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Disabling this template, as there is no simple edit here proposed that an editor can act on. Specific changes are needed, for example by suggesting a sourced change to the existing first paragraph of the Post-Soviet Russia (1991–present) subsection. CMD (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

History section

Regarding these edits[12][13], the whole paragraph looks like WP:NOTNEWS, also using mostly primary sources. How many such resolutions (of no/little consequence) have been passed and how many times has a tribunal been discussed? Hence why coverage on those have been minimal. Maybe when there actually is a tribunal it can be mentioned? Or such labels are actually consequential (such as leading to a total embargo)? Mellk (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention that the EU Parliament does not have a legal framework for designating state sponsors of terrorism, this is simply a resolution, hence why it was inconsequential.[14] Compare this to say the U.S. state sponsors of terrorism list where there are no formal diplomatic or commercial relations between the U.S. and the designated countries (and more likely the Biden administration would do something like designate Wagner as a terrorist organization than add Russia to this list[15]). Mellk (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

These are highly significant developments, with President von der Leyen announcing that the European Commission will work for the establishment of a criminal tribunal in cooperation with the EU's international partners, as well as seizing significant Russian assets permanently[16][17]. Clearly the proposed tribunal that the Council of Europe, the European Commission, the NATO PA and numerous other bodies and governments have supported needs to be mentioned. The designation as a sponsor of terrorism or terrorist regime by bodies such as the European Parliament and the NATO PA also needs to be mentioned. --Tataral (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? These are resolutions, not actual designations. These can be mentioned in relevant articles like 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine etc, not this one, especially if they are proposed. Edits like those and this look like WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Even if Putin was convicted of war crimes and hanged, this would only warrant a very brief mention in the lead maximum. Mellk (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

On a broader point, the History section is, as it stands, already long enough to be its own article at 28kB of prose. The article needs to have it significantly shortened, not further lengthened. CMD (talk) 08:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)n

This article is done. Its going to ruined further on by more of these bots. Its actually quite pathetic this article has 0 interested and regular editors. Like 0. No one cares. Can someone get a community reassessment started and this get article degraded? Its currently not even a C, judging its history section and most importantly its absolutely horrendous lead. According to the bots, unless the entire article is about Ukraine and/or Putin and authoritarianism, the article is written by the Russian Foreign Ministry or something. Recently one bot bombarded the history section. Add a few more tags, that will help. Please bring an end to Xx236's "personal" reassessment for god's sakes. He's more busy destroying talk pages. Calesti (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Please WP:assume good faith and don’t dehumanize editors by calling names like “bot.” This article is subject to WP:discretionary sanctions, and there is no need to tolerate bad behaviour.  —Michael Z. 15:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. (November 2022)

This article contains text that is written in a promotional tone. (November 2022)

This article is of low quality but it is a 'good article'.

Xx236 (talk) 07:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, but what does it have to do with the history section? Mellk (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

There can certainly be a paragraph about the effects on Russia of the eight-year war, especially the nine months of all-out invasion. Not just international condemnation, including by the UNGA, and sanctions, but on the economy, the loss of markets for hydrocarbons, the serious effects on industry, especially of loss of access to military and high-tech components on auto manufacturing, military production, on the problems with Russia’s airlines, and the exodus of hundreds of thousands after the invasion and again after Russian mobilization.

It should also state how poorly the war is going, in which it was widely expected that Russia would occupy Ukraine in days or weeks, but after nine months has lost more occupied territory than it gained and there is no clear end in sight.  —Michael Z. 02:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that is more useful than what the current last paragraph looks like over meaningless designations and unspecified proposals. Although the full effects are yet to be seen. But the ones that are visible now such as mobilization and exodus of Russians (we know a large number have left already) should be mentioned. Mellk (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mellk: A para about the exodus is present in the demographics section. Calesti (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2022

Revert this edit.

It presents a politically biased point of view, and the article should maintain a WP:NPOV. Michael60634 (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Please stop asking people to edit war on your behalf. There’s absolutely nothing “POV” about noting that parts of Ukraine are occupied by Russia. In fact, it’s the opposite. Failing to note that fact is a gross violation of neutrality and Russian irredentist POV. Volunteer Marek 15:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Take a step back and you'll realize you're the only one in this discussion pushing a POV. Claiming a disputed territory (Crimea) is in one country is pushing a POV. Michael60634 (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: We aren't gonna edit war for you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not asking anyone to edit war for me. I am asking for the article to not push a POV. But fine, I'm near being extended confirmed, so I'll revert the POV pushing myself in due time. Michael60634 (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The information supported by reliable sources. Please don’t remove it without consensus.  —Michael Z. 15:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The lead does not mention the war

6 months and noone dares to use the three-letter word? Is it illegal like in Russia? Recentism? Xx236 (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia supports Russian imperialism and irredentism, and anyone who dares criticize or even mention this war is silenced very quickly. I think it should be mentioned in the lead that Russia has illegally begun a war in Ukraine with genocidal intent, and that this war has cost the lives of +100.000 Ukrainian civilians. AlbrechtVonWallenstein (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@AlbrechtVonWallenstein By maintaining neutrality, Wikipedia supports no side in the conflict. If you want to interpret that as supporting "Russian imperialism and irredentism", by all means go ahead. Michael60634 (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The neutral view is to oppose indiscriminate murder of Ukrainian civilians, for starters. The political situation regarding the sovereignty of territory is perhaps more subject to the NPOV presentation, but murder of civilians is an absolute no-no no matter whose side you are on or which way you want to spin this. | EDIT: I quote both of you guys. Albrecht said "...with genocidal intent... ...this war has cost the lives of +100.000 Ukrainian civilians.", and Michael responded with "By maintaining neutrality, Wikipedia supports no side in the conflict.". I ask you, Michael... is it neutral to stand by as innocent civilians are massacred? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jargo Nautilus Obviously the deaths of civilians is terrible. I don't think anyone here is saying that it's okay. My point is that Wikipedia is neutral. It's Wikipedia's job to be an encyclopedia, and not to take sides in an ongoing war. NPOV means supporting neither Russia nor Ukraine in this war. Michael60634 (talk) 07:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Part of the way that Wikipedia is currently supporting Russia in the war is by updating official maps and articles to depict the annexed territories as parts of Russia. If we were to take a completely neutral approach, we would simply take no position on the sovereignty of this territories and depict them as "disputed". I believe that you are mistaken when you believe that depicting both the Russian and Ukrainian views equally is "neutral". Indeed, it's more neutral to not say anything rather than to definitively push the views of either side, whether that be Russia or Ukraine. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

'As of June 2022, Russian forces occupy' - nothing about Russian mass crimes. October.Xx236 (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Lead is not required to feature description of the ongoing events featuring subject of the topic SwampKryakwa (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

A detail, the biggest war in Europe since WW2, militarisation of the country, mogilization, censorship, destruction of universities. Business as usual. Xx236 (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

You have not answered my second line. Xx236 (talk) 07:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

It’s now an eight-year-old open war of aggression that has likely killed over 100,000, displaced 16,000,000 (plus ~1,000,000 Russians), isolated Russia and damaged its economy. Unprecedented since WWII by any number of measures. Two sentences discuss human rights and authoritarianism, but not that it turned into dictatorship hand-in-hand with the war. It mentions that Russia’s military expenditure is fifth highest, but not that it moved up from sixth when Putin ordered the war. The lead discusses landmass and imperial growth, but not that it continues with military annexations in 2014 and 2022. I think several superlatives listed in the lead have been added or removed because of the effect of the war.

This defining milestone in Russian history already affects what’s in the lead, so it should be mentioned. —Michael Z. 16:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Though I am very careful with recentism, this war will almost certainly be seen as a very defining part of modern Russian history, considering how much it transformed Russia both internally and its external relations. It has come to the point where the mere idea of standing in the same room as Putin has become toxic (re: media coverage of Xi meeting Putin). Also important to note that the article for the US mentions the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Maybe this article can have something in the line of "Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has been directly involved in conflicts across the former Soviet sphere, including the Russo-Georgian War and the Russo-Ukrainian War, the latter having escalated to a full-blown invasion by Russia in 2022." (could be better worded). The Account 2 (talk) 06:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Minor edit: “Since it left the Soviet Union, Russia has directly involved itself in conflicts in its neighbouring states, in Syria, and in Africa, including the Russo-Georgian War in 2008 and the Russo-Ukrainian War from 2014, where it conducted a full-blown invasion in 2022.”  —Michael Z. 20:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

You broke your point by a fabrication - "Since it left" - so you better stop there. No one "left" the SU. The member states of the Union decided to abolish it. Claiming the biggest constituting member "Left" the SU is as absurd as it gets. Serving your narrative does not make something so. And no, declaration of sovereignty is no "leaving" the SU. Not even by the Baltics. Howgh.

83.240.62.117 (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The union republics had a legal right to leave the union, not to abolish it. It ceased to exist when it no longer had any participating members. This an old discussion, and now academic anyway. Let’s WP:NOTCHAT. —Michael Z. 18:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Chechen wars are described from Russian PoV. Russia has committed crimes in Chechnia, the subject is covered in this Wikipedia, here only Chechen islamists are bad guys. Chechens radicalized during the wars. Xx236 (talk) 07:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Can we have a vote on the edit suggested by Michael Z? --Aaron106 (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD is not meant to be a place to add new information not present in the article body. CMD (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

What new information please? The war with Ukraine is mentioned in the article body and I think it is important enough for one sentence to be added to the lead Chidgk1 (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The war with Ukraine is, much of the rest of the edit being referred to is not. CMD (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

What if we say something like....Russia has been involved militarily in a number of countries in the former Soviet region since the 1990'.. Moxy- 15:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

This is also not covered in the article. The closest it currently gets is saying that the area is under a sphere of influence, which is not the same. For high level overviews, there are certainly many academic-level sources out there discussing Russian foreign policy, which likely go into the relative importance of Russian irridentism and military adventurism (at home and abroad). There are even likely some very recent ones which even factor in the current war to some extent. Unfortunately, the current Foreign relations and Military subsections lack such sources, with current sources mostly being single-issue papers or news articles. CMD (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

In my view what is in t the lead at Military history of the Russian Federation should be here....in the article somewhere.Borozna, Angela (2022). "Resurgent Russia (2008–2021)". The Sources of Russian Foreign Policy Assertiveness. Springer International Publishing. pp. 103–158. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-83590-3_5.....,,,,,,Miller, C. (2022) ', New York Times, 27 Feb, 4(L), available: 'Why Is Putin At War Again?. Moxy- 04:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

That source is a good start. This sort of context is an example of why Military shouldn't be cut into its own subsection outside of foreign policy. The numbers of soldiers etc. is not that important at this high level an article, what those soldiers do can be very important. CMD (talk) 04:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not opposed to mentioning foreign policy in the lead (with a link to list of wars involving Russia), since this is a significant part of the post-Soviet Putinist era, but the current version is recentism and undue, plain and simple. Mellk (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Mentioning the war Russia started in February is recentism? Mentioning a designation by EU parliament is undue but other similar designations are not? Somehow one gets the feeling that “recentism and undue” aren’t the real reasons here for the removal, just like the previous excuse of “MOS” wasn’t either. Volunteer Marek 23:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The EU parliament designation was hardly in the news. Why? Because it was symbolic only and meaningless. In that these countries still deal with terrorists despite the designation. You only want to put this in the lead to push your POV. Mellk (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

And Putinist imperial wars should be mentioned as a whole. Mellk (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy:, @Mzajac:, @Mellk: I think a sentence covering Russia's post-Soviet conflicts should be mentioned in the lead. Removing all of the excess and linking this article. Just one sentence about Ukraine seems absurd since Russia has also fought wars in Chechnya, Georgia, etc. Calesti (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Treating the three as comparable in significance is absurdish, like lumping the Anschluss, the occupation of the Sudetenland, and WWII into “early-twentieth-century conflicts.”

But I agree that they constitute a trend in international relations culminating (so far) in the Russian war to destroy the biggest country in Europe.  —Michael Z. 18:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy: I do not have full access to the sources you cite, but I added from this paper which usefully covers quasi-warfare in addition to what is currently in the Military History article. CMD (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Contains lots of disinformation

Russia does not have their roots on Kyivan Rus, as well as Kyivan dukes are not russians. 95.47.56.247 (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

John M. Thompson; Christopher J. Ward (17 April 2018). Russia: A Historical Introduction from Kievan Rus' to the Present (8 ed.). Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-97715-2. In Kievan Rus', the fundamental characteristics of Russian culture and religion took root. Kievan Rus' also introduced basic and lasting political ideas and social institutions. Finally, it created the tradition of the region as a force in international affairs and as a nexus between Europe and Asia Moxy- 18:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Both authors are unknown according to this Wikipedia. Perhaps their biographies are needed.Xx236 (talk) 08:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

One of the authors is an Euroasianist. He does not allow to quote his text without his consent. Xx236 (talk) 08:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The second and third sentences are not specific to Russia. Certainly the nexus between Eastern and Western Christianity, between multiple empires, between democracy and authoritarianism, better describes Ukraine.

So real understanding requires some nuance.  —Michael Z. 03:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that Lower Paleolithic is too ancient for this page. Starting from the Rurik dynasty ruling the Kievan Rus'- well, that would follow a typical Russian history textbook, but it might be also too ancient for this page about the post-Soviet state My very best wishes (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Country articles cover from human habitation of the area in question. We have articles for time periods and for military actions linked from here. Moxy- 21:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Like a typical Russian history textbook, this article’s history section is heavily invested in Moscow and pre-Muscovy Slavic Rus, but all but ignores the other 98 percent of the area in question. There are sixty or a hundred nations present in Russia but most of them are absent from the article “Russia.”  —Michael Z. 23:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

This article states there are 193. CMD (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Well. To make that claim, you would first need to define what a "Russian" is.

For one, I am certain that the Dukes of Kiev were not the citizes of the Russian federation of 2022.

For second, the Slavic peoples of the area generally considered themselves to be "The peoples of the Rus'", Rus' being a separate term from Russia /or from a "Russian" state of any form/. Now, in english - such peoples were historically called "Russian" as in the meaning of "the slavic peoples of the Rus'". NOT as the peoples of a Russian state.

Besides, "Kievan Rus" is a historic period where the Duke of Kiev was the (elected/accepted) boss of most of the Rus' principalities. This is similar in like the Charles IV being Prague-based did not mean the Holy Roman Empire was ruled "by the Prague peoples" nor was a "Praguer empire". 83.240.62.117 (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Please, just bring your reliable sources to the talk page first and connect them to your points. Content on Wikipedia is not determined by a debate of personal opinions. Yue🌙 23:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

This article had multiple issues

User:Moxy has removed them magically [18] not informing about it. Xx236 (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Info was added to the lead....as this was the main concern raised above. Moxy- 12:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry I do not understand. The controversial page is saved by small change in the lead? I find this page still biased and incomplete. Xx236 (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

What we need is examples of problems. Not having holidays or mention of some organization is not a reason to tag. Was tagged with mention of lead problems and content missing in body about recent events...both were addressed. This article does not shine a good light on the country as a whole. As for GA level still need specifics as requested by 2 editors to no avail. GA level and tags are 2 differnt things. Moxy- 13:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

No, the info was *removed* from the lede. Volunteer Marek 03:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

What info....will give a few days to give examples of promotional tone in neutrality issues. Moxy- 04:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

See my attempts to improve the article, immediately followed by Mellk’s blind reverts (the usual excuse of “seek consensus, which I will then deny to you”). The whole article needs to go to WP:GAR because it’s nowhere near “Good article” level. Volunteer Marek 19:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The article is at WP:GAR and has been for quite a while now Chidgk1 (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

You have a link? I don't see it here. Volunteer Marek 03:17, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

So the tags are added because you cant add what you want in the lead? How is the article promotional? Can you reply to the questions at the GA review. Won't get delisted without reason. Moxy- 23:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

See objections above. For example, the history of Soviet Union post WW2 is barely covered. It just says "In 1991, the Russian SFSR emerged from the dissolution of the Soviet Union" Making it sounds like Soviet Union just decided to dissolve itself out of nowhere out of the goodness of its heart or something. Any attempts to remedy this situation are quickly reverted by WP:OWN editors. Aside from Ukraine, for obvious reasons, all other military aggression of the 20th and 21st century is glossed over in the lede. Any mention of war crimes is removed. Victory in WW2 is mentioned but not the fact that SU started the war on the side of Hitler. Occupied territories are presented as "disputed" (sic) rather than "occupied". Etc. Volunteer Marek 03:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Making it sounds like Soviet Union just decided to dissolve itself out of nowhere out of the goodness of its heart or something. No, this is just how you see it, no one else has seen it like that. And yes you keep trying to add extensive war crimes investigations (yes, investigations) in the lead which is a problem of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. SU started the war on the side of Hitler – this is not the place for historical revisionism. Russia does not even occupy much of the areas in Ukraine it claims to own so changing it to "occupied" is misleading (personally I do not think the 2022 annexations should be shown on the map now but whatever). And I am not sure why you keep consistently trying to change it to "attempted annexation" or "claimed annexation" of Crimea (not just here but other articles) in contrast to what RS say, there is no need for weaselling.

Basically your version is worse and when your bold edit gets reverted, it is best to follow WP:BRD. Mellk (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh my god, this response encapsulates the exact problem with this article and the editors who act like they WP:OWN it.

Why did the Soviet Union dissolve? It’s dissolution is presented as if just happened out of nowhere, on a lark or something. The reason it’s done this way is to omit/whitewash the severe economic and political crisis that it experienced. It’s an attempt to misinform the readers.

Calling Russian invasion of Ukraine and it’s atrocities “recentism” is both ridiculous and callous. If the atrocities are “recent news” then so is the invasion, no? Yet that is in the lede. This is just excuse making to again, keep negative information out of the lede and article.

Soviet Union did start World War II on the side of Hitler and helped to start the war. This is the established mainstream view not historical revisionism, and denying this basic fact is historical revisionism, and POV. Again, attempts to whitewash Russia.

And here’s the lamest excuse - we can’t say Russia is occupying Ukrainian territory, apparently because, quote, “Russia does not even occupy much of the areas in Ukraine”. I’m sorry but… WTF? I don’t even know how to respond to this.

Volunteer Marek 15:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a case of bad edits being reverted rather than WP:OWN.

You can keep making baseless accusations about other editors trying to intentionally misinform readers and whitewash a subject when your bad edits get reverted. You can go ahead but don't expect others to respond and tolerate such behavior.

Also, please try to change the World War II article so that it says "Soviet Union started World War II" to show how much of a "established mainstream view" that is. And you do realize the map includes uncontrolled territories that are not actually occupied by Russia (so saying areas like Zaporizhzhia and Kherson are occupied by Russia is factually incorrect)? Mellk (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah yet somehow all these “reverts rather than OWN” all have the same nature of removing any negative info about Russia. So yeah, I think it’s OWN. And POV.

I didn’t say anything about other editors though the fact you’ve read that into what I said is itself telling. I said *the text* misinformed our readers.

And the lede of our World War 2 does in fact already mention the role that SU played in beginning the war, so yes, it is an established mainstream view. It’s just being kept out of the lede of this article.

Regarding the occupations, your argument seems to be “well, the map is bad also so we can’t be factual in the article either”. How does that make any sense?

Volunteer Marek 16:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah as if the article does not already have a bunch of negative information. And it is not just me who has said that claim is ridiculous. If you are talking about the reason it's done this way is to omit/whitewash, then you are talking about the motivations of other editors.

The World War II article does not say "the Soviet Union started the war", like you originally claimed. Mellk (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

And just because the invasion is mentioned does not mean remotely anything to do with the invasion can also be mentioned. If you try to mention absolutely everything negative that's happened in the past 1000 years and it gets removed, it is not "whitewashing". Mellk (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

So another completely tone deaf comment on par with “Russia isn’t even occupying that much Ukrainian territory”. Apparently war crimes and mass murder are just some minor thing that is barely relevant to the invasion. Nice.

Here is the thing. All of these things - SU’s role in starting WW2, the reasons for collapse of Soviet Union, the occupations of Ukrainian territories, the war crimes, the designations as a state sponsor of terrorism … ALL of these are discussed in the article itself (since I guess it would be too blatant of POV pushing to try to remove them completely). The problem is that any mention of these is being consistently removed from the lede, which is suppose to *summarize* the article. The lede presents a promotional, sanitized, Russian propaganda, version of the subject, which is pretty at odds with the rest of the article. Volunteer Marek 16:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I did not say war crimes and mass murder are just some minor thing. But I can see what you are doing. Mellk (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead is pretty negative right now.. We could add a few things to the body as you mention. But your view the lead is "promotional, sanitized, Russian propaganda" is so off that its hard to take your other points seriously. You seem to be in conflict all over about this topic..or should I say the wording used. Moxy- 18:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The body already mentions these things. The lede doesn't. That's big part of the problem. Volunteer Marek 02:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I think your desire to be specific conflicts with other editors' desires to keep the lead concise. General ideas are important to an article lead about Russia, summarised in the entirety of its history and currency, but perhaps not the specific details.

Take in comparison the article on the United States. The U.S. has militarily intervened in multiple countries, but the only ones mentioned by name are the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. The Vietnam War is a notable part of the U.S.' post-WWII history, but it isn't in the lead because that's too much detail. There is only one line about the Cold War in general: "During the Cold War, both countries engaged in a struggle for ideological dominance but avoided direct military conflict." There is nothing in the lead about the U.S.' open and covert interventions in other countries' politics, because again, that's a detail that's part of a wider picture (i.e. the Cold War and the U.S. being a superpower).

I don't think it's "pro-Russian propaganda" to simply leave out from the lead the specific countries / regions invaded by Russia (as there were more than just those you listed; take for example Transnistria), although I disagree with the phrasing "militarily involved" which is presently there.

I also think you're reading way too much into the sentences you cited as problematic. I cannot fathom how you could go from "In 1991, the Russian SFSR emerged from the dissolution of the Soviet Union" to "... it sounds like [the] Soviet Union just decided to dissolve itself out of nowhere out of the goodness of its heart or something." What is your neutral (or factual, if you dispute that), alternate proposal? I can only imagine a long run-on topic sentence that goes something like, "The Soviet Union collapsed from multiple internal conflicts and stagnation, including a self-coup and declarations of independence by its constituent republics etc., etc. and the Russian Federation subsequently emerged [from the former Soviet Union]." Yue🌙 00:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Russian Federation (orthographic projection) - Annexed Territories disputed.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)