Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:38, 10 January 2008

{{FAC}} should be substituted at the top of the article talk page

	Russia has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 13, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 1, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed July 16, 2007 Peer review Reviewed July 24, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 2, 2007 Good article nominee Listed December 7, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on .

Culture

Should Russia's drinking culture be added to this article? It's thought that 80% of young deaths in Russia are alcohol related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.13.143 (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

unlikely/unsubstantiated claims of Putin popularity, effects

There seems to be some pro Putin bias in the section detailing the history of the Russian Federation. i would doubt the validity of sources that claim he has the highest approval rating in Europe. And if the source is valid, i believe it should be noted that the results of the poll are almost guaranteed to not reflect the true feelings of the populace.76.15.42.237 (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC) tim

It is so indeed, I believe, and maybe we could notice that all main channels from there people getting news (1st channel, RTR, NTV) are in the government's hands. And not all people can access internet to obtain NPOV news. --Euoa 13:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Unsupported claims about Putin's popularity: the New York Times article cited in note 64 (also, the link is incorrectly to 46) at no point provides even a poll result (reliable or not). Instead, the referenced article is about the lack of protest by regional officials to Putin taking direct control of regional government, replacing elected offices with appointed ones. The article attributed this not to any alleged popularity of the dictatorial president, but to fear of reprisals:

"Any governor understands that if he is against Putin, he will be under criminal investigation," Vladimir A. Ryzhkov, a liberal member of Parliament, said in a telephone interview. He cited cases involving the governors of Kursk, Yaroslavl and Atlai, who all faced investigations that, coincidentally or not, began after they challenged Kremlin policies. "The main thing is fear," he said. "They are afraid of everything."

(benjamin melançon)

Putin does in fact enjoy an immense popularity for bringing the country from what had been under Yeltsin, to what it is now. Don't get me wrong, I personally can't stand him, but he is popular in Russia. AllenHansen (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Change of government

Didn't Putin just disolve his own goverment, if so wiki should reflect it —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoldierOfColbert (talk • contribs) 07:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Temperatures

Please change the temperatures in the geography section. One claims that 51 degrees Celsius is 112 Degrees F. 51 degrees is 123.8, I believe. The hottest day ever recorded in Phoenix, my hometown, was 50/122. While it's possible, I don't believe that I've ever heard that there were temperatures higher than 50/122 in Russia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.101.1.126 (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

You are correct, the 50+ temperature was the record in the USSR, not Russia. It was recorded in Uzbekistan. 75.37.183.64 18:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

==

Written from the other side of the Atlantic, I presume...

In the 4/5 line, in the fifth paragraph under the Stalin-header, the following sentence can be read: "The United States helped the Western European countries establish democracies, (...)"

There are several indications that this article has perhaps been simplified a bit too much...? At least I am quite sure neither (now formerly occupied) France and Norway, and at least not UNoccupied Great Britain needed US-American expertise to establish themselves as democracies. Though for winning the war, I'll give US-American support all the credits it deserves :-) Kurtber 20:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh?

Is there any particular reason that the archive links here take me to the archive for the United States? Vandalism? California seceded and joined the Russian Federation? 74.112.200.188 21:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it, thanks. --Illythr 22:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Armed Forces section needs pictures

I just added the Armed Forces section to the article - can anyone insert 2 appropriate pictures to the section, something like the Topol M ICBM and one of Russian troops in action.--Ilya1166 16:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Lenin section needs to be added

If there's a Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and Gorbachev section, there needs to be a Lenin section as he was one of the most important figures in Russia's history.--Ilya1166 15:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Russian Civil War needs to be mentioned

The Russian Civil War needs to be mentioned as it was a very important part of Russia's history.--Ilya1166 15:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo Independence?

Should something be added regarding Russia's position on Kosovo's independence?

Not in this article, it doesn't fit anywhere and then you'd have to put Russia's position on everything, and Russia's position is already covered in the Kosovo article.--Ilya1166 01:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Border with Abkhazia and South Ossetia?

Mentioning that Russia borders those two entities amounts to equaling them to independent states, doesn't it? 193.251.32.222 15:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there are way too many editors willing to mention them even as countries. Look at the history of the article. So I decided to add and unrecognized political entities. Colchicum 15:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This nice image should be included.

Russia is dreaming, but it has to face the truth. - FQUSOL

They ain't gonna get it

Looks like Georgians are here... Well, Georgia's problem is that people in Abkhazia and S.Ossetia do not want to have anything common with Georgia. No need for Russia to dream or not to dream of anything. Alexander0807 00:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect links in "Notes" section

Some links in "Notes" section are icorrectly ended with comma (e.g. 30,52) 195.234.109.95 23:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Sergey195.234.109.95 23:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed.--Ilya1166 04:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Great! Glad someone is working to keep these articles clean, informative, and accurate! Danthur (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

I have put this article up for peer review, please leave any comments/suggestions. Thanks. --Ilya1166 12:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Added 'References' section

I added a 'References' section with the references taken directly from the History of Russia article, as a means of providing sources for the history section in this article. I don't know whether the history section in this article has the same information as the information in the History of Russia article. Comments as to whether this is alright and whether the history information in the History of Russia article matches up with the info in this article?--Ilya1166 12:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Number of War Dead in World War Two

The article states "Soviet military deaths were about 10.6 million (out of which 3.6 million Soviets died in German captivity), and civilian deaths were about 14 to 17 million" but later states "During the war, the Soviet Union lost more than 27 million citizens (including 18 million civilians)"

I have seen so many figures and all are estimates/guesses that I doubt a true figure can be given. Still the article should be consistence both inside itself and with other Misplaced Pages articles.

e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/World_War_II#Casualties.2C_civilian_impact.2C_and_atrocities and http://en.wikipedia.org/World_War_II_casualties has it about 23.6 million.

Further it talks about "about half of all World War II casualties" but this appears to ignore axis and those killed in the east (e.g. Chinese).

Anyone like to comment? .--jniech

Those tables and charts are based off data taken from this page which is quite inaccurate , which puts the number of total WWII casualties at 72 million. It is well established that total World War II casualties were in the region of 50-60 million. It even said in my secondary school history textbook that 'about half of WWII casualties were Soviet. "Official Soviet reports at the time stated that 20 million soldiers and civilians perished in the war, but it was later revealed, during Gorbachev’s time in office in the 1980s, that a more realistic figure for Soviet losses was between 27 million and 28 million" (Encarta). Sources - .--Ilya1166 13:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Will read them in more detail tonight.

Question 1: Should something not be done about the other Misplaced Pages articles then?

Question 2: After a quick read of them, I do not find a breakdown of the figures between civilian and military. The following makes the article look silly “civilian deaths were about 14 to 17 million” and “including 18 million civilians”. Can I suggest one or both be removed; leaving statements like “lost more than 27 million citizens”? What do you think?

Question 3: Why have you removed the information on the Soviet involvement prior to the German invasion? It’s involvement as I pointed out started in August 1939 with the signing of the pact with Germany. Please explain. .--jniech

Q1: Realise that it takes too much effort to change every article.

Q2: Because so many people died, the number of both military and civilian casualties are estimates and there are conflicting sources which list different number of casualties. One thing that contemporary sources agree on it that the total figure is 27 million, the revised figure given by the Russian president himself and the figure given by recognised sources such as the BBC, Time Magazine, Encarta, etc.

Q3: The information you included was biased and factually inaccurate. Firstly, the USSR was never an ally of Germany- see the World War II page and the Axis powers of World War II. Secondly, you wrote that the USSR 'occupied' the baltics, a controversial issue since 'occupation' is a relatively new term alleged by the Baltics since becoming independent, and which Russia rejects .--Ilya1166 14:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Q1. But is not the article listing the war dead for all countries a key one?

Q2. How about changing “about 14 to 17 million” to “about 14 to 18 million” and “including 18 million civilians” to “including upto18 million civilians”. It just looks better.

Q3. Based on what you said, the following should be acceptable: The Soviet Union's involvement in World War II started with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. This agreement resulted in the Soviet Union joining Germany in the invasion of Poland. The Soviet Union then attacked Finland, stationed troops in the Baltic states and occupied Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. It was not until the attack by Germany against the Soviet Union, known in Russia as the Great Patriotic War, in June 22, 1941 that they became part of the alliance against German. .--jniech

Q1: Yes it is but it is outside of my scope of interest at the moment.

Q2: Done

Q3: Firstly your info is dubious again and there is no need to write about the prelude to World War II, this is the 'super' article for many articles and thus it shouldn't go into extensive details, all of that is covered in the Eastern Front (World War II) article.--Ilya1166 15:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The invasion of Poland and the Winter War are not the prelude to WWII, they are parts of WWII. Even if we shouldn't go into extensive details, we have to reword the paragraph. Colchicum 15:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

How about: The Soviet Union's involvement in World War II started with the attack on Poland on 17th September 1939. This was followed by various actions including the Winter War. The war on the Eastern front, the Great Patriotic War as it is known in Russia, started with Germany attacking on June 22, 1941..--jniech

The article is fine as it is, the events preceeding the war against Germany are frankly not that important in Russian history.--Ilya1166 15:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It is wrong to try to attach military operation or the Red Army in Poland in 1939 to the USSR's involvement in World War II. This involvement was - by definition of World War II - against Germany and its allies, not against anything else. In 1939 the Soviet Union was by no means at war with Germany or any of its allies. This way we could go all the way back till 1921 when Red Army also entered Poland after being engaged by Polish troops.

It is no secret, however, that some people in Poland would now like to present history differently. Perhaps hoping for some form of "compensation" in addition to what they already got in 1945. Alexander0807 00:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

Nevertheless saying that the Soviet Union's involvement in World War II started with the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 22, 1941, is blatantly wrong. The Soviet Union was involved in the Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) and the Winter War, which are commonly considered parts of WWII. Please rephrase. Colchicum 14:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, and the Operation August Storm as the end of the war should also be mentioned. Colchicum 14:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

World War II was a war between the Axis and Allies. The World War II article says, "This global conflict split a majority of the world's nations into two opposing camps: the Allies and the Axis". The USSR was neither before the German invasion in 1941. Neither the Axis nor the Allies declared war on the USSR before the invasion in 1941. The USSR became involved in World War II only in 1941 when it joined the Allies upon being invaded by Germany. Therefore it is reasonable to say, "'The Soviet Union's involvement in World War II, known in the Soviet Union and Russia as the Great Patriotic War, started with the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 22, 1941."--Ilya1166 16:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR Colchicum 16:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but if WWII is a battle between the Axis and the Allies, then why shouldn't we count their entry as early as the beginning of September or mid August, as the Red army under General Zhukov was engaged with the Japanese Sixth army in Manchuria? While the winter war seems to be a particullarly bloody bit of learning and territorial consolidation to protect St. Petersburg, and the invasion of Poland seemed fueled by a desire to protect the territorial concessions presented by Ribentrop, Im still not sure what to do with your defenition. Thats not even thinking of the proxy war in spain. Im almost more tempted to say that the invasion of 1941 was the point of no return. That and it seems to be convention. ."--savageco

Behavior

Deleting fact tags is wrong. Cite sources, please. Colchicum 15:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Topography

Topography section is a mess. Climate section doesn't belong there. "The climates of both European and Asian Russia are continental except for the tundra and the extreme southeast" ???? Isn't tundra continental??? The Black and Baltic Sea coasts are no more continental than the glorious extreme southeast (which is not especially outstanding in this respect, I don't understand why it was singled out). Colchicum 16:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I see, somebody owns the article and pushes his views here. Whether Gorbachev was reform-minded and what was his motivation is a very controversial question, such an epithet has no place in this article if the latter is to be improved, this: the Yeltsin government conspired with insiders to loot countless billions in cash and assets from the State certainly needs strong, really strong references, much stronger than the little-known websites you add instead of fact-tags. Ok, I don't care much about that country. Go on playing with yourself. Bye. Colchicum 16:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent facts

I would like to stress the followings in the article: in 1990, the Soviet Union’s population was about 270 million. That of the present-day Russia is about 145 million and President Putin has said it may fall to 123 million by 2015, when Iran will have as many people. Russians are today outnumbered by Chinese 9 to 1. East of the Aral Sea, the ratio is closer to 50 to 1.--Tones benefit 19:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm, how exactly do you propose to expand this section? --Illythr 01:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The decline of Russian population should be accompanied by the recent given facts: that's a real fact that Russia east of Aral Sea is outnumbered by Chinese to a factor closed to 50.--Tones benefit 12:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The demographics crisis is well explained in this article. There's no point saying that Russia's population is outnumbered by China's by 9:1, people can see that for themselves when looking at population statistics. Also the population of the USSR in 1991 was around 293 million so I doubt it was 270 million in 1990. --Ilya1166 14:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The trend is very important to be stressed out. China is a big power, today much bigger than Russia.--Tones benefit 14:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Population does not equate to power, China has always had the world's largest population.--Ilya1166 14:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

..and Russia the world's largest area.--Tones benefit 14:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What's your point??! Are you hinting that China sould get part of Russian land? 'cause it outnumbers Russia 9 to 1'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.128.70 (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

POV

Current version claims that "After Lenin's death in 1924, a brief power struggle ensued, during which a top communist official, a Georgian named Joseph Stalin, gradually eroded the various checks and balances which had been designed into the Soviet political system". What "checks and balances" are you talking about? That was Red Terror or War Communism in 1917-1924, not a Western democracy.Biophys 21:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't the authoritarian state Stalin had turned it into, either. I understand, the "General Secretary" was a relatively weak political post in Lenin's times. --Illythr 01:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. That was not a dictatorship of one person like during Stalin's rule. That was dictatorship of a group of leading Bolsheviks called War Communism. But there was no any Separation of powers! "Balances" in the article are linked to "separation of powers". It is the essence of the system that Communist Party commanded all three branches of power - before, during and after Stalin.Biophys 03:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Lenin's powers were not "weak" at all. He was dictator by any means. He was a stronger leader than Stalin. Lenin criticized Stalin for his "liberalism" and "softness" with regard to the enemies (memories of Mikoyan, if I remember correctly).Biophys 03:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Biophys please take your anti-Soviet/anti-Russian sentiment elsewhere. The country was led by the Communist Party, not a single leader. Stalin turned the country into the dictatorship of a single leader. As Illythr stated, the position of general secretary was seen to be a minor one within the party. Stalin subsequently built it up to the most powerful position in the country. Please go learn some history.--Ilya1166 04:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about Separation of powers. It was not Stalin who destroyed this separation, because there was nothing to destroy. Tsarist Russia had only independent judiciary but no really independent Duma. Even Soviet textbooks did not claim that Lenin introduced Separation of powers after revolution. Soviet textbooks explained about War Communism that has nothing in common with democracy. Only this WP article claims such nonsense.Biophys 04:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link that takes the phrase "checks and balances" to separation of powers. War Communism was a policy instituted during the Russian Civil War so that the country could survive, why are you bringing that up.--Ilya1166 04:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It was the largest theatre of war in history

Sorry but another question, this time about whether it was the largest theatre of war. Would not the Pacific have been bigger? -- Jniech

This is what is written on the Eastern Front (World War II) page. I believe its because it had the most number of soldiers/deaths--203.173.51.168 04:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The article on theatre states "In warfare, a theater or theatre is normally used to define a specific geographic area" Theater (warfare). It further states the WWII had at least three separate theaters: European, Pacific, and African. If that is the case (rather than dividing these further) then would the pacific not have a larger geographic area? --Jniech 10 July 2007

The extent of military operations in Pacific, the number of troops involved, and its influence on the result of Word War II cannot be compared to Eastern Front. I understand that gentlemen from the US would like to claim otherwise, but there are facts and there are numbers.Alexander0807 23:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggested changes to WWII section

Original: The fighting involved millions of German and Soviet troops along a broad front

Suggestion: The fighting involved millions of German and Soviet troops and their allies along a broad front

Reason: The allies (e.g. Poles) on the side of the Soviet Union were pretty minor but the millions on the Germany side were not (over million killed/MIA, 2 million POW) (see http://en.wikipedia.org/Eastern_Front_%28World_War_II%29#Casualties)

Original: The fate of the Third Reich was decided at Stalingrad and sealed at Kursk.

Suggestion: The fate of the Third Reich was effectively decided at Stalingrad and all but sealed at Kursk.

Reason: If D-Day had failed, the Germans would have been able to switch hundreds of thousands of troops to the Eastern front. Until the success of D-Day, the German still had a chance.

Original: The Red Army then stopped the Nazi offensive at the Battle of Stalingrad

Suggestion: The Red Army then stopped the Germans offensive at the Battle of Stalingrad

Reason: We do not say the socialist stopped the Nazi.

There is still no mention of the Soviet part in the defeat of Japan, add at end of paragraph

Suggestion: The Soviet Union made a major contribution to forcing the surrender of Japan by destroying their army in Manchuria. ((with link to Operation August Storm)) -- Jniech

All of the information you are challenging is written on the Eastern Front (World War II) page, so you should address your concerns there first.

"The Red Army then stopped the Nazi offensive at the Battle of Stalingrad" is fine, it doesn't say "Communists" stopped the Nazi offensive", Nazi is just another word for Nazi Germany.

By the time the allies drove into Germany the war in Europe was already decided. The main reason for the opening of the Second Front in June 1944 was to prevent the Russians from reaching the Atlantic. --203.173.51.168 05:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I am confused by your reply. The Eastern Front article is correct on these points and so why would I address my concerns there? On point one it supports the fact there were lots of German allied troops, point 2 is not in that article but only in this article, as to point 3 it states “German offensive” not “Nazi offensive” and point 4 it has a longer version of the actions in Manchuria. Hence it supports my position on 1, 3 & 4 and has nothing about point 2. - Jniech 10 July 2007

It wasn't just a German offensive, what about the Rumanians, Hungarians and Italians?

AllenHansen (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Religion in Russia

I don't think that at the section "Religion in Russia" the data about North Ossetia being an "predominant islamic" region is correct. According to my data, the Ossetians are, most of them Christians. So, please, make the cORRECTUINS...

Well we do not have such data. MAYBE THEY JUST STARTED CONVERTING

According to demographics, the osetians (the predominant ethic group in Osseita) are mostly orthodox christian, with a large muslim minority http://en.wikipedia.org/Ossetians#Religion , http://www.nupi.no/cgi-win/Russland/etnisk_b.exe?Osetian. --GerojiYuga 16:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I support the correction about predominant religion in Ossetia. It cannot be tagged as predominantly Islamic region.Alexander0807 23:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This was fixed a while ago...--Ilya1166 09:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Baikonur

Can anyone please add the precise legal status of Baikonur in regards to its administration by Russia?

Can it be considered a part of Russian territory, an exclave? Or just rented by the Russian government?

Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni 14:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's all in the Baikonur article, actually. It was officially rented by Russia from Kazakhstan in 1994. Perhaps this will help as a starting point to find what you need. I can also check if I have a copy of the actual rental agreement, if that helps you any.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I saw it on the Baikonur article, i just thought that it might be useful to include some info here - if it is technically a part of Russia, then Kaliningrad is not the only exclave. --Amir E. Aharoni 11:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I'm afraid that's not the case. Speaking of exclaves, Russia does have one in Europe (a very small one, several square meters at best), but I don't remember where I read about it and where it is located. Of course, it is more of a curiosity than a genuine exclave worth mentioning here.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC

Are you, by any chance, talking about the Kaliningrad Oblast? Digwuren 17:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Russian financial crisis

The information about the 1999 crisis must be added back. Otherwise it is not clear what kind of recovery is discussed. Colchicum 10:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Financial crisis in Russia actually started on August 17, 1998.Alexander0807 23:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Photos in article

I have replaced some of the photos with newer or higher quality photos.

• Moscow State University photo was replaced by the photo used on Russian Misplaced Pages (which comes from Wikimedia Commons) which shows the building rather than park in front.
• Kazan Cathedral is obviously less important than Cathedral of Christ the Saviour as they both had the same history of destruction and as we are trying to include one of them Cathedral of Christ the Saviour is the one that logically comes as the one deserving the photo in article. Kazan Cathedral might have been the first church to be restored but Cathedral of Christ the Saviour is way more important as it was demolished by Stalin and rebuilt by Yeltsin.
• Nilov Monastery is just one of many while Troitse-Sergiyeva Lavra is the most important Russian monastery and the spiritual centre of the Russian Orthodox Church founded in 1345 and on UNESCO heritage list.
• Wiener Staatsoper Schwanensee Szene Akt4.jpg shows the Swan Lake performance in Vienna. Unless we have the Swan Lake performance in Russia we will have to make it clear in the caption that photo was taken in Austria or use the thing that we already have - a photo of the greatest modern ballerina Maya Plisetskaya.
• Bolshoi Theatre photo used previously is of poor quality and does not show the whole building like the one on Russian Misplaced Pages (which comes from Wikimedia Commons)
• Oil well photo is from Texas and I have added it to the caption as one user insists on this photo being in the article but it is important that we do not delude readers.
• I have added the logo of Sochi 2014 Olympics as I think it is a nice addition to the article.
• Also I have added the painting of Leo Tolstoy by Ilya Repin which enhances the article in literature and in arts section.

User that keeps reverting is Ilya1166 wrote this on my talk page: "On a final note, please leave the Russian articles to the Russians and the Serbian articles to the Serbs". Unfortunately he does not understand the concept of Misplaced Pages. I will not get to any further analysis of that comment which reminds me of something that has got to do with national states.

Avala 13:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll break it down for you. Your photos are all different sizes, I don't know what resolution you are using to view wikipedia but this is how the article looks now:

http://img382.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image4ol8.jpg

http://img266.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image5in7.jpg

http://img382.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image6co3.jpg

The images are uniform, the article looks professional and clean in its original form compared to your mess:

http://img266.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image1gl0.jpg

http://img372.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image2cn3.jpg

http://img382.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image3of4.jpg

Your images are still far too large and look like a child has edited it, for an indication of what size images should be take a look at the United States or Australia articles, the images are compact and uniform and never spill over into other sections, unlike the enormous monstrosities you have put up. The problem with your images, portrait images don't fit well into those sections and now they look squashed and they are still not uniform with the other images, giving a very unprofessional look, the images before were fine, they looked good, they were great examples of Russian culture and religion and that's coming from a Russian.

Most of the images you put up are in portrait form which completely skews the article. The image of Leo Tolstoy you put up is HUGE, it is bigger than the text of the section, the same goes for the picture of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, the image is much larger than the actual text itself and spills way over into the culture section. After my comments you then tried to reduce these images but they then look VERY squashed and small. You even added a whole heap of unimportant ( eg. "Slavic mythology is popular. On the other hand, the prevalence of overt neopagans appears to be low.) and unsourced religious information to the religion section and spread out the section into many 1 sentence paragraphs instead of keeping it tight, so that your image could JUST fit even after you reduced it to a very small size. The images you removed also all come from Wikimedia Commons.

• The picture of Moscow State University shows the outline of the whole building, unlike your image which only gives a ground level view of the central tower
• It doesn't matter that the Swan Lake performance is given in Vienna because Russian composer Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky composed Swan Lake, and Swan Lake is widely recognised around the world. Swan Lake is much more important and much more well recognised than the ballerina you put.
• Kazan Cathedral was the first church restorated after the end of the Soviet Union so it is fitting that it be included. You don't know much about Russian history because Kazan Cathedral WAS ALSO destroyed by Stalin and rebuilt during Yeltsin's presidency. The year it was rebuilt, 1993, which was mentioned in the caption, is a great example to people how quickly after the end of Communism that religion came back. The image you replaced it with is in portrait form and encroaches far out of the 'Religion' section as you can see in the image.
• The Bolshoi Theatre image does show the whole outline of the building, and shows the only part of the theatre worth showing, the magnificent front. It's quality is fine because it is only a thumbnail. In the image you replaced it with is shows the carpark and the unimportant sides of the theatre and is just a poor image overall.
• No one is saying that the oil well is Russian, it is meant to be an image of a generic oil well to demonstrate that Russia is a large oil producer and exporter, you missed the point completely.
• The image of Troitse-Sergiyeva Lavra shouldn't be in the culture section at all, this is not the 'Religion' section, where a picture of a church is already present. The Nilov Monastary is representative of the 'Architechture' section of culture and is a great representation of Neoclassical architechure as was noted in the caption. The image of Troitse-Sergiyeva Lavra is renowned more for its spiritual center than its architecture, the image of Nilov Monastary specifically talks about the architectural significance of the monastary while your image talks about its spiritual significance.

Don't try to twist my words Avala, you snidely left the whole part of what I said: "On a final note, please leave the Russian articles to the Russians and the Serbian articles to the Serbs if you don't realise that you just can't go around unilaterally replacing a whole heap of things with your own version without first going to talk. Misplaced Pages is about not changing things unilaterally when people have a problem with your it, but coming to a concensus, you can't expect to come to this article and suddenly delete images and replace them with your own and repeatedly revert to your new version when people have a problem with your new edits.--Ilya1166 03:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Unregistered users disallowed to edit

"Editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled. If you are prevented from editing this article, and you wish to make a change, please discuss changes on the talk page, request unprotection, log in, or create an account."

This message is shown at the bottom of the page, where such users are unlikely to look. Wouldn't it be better to move the message to the top of the page? (Stefan2 19:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC))

Citations

Many citations in the article are quite shaky. Tamokk 06:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific?--Ilya1166 13:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

New religious table should be removed

I strongly disagree with the new table Pakhomovru has created and seems intent on keeping:

It is innaccurate and gives the impression that 100% of the country is religious. No other country is organised by religion this way, by categorising every person into their ethnic group predominant religion, and a large proportion of Russians are not religious adherents at all. Just because a particular ethnic group is predominately christian/islamic doesn't mean ALL people of that ethnic group are religious or can be counted as christians/muslims/etc)--Ilya1166 13:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Look the name of the table has "Ethnic Group predominant religion" - predominant not 100%

The way I see it, you're both right:

• It is innaccurate and gives the impression that 100% of the country is religious. Correct on that point; the percentages shouldn't add up to 100%, and it should be sourced (to fix the possible inaccuracy).
• Look the name of the table has "Ethnic Group predominant religion" - predominant not 100% Correct, but also incorrect. You're not naming the ethnic groups, so you can't say that 89.72% of *no* (because it isn't named) ethnic group is Christian.
• categorising every person into their ethnic group predominant religion I don't think that's what he's trying to do; that would be a kind of stereotyping, and not very informative.

I suggest the box be removed, because they are usually frowned upon, for the simple reason that one or two paragraphs would explain much more clearly and effectively (there are exceptions, but this is not one). Hope that helps sort things out. · AndonicO 21:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This table is based on the census in 2002 and wikipedia sources for each ethnic group please have a look at the section Religion in Russia, also I think the most natural approach is based on self-identification data and this data is realy the only real source of estimation, I would agree if we could add some comments to this table some thing like "maximum possible" number of adherents and also information about etheist and their % and we could adjust this table if you have some real sources, and also information for each group like "big number of non practising" for Christianity and the Russina Orthodox Church is major part, same for Islam and secular islam and the Sunni is major part, for Juidais we could add also not practising.

I have added a lot of new and more accurate information to the religion taken from the Russian 'Religion in Russia' article, which explains the whole religious/atheist situation and the various religious groups in Russia and numbers of adherents.--Ilya1166 02:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that table he made was good. --LtWinters 15:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Reinserting comment that was accidentally removed:

The problem with the ethnic approach is that it does not take into account religious minorities among the various nationalities. Also, there are historical reasons why among non-local, immigrant minorities these religious minorities may be higher than among the people who stayed in their respective ex-republics, now independent states. So while among "natives" of the Russian Federation the proportion Christianity versus Islam will be more or less correct (the number of Christians among the Tatars is probably offset by the number of Moslims among ethnic Russians, Chuvash and Ossetians), 1) there is an obvious underestimation of the number of Jews and Buddhists, as in the past such groups have Russified more easily than Moslims (so some adherents are classified as ethnic Russians) 2) we do not know the exact number of Protestants, since many of those who identify as Latvians, Estonians, Karelians and even Finns may be Orthodox, but this is certainly more than made up by ethnic Russians converted by modern Protestant "sects" 3) counting all illegal immigrants from Kazakhstan and Kirghizstan to the Russian Federation as Moslims is probably wishful thinking on the part of Islamists, Russian anti-immigration nationalists and Russophobic intelligence services in the West (yes, nice to see them mentioned together) and probably explains why self-identification nets only 6-7 % moslims and the ethnic approach including illegal immigration yields 21%. Interestingly, I fail to see the Koreans, who may be Buddhist in Korea, but are dominantly Protestant in Russia. So, I agree there is a problem with an ethic table. --Paul Pieniezny 12:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Russian Federation not Russia!!!

I insist that whoever made this page changed the header from Russia to Russian Federation, as it is the main article about this country and by the reason of the fact that other countries name are written in full (The United States of America, People's ...of China and so on)--Xatag 19:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Insisting anything will get you nowhere. The first few words in this article state "Russia, or the Russian Federation" and so on. The entire article can not be changed, unless you wish to change every linking article as well. SpigotMap 19:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I can read! The article is named Russia no matter what it says sfter and the country official name is Russian Federation so i wonder who was that genious that made this? I didnt ask to change the entire article...only the NAME! I think its possible...isnt it?:)

If you're talking about the actual name of the article, it's not a simple one click change. All of the articles that link to this article would have to be redirected to the new article. ie, any page that links to "Russia" would have to be changed to "Russian_Federation" SpigotMap 19:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the United States article uses the short, common name of that country. So does United Kingdom and most others. The People's Republic is a special case... --Illythr 21:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

According to Russian constitution, both names - Russia and Russian Federation - are EQUALLY official. The original reason for such a strange article in the constitution was that majority of ethnic Russians preferred historical name "Russia" while representatives of ethnic minorities preferred "Russian Federation".Alexander0807 23:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Brian Pearson 13:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This is article 1 of the Constution of Russian Federation :

Статья 1

1. Российская Федерация - Россия есть демократическое федеративное правовое государство с республиканской формой правления.

2. Наименования Российская Федерация и Россия равнозначны

Article 1 ... Names Russian Federation and Russia are equal.

There is no reason to use longer Russian Federation name instead of Russia. While using longer name is surely gives us problem in the historical sections Alex Bakharev 04:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The The Russian Empire, Russian SFSR, USSR, and Russians articles exists despite also being "Russia". While a Ukrainian could call himself Russian if born before the fall of that empire, if he was born after 1990, he can no longer? Perhaps of more significance, Russia is the continuance of the USSR - as clearly stated in the article - yet this is not merged with the USSR article.--Dwarf Kirlston 12:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

see Russia (disambiguation)--Dwarf Kirlston 17:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. Russian Federation includes ALL the regions of the state including a large number of non-russian regions such as chechnya and others. This does not mean they are not part of the russian federation it simply means these regions have their own laws. We dont redicrect United States to America. russia may be used as a short name but russian federation is the official name o the state because it includes all russian and non-russian regions and if you look at government documents and state courts as well as russian passports russian federation is the accurate name of that country as people from non-russian regions of the state carry the same passports as the people from the russian regions. So russian federation should be the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.113.5 (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Demography graph

I think the graph under 'Demography' showing decline in population should not be used. The y axis is non linear (only shows the 140's) and because it is at too small a resolution to see the numbers this makes it seem that the Russian population has fallen by about 70%, when it's closer to 7% (I'm being rough here). I know this type of graph has its uses, and in this case the full-res version is easier to read than it would be otherwise, but as anyone skimming the article will be attracted most to images, and may not read on or look closely at the full graph, I think this image is easily misleading. -Zepheriah 23:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion vote

Please see the deletion vote at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Russian Americans. Badagnani 03:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

GAN

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

• 1b:I fixed MoS with a script, there was an error so I manually repaired it.

-Flubeca 00:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of blog

Does the Discovery Institute endorse Yuri Mamchur's blog? It mentions the blog on their bio on him, but that doesn't neccessarily mean they support him in his endeavour.

If it isn't official, it should probably be removed, per WP:EL. Note, please, that I have no personal interest in what way this goes; I am not attempting to stifle someone, so please keep those comments out. The preceding was not an attack, either; it has been my experience that at least one person will attempt to say that an editor is censoring so-and-so for such-and-such a reason. If you did not plan on doing so, please ignore the disclaimer. Octane 04.09.07 2038 (UTC)

Lack of Democratic Dicsussion

I posted the NPOV because there's almost no dicussion of Putin's oppressive government and its threat to what could be a Russian Democracy. Surely this should be mentioned, even in passing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangalaiii (talk • contribs) 21:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This article lists the facts. 'Putin's oppressive government' and 'threat to Russian democracy'? We can see which way you're biased. Criticism should be left for the Vladimir Putin and Human rights in Russia articles.--Miyokan 21:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This article talks about Russia as a country first of all. If you want to critisize Putin go to the Putin article or whatever. The article lists only fact, you are the one who tries to make it not neutral. This article is not a place for anti-Putin propoganda, just like it's not the place for pro-Putin propoganda (but that it doesn't have). What you try to do is western propoganda, so just for the protocol, let me tell you something. First of all, i (and most Russians) belive that Democracy in Russia ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, because the Democratic Mafia that came instead has nothing to do with Democracy. Second, this is not the article to talk about that. Once this so-called Democracy collapses, then we'll add it. I two don't like Putin. I think he's not fighting illigal immigration like he should, he didn't return free education or healthcare like it was in the Soviet union, he didn't beat corruption, he didn't bring back the Soviet science system (and most Russians think like me!). But it's not the place to talk about that. M.V.E.i. 15:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Russia

Hi, I'm from the Portuguese Misplaced Pages and I just wanna say that the nominated PM of Russia is Viktor Zubkov. You can confirm on the EuroNews' website Have a nice day/evening.

82.155.223.250 22:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC) PTJoel

Yes, the Duma will consider the candidacy Friday.--Miyokan 22:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

But Fradkov remains as the Acting PM and mustn't be removed. Besides, unless he become the designate, he doesn't belong, countries can put every nominee for their position as even "quasi-official". Therequiembellishere 20:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hhh if Putin brought him, the whole gang (or government, whatever) is going to vote for him. Put him here now and you save someone work for later. M.V.E.i. 20:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That's clearly crystal balling though. Believe me, I know Zubkov is going to end-up PM just like everyone else thinks, but I case it doesn't happen, we can't put false information. Therequiembellishere 20:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wording about space program

Hey all (and mostly Miyokan). The wording which was on the page originally, and which i disagree with, said "The US and Russia are the only nations with advanced space programs". The problem with this wording is the ambiguousness of the word "advanced." In my opinion, countries like, say, canada do NOT have advanced space programs. they have developed things for space, and sent astronauts to space, but it has always been working with the US. China, however, has independently launched a person into space, and JAXA has launched probes etc on its own rockets. That seems quite advanced.

The wording i've suggested is "the US and Russia have long had the most advanced space programs." This wording could even be more absolute by saying they've always had the most advanced programs. They do have the most advanced space programs by far, and that is uncontestable. but they do not, in my opinion, have the 'only' advanced space programs, and I feel the phrasing should be changed slightly to reflect that. SECProto 04:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I think 'advanced' should be relative to the US and Russian space programs. Since their space programs are by far ahead of other countries, only theirs should be deemed 'advanced'. For example, while Japan recently sent a space probe to the moon would be considered 'advanced' if this was the 1950's or 60's (the Soviet Union launched the world's first space probe in 1959), today it would not be considered advanced. Other countries today are only starting to mimick what the Russian and US space programs did 40 years ago.--Miyokan 05:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is it is a major POV, and things here must be Neutral POV. Saying they have the most advanced space programs is somewhat neutral and true, saying they have the ONLY advanced space programs is your opinion. SpigotMap 05:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

NASA itself is starting to repeat what they did 40 years ago :) (referring to their plan to return persons to the moon). I just feel that saying they are the "most advanced space programs" instead of the "only advanced space programs" is just more of a neutral point of view - because the cutoff line for "advanced" could be anywhere. SECProto 05:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.--Miyokan 01:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

minor error

"The country is also benefiting from rising oil prices and has been able to very substantially to reduce its formerly huge foreign debt."

One "to" too much --Arne Heise 09:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sports

It was stated that Russia has won gold at almost all the Olympics and World Championships in regards to Hockey. That statement is incorrect and the Ice Hockey World Cup and the Ice Hockey in the Olympics pages on Wiki will prove that. It could be said that Russia does well at Ice Hockey and is currently tied with Canada for the most gold medals won in the Olympics. Overall Canada has done better in Ice Hockey at either the Olympics or the World Cup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miraboc (talk • contribs) 15:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll change the wording. With regards to your statement about Canada having done better in ice hockey at either the olympics or world championships, that's funny. Canada has been competing ice hockey in the winter olympics since 1920, yet the Soviet Union only started competing in the Winter Olympics in 1956, winning the gold immediately. The Soviet Union (and the Unified Team) won the gold at 8 out of 10 appearances! Yet the Canadian team has only won the gold at 7 of its 21 appearances! And Canada did not win a single gold during the years the Soviets competed! As for the world championships, the Soviets won a medal at every world championships that they competed, while the Canadian team has won a medal at only 72.1% . Between 1954 and 1990 the Canadian team won the world championship 4 times compared to 22 times for the Soviet team.--Miyokan 11:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Distribution of ethnic non-Russians

In Demographics, the article currently reads "Nearly all groups besides Russians live compactly in their respective regions." This is backed by an official Russian government source, which is a problem in itself. Particularly the word "compactly" is doubtful. The distribution of ethnicities does not strictly follow the borders of federal subjects, and there is a Russian majority () in most of them. See for example here ; the color "spills" outside the designated republic quite often. Urbanization also may have changed the situation. What I think was meant that in the Russian mainstream culture, the minorities do not have much visibility, and they are associated only with their native area, not the entire federation. --Vuo 16:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with the source, why would the Russian government lie about that? It says "nearly all groups" not "all groups" and "live in their respective regions" not "live in their respective borders".--Miyokan 00:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Russian government need not to overtly lie about anything. Quite the contrary, the representation "Nearly all groups besides Russians live compactly in their respective regions" appears to be essentially truthful. Yet it is a point of view, even if makes sense and appears consistent in given context. (An analogous but a more obvious example: in the article "United States", there was a statement that literacy is high in the U.S. Even though this is globally speaking true, illiteracy still exists in the U.S., which actually places the U.S. behind most developed countries. See also how methodology can influence a result in Literacy#United States.) So, what I'm actually after is a better wording, an external reference, and clarification of the status of urban dwellers. For example,

"Besides ethnic Russians, the ethnic groups and expression of their culture are associated to specific local regions and the countryside. These regions are larger and more diffuse than the federal subjects. Ethnic Russians maintain a majority in most regions and particularly in urban areas."

The status of urban dwellers need to be clarified. Do they form separate communities in cities ("Chinatowns")? Will they be officially considered "ethnic non-Russian" if they live in a city with ethnic Russian majority? Are non-Russian languages used for interaction with the government or as a language of instruction in schools in the regions? For examples elsewhere: Stockholm (Swedish capital) is the largest Sami concentration (the Sami are from the countryside and do not have their own large cities), but Brussels is actually bilingually French and Flemish (because French-, and Flemish-speaking Belgian culture isn't that different). --Vuo 11:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

1990's economic problems America's fault

Quotes: "In October 1991, as Russia was on the verge of independence, Yeltsin announced that Russia would proceed with radical, market-oriented reform along the lines of "shock therapy", as recommended by the United States and IMF, with disastrous results." and "After the disintegration of the USSR, the Russian economy went through a crisis, far worse than the Great Depression. The "shock therapy" recommendations by the US and IMF resulted in the economy being shattered, with tens of millions plunging into poverty and a severe fall in the standard of living, and triggered an explosion in corruption and organised crime." The idea that Russia suffered severe hardship because it was so trusting and followed to the letter some monolithic "recommendation of the United States" is amusing, but not neutral and not supported by the citations (not even the Poultry Farmer's Report).

It also strikes me that parts of the article implicitly gives a lot of credit to Putin for the recent economic growth. While this may be conventional wisdom in Russia for all I know, it is a politicized conclusion, not a neutral fact. It would be the equivalent of saying the economic boom of the 90's in the US can be credited to Bill Clinton, which apparently many republicans don't believe. Looking at Russia, for instance, an observer could easily say that the Russian boom is a result of the market reforms and liberalizations of the 90's, although it hurt at the time. It was after all called 'shock therapy'. Reading the citations, it appears that after a financial crisis in 1998 there has been rapid growth, and Putin was elected in 2000. Perhaps thats what the article should say. Well-supported economic theories have their place, if clearly stated as theory, but baldly imputing the economic growth to Putin without support strikes me as non-neutral.

Prefacing the economic reform section with something like "In December 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed, the Russian economy was in a terrible state. Foreign reserves had been exhausted, impeding the country’s ability to import goods, and economic output had been in decline since the 1970s." (quoting the Encarta citation) might also improve the tone of the article by explaining why the reforms were undertaken. As the article stands, it sounds like they were undertaken as some foolish adventure that ended up destroying Soviet power, rather than as responses to the terrible state of the unsustainable centralized economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.230.234 (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Russia still has a very serious problem. Without a sustainable population, there will be another collapse. The fertility rate is only 1.39. Brian Pearson 13:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Red Map Picture

Should we really have the map picture as red? Does that not send the wrong signals? Whats wrong with the traditional green wikipedia maps? 89.101.1.206 19:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The red map is used for many countries, and was created by User:Rei-artur. If you check his gallery he has pretty mcuh mapped every country on Earth. A while back there was a debate on whether to have red maps or the green and gray maps. If I remember correctly there was no consensus so everyone decided to use whatever map they felt like. The editors for the European countries started using a map with the EU highlighted, like this one, , while others kept the traditional green map. Still others preferred the red ones. You can change it back to green if you want, though if the "wrong signal" is communism then I believe that is a rather silly argument. --168.156.90.25 19:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ooh...You nearly had me until that last statement. Thanks anyways. 89.101.1.206 01:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong.

"Росси́йская Федера́ция, Rossiyskaya Federatsiya; [rʌˈsʲi.skə.jə fʲɪ.dʲɪˈra.ʦɨ.jə" is wrong. (The IPA used)

Day Watch movie???

You are crazy? To mention this movie like russian cultural heritage??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.117.80.50 (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Existence of parties decided by Kremlin

I just learned that the Kremlin can decide if a party is allowed to exist. Putin can get rid of people who oppose him in this manner. Brian Pearson 13:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, no. The Kremlin can't decide if a party is allowed to exist, that would make it a dictatorship. Parties have to get at least 7 percent of the national vote to gain seats in Parliament, which it looks like only a few parties will achieve.--Miyokan 12:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Then according to the story, it is a defacto dictatorship. Brian Pearson 01:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh ? Russia isn't a dictatorship, frankly unlike in the US (which has only two significant parties who share the power) Russia has more political parties to choose from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.94.30.247 (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL. In the US there are much more parties. Yes, they are not that significant. But in this sense Russia has no significant parties at all. Colchicum 23:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The White House cannot remove parties, much less make rules to ensure that certain parties have to have a certain amount of backing before they can exist. Also, there will never be a "Prime Minister" in the United States who could conceivably be the "real" power behind the president. Brian Pearson 01:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Brian Pearson не живет в России :) Он либо писатель фантаст, либо человек знания о России которого начинаются и заканчиваются американскими СМИ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.238.72.11 (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

“This is the first time in post-Soviet history when only the Kremlin decides who can participate and who can’t,” Mr. Ryzhkov said. “The Kremlin decides which party can exist and which party cannot. For the first time in post-Soviet history, a wide specter of political forces cannot participate in this election. I call it selection before election.”

Mr. Ryzhkov’s party, the Republican Party, one of the oldest in post-Soviet Russia, was disbanded by the government this year after it was accused of not having enough support under the new rules. Mr. Ryzhkov said his party easily met the standard but said officials ignored the evidence in a sham proceeding.

First chosen in 1993, soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Parliament in its early years was a raucous center of power that often challenged the president at the time, Boris N. Yeltsin. In Mr. Putin’s first term, it sometimes retained that role, but Mr. Putin has steadily reined in, and these days, it is considered little more than a sidekick of the Kremlin.

Andrew C. Kuchins, , said the liberal opposition was vulnerable because its leaders had quarreled and failed to present a united front. He said Mr. Putin seemed to want to establish United Russia as a force that would long dominate Russia, akin to the governing parties in Japan or Mexico in the 20th century.

The New York Times is pretty reputable. However, the New York Times does this kind of thing often enough, it never says anything and rather seems to by quoting someone who does. It's the same thing as their article on WMD's.--Dwarf Kirlston 20:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you say this is fair article: Russian legislative election, 2007 Brian Pearson 03:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

ROC and other orthodox churches in Russia

From my talk page

I am not 100% sure we need to dwell on the complicated question which orthodox churches in Russia are controlled by ROC which churches have only ecumenical connection with ROC, which churches are non-canonical or have ecumenical connection through the other patriarchates maybe better serve in Religion in Russia or Russian Orthodox Church. On the other hand if we can put a short informative description regarding the control of different Orthodox Churches in Russia it might help. On the other hand Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate is not an official name of the church organizations but rather a derogative term. I do not think the edit to Russia telling that there live Moskals and other nationalities would be found helpful. Alex Bakharev 23:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that now the paragraph is linked to the article about that particular church disguised as Russian Orthodoxy in general. It is wrong. I don't care about the exact wording, but it should be corrected. Colchicum 23:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Quoting the very source that was used in reference () for the sentence you wanted to change: "Many churches and monasteries have been returned to the Church, including the St. Daniel Monastery, the current seat of the Moscow Patriarchate, the spiritual and administrative center of the Russian Orthodox Church." The same source also says "With nearly 5,000 religious associations the Russian Orthodox Church accounts for over a half of the total number registered in Russia." This source treats Russian Orthodox Church and Moscow Patriarchate as synonymous. Enumerating other denominations, the same source mentions the Old Believers, and the Old Believers only (so far for "other Orthodox denominations"). Unless we get verifiable sourced info about the number of churches and adherents the other Patriarchates have, your edit is unacceptable OR. There is the point to consider, that just saying "other Orthodox denominations" may make some people believe that the Kiev Patriarchate is meant here, and not Georgian, Bulgarian, Greek, ... Orthodox. Two points to consider before we start adding info here: the situation is rather difficult to explain (eg where I come from, a "denomination" means that you do not believe the same things) 2) the situation with control, patronage and resort is fluid, can change very fast. That is why such information belongs in its own article: here the maximum we could do is only a brief summary, as keeping information up to date in two places is difficult.--Paul Pieniezny 02:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't mean the Georgian, Greek and Bulgarian churches. I mean Russian Orthodoxy. I mean that Russian Orthodoxy is not restricted to the body of christians united under the Patriarch of Moscow (not even to the Old Believers), regardless of the exact proportions, which are not known for sure, as very few polls draw the relevant distinction (and very few of that people are churched at all; the distinction is clearly inapplicable in this case). It is wrong to consider them all summarily as parishioners of the organization described in Russian Orthodox Church. Details indeed belong to their own article, but here that particular organization shouldn't be disguised as the Russian Orthodoxy.

1) "denomination" means that you do not believe the same things

Yes, exactly, it's not just business, they do not believe the same things (i.e. not all of them are Orthodox at any rate, but it is disputed who are and who are not, and in Misplaced Pages we are not entitled to decide which church is the true one). Otherwise I wouldn't consider the story problematic. No, the dogmatic disagreements don't change that fast, the issue is not fluid. Colchicum 21:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"Moscow Patriarchate" is not a name of the church and Colchicum must be well aware of that. There is no such organization called "ROC of the MP" either. In fact such naming (or referring to ROC exclusively as just "MP") is derogatory and used by some rival churches.

Colchicum may be objecting to the phrase "Russian Orthodoxy" being linked to just one organization. This is a valid point, but the correct solution would be linking to an article he is welcome to write about the state of affairs within the Russian Orthodoxy rather than invent the terms such as "Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate", like he has done in this strange edit. With the dedicated article lacking, the current solution is better than the introduction of this strange term and that's why I reverted it.

Finally, Colchicum infers from my reverting him that he is being stalked as he has done before . Colchicum really thinks too much of himself claiming that his editing is high enough on my priorities list to follow him around. I explanied that earlier to him once and again and that he responds this style and resorts to such wild accusations right now, is really his problem that he has to learn how to deal with. --Irpen 03:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

POV problems with the history section

From the FAC candidacy page. These are just a sample of the POV problems here. I don't propose to waste my time trying to fix them myself given my past experience on the related History of Russiaarticle but there is no way this should be a GA (let alone an FA):

• Oppose The history section fails NPOV really badly because of similar concerns to those that led to History of Russia losing its FA status. In the light of my experience on the previous article, I doubt whether it would be worth my time trying to make this article more neutral since most of the same problems are all present and correct here too (plus some new ones). Let's just take one example from the current article under discussion: " was very concerned about creating a free universal health care system for all, the rights of women, and teaching all Russian people to read and write". Source? Lenin himself. But that fits with the general "nice Lenin, bad Stalin" tone of the page (a long-exploded myth). No Cheka, no War Communism, all the Bolsheviks' opponents are "anti-socialist monarchist and bourgeois forces" or foreigners (what happened to the Socialist Revolutionaries or the mass of Russian peasants who rebelled against Bolshevik control?). Another underlying canard: this article seems to follow the old Russian nationalist line that Moscow had a manifest destiny to "gather in the Russian lands". The bit about Georgia is laughably distorted (I'm not even sure why it's there in the first place). Russia's role in the Napoleonic Wars begins in 1812 and so on and so on...There's also the same reliance on 19th century Russian sources which is really unacceptable. There's no way you could put this on the front page as an example of our best work.

This isn't a matter of a few cosmetic fixes. The whole thing needs to be overhauled and rethought and valid references to up-to-date scholarly works (preferably in English) provided.--Folantin 09:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have put the POV-section tag on the Soviet Russia section. I think most of concerns can be fixed reasonably quickly Alex Bakharev 10:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Please reinstate the tag where I put it until my concerns are met. The problems run much deeper than the Soviet section. --Folantin 10:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed those concerns I understood and agree. Please reformulate your grievances once more in more comprehencible way. You can even try to fix it yourself. Alex Bakharev 10:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

One major problem I forgot to mention (it's an obvious one) is why this article (which is on Russia) devotes so much space to the history of the Soviet Union. Russia and the USSR are not completely synonymous. The Soviet history section should be cut down accordingly. --Folantin 11:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh and if you can't see the bias in the Soviet history section, I don't know what you're doing editing this. " The Red Army, supplied by Lenin's policy of war communism, triumphed in the Civil War". That's supposed to be an improvement? Hilarious. --Folantin 11:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't be condescending, what do you expect when you are so vague, I thought you were concerned that war communism wasn't mentioned and that was a way of incorporating it into the text. Be more specific - what ABOUT war communism?--Miyokan 11:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't tell me what to do after your xenophobic rants against me. I expect this article to be written by someone who actually knows about Russian history, e.g. someone who's read sources more recent than the 19th century and doesn't rely on musty old Soviet propaganda. For example: War Communism was a disaster which led to the starvation of millions of Russians. --Folantin 11:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please maintain civility. SpigotMap 12:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope this is addressed to Miyokan, given his remarks to me over the past 24 hours. --Folantin 12:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It is addressed to everyone who acts in an uncivil way. If an editor is uncivil to you, that is no excuse to repeat his incivility. Just stay calm, there is no reason to get upset or angry over another editor. SpigotMap 12:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Folantin, your suggestion isn't any better - "War Communism was a disaster which led to the starvation of millions of Russians" - the "disaster" wording does not conform to NPOV as arguably it helped the Bolsheviks to win the war. Some commentators argue that its sole purpose was to win the war, and therefore it wasn't a "disaster" but a success.--Miyokan 12:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Why I'm no longer going to bother even attempting to fix this article any longer: Miyokan's edit summary "Most peasants were pro-Bolshevik". --Folantin 15:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

ER? You do not even bother to fix this article any longer but you keep adding an NPOV flag? And all that because of one sentence that can probably be sourced (but is of course POV, yes, because it does not mention the time at which it is claimed to be so, but we should remember everybody has a POV). This attitude sounds like disruption, particularly since you came here to stop the article from becoming FA. Do I have to quote the Digwuren arbcom decision on Eastern Europe here? Please explain what your purpose is here.--Paul Pieniezny 11:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed I even have to bother explaining. But let's take the blatantly obvious. Miyokan has subsequently added these sentences:

The Bolsheviks introduced free universal health care, education and social-security benefits, as well as the right to work and free housing. Women's rights were greatly increased through new political, civic, economic and family codes aimed to wipe away centuries-old inequalities at one stroke. The new government granted women full right to vote, passed divorce and civil laws that made marriage a voluntary relationship, eliminated the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children, enacted employment rights for women equal to those for men, gave women equal pay and introduced universal paid maternity leave. Adultery, incest and homosexuality were dropped from the criminal code. Anti-semitism and racism were forbidden by law.

He gives this Microsoft Encarta article as his source (he seems heavily dependent on online encyclopaedia and newspaper articles for his knowledge of history). Would any objective observer who compared the Mikoyan's version with the original say that he had represented his source accurately? I think the blatant cherry-picking is obvious for all to see. Another instance I find somewhat troubling. Encarta version: "Lenin’s lieutenant and successor, Joseph Stalin, governed in an increasingly tyrannical manner". Miyokan's version: "After Lenin's death in 1924, a brief power struggle ensued, during which a top communist official, a Georgian named Joseph Stalin, gradually consolidated power, governed in an increasingly tyrannical manner, and assumed dictatorial power by the end of the decade". My version (not referenced to Encarta): "Lenin died in 1924, and after a brief power struggle, he was succeeded by Joseph Stalin". Notice how Miyokan inserts a reference to Stalin's ethnicity. I'm concerned about this because Miyokan clearly has a major problem with Georgians . Yes, Stalin was a Georgian, just as Trotsky was a Jew (compare "Trotsky, a Jew, brutally suppressed the Kronstadt Mutiny"). It's factually accurate but the question is how relevant it is to this article. Miyokan's source, Encarta, is perfectly happy to omit this snippet of information. This is just a sample of the problems here. They lie deeper than just a quick cosmetic fix. --Folantin 11:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the complaints here was that the history of the Soviet Union bit was too much "Soviet", and did not enough cover it from the Russian side. So, your comparison between Stalin and Trotsky, who was a Russian, does not work. Actually, I (temporarily, of course, like everybody else I would never infringe copy right) videotaped History of the Russian Revolution 1905 to 1919 (Arte) in which you can see Petrograders demonstrating in 1917 shouting "Long live Trotsky! Down with the Jew Kerensky!" Funny, but it obviously happened, the Arte programme used it to prove that the events of July were not (or not only) organized by the bolsheviks. Antisemitism drives were more important in Russian politics than this article makes out, so, perhaps they need to be mentioned here (on both sides, the right-wing backlash after the Potemkin Uprising in Odessa 1905 included a genuine pogrom killing at least hundreds of Jews, a fact very often forgotten). Please be careful to use Miyokan's comment there as a proof of his having something against Georgians. He's been remarkably civil, considering that you came here to disturb the nomination. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground. --Paul Pieniezny 12:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The other issue is this; Encarta and Britannica, along with other most other online encyclopaedias, are tertiary sources which are here being vastly overused. It's secondary sources that should be the main basis for reference, not other general-purpose encyclopaedias. Certainly no article that relies so heavily upon fellow encyclopaedias and newspaper articles, not to mention outdated 19th-century sources, should pass FAC. Moreschi 12:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I am starting to see a problem. Sources from the 19th century should not be used. Soviet sources should not be used. Tertiary sources should not be used. I suppose that means only 20th century Western sources should be used? Oh no, wait, you cannot use Vernadsky either, because he was a Russian nationalist, at times even supporting Stalin. WP:POV anyone? --Paul Pieniezny 12:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to comment extensively as I think people can judge the evidence for themselves. Accusing me of cherry picking, that's a laugh coming from Folantin. I have never tried to censor any of the less than stellar moments in Russian history. Folantin's attempts to censor the consolidation of power and increasing tyrannical rule under Stalin fits in with the general theme of his other edits of Bolsheviks were always the 'bad' guys (To counteract the emergency, a reign of terror was begun within Russia as the Red Army and the Cheka (the secret police) tried to destroy all "enemies of the Revolution". - what about the White movement's White terror?), power-hungry ("their grip on power was by no means secure" ), opposed by almost all Russians ("...struggle broke out between the new regime and its opponents, who included the Socialist Revolutionaries, right-wing "Whites" and large numbers of peasants."- sounds like the whole country was against them, was there anyone fighting with the Bolsheviks or was it just Lenin?), and all Bolsheviks and Stalin fit in the same category . Here you added the sentence, The Bolsheviks introduced a one-party state under which dissent was ruthlessly suppressed and state control extended over all major industry.- I did not remove this sentence but added some of the others things "the Bolsheviks introduced", such as free health, education, women's rights, other rights. These are undisputed facts, and since Folantin can't object to this information, he is carrying on like a child who doesn't get his way. Clearly the addition of this information makes him uncomfortable, as he would only like to see the Bolsheviks being portrayed as 'bad'. As for Stalin's ethnicity, I was not the one that added that the information that Stalin was Georgian, (and the accusation that I am somehow anti-Georgian is outrageous), that sentence has been there for years and demonstrates an earlier sentence in the article that reads "non-Russians participated in the new government at all levels". As for, apparently, "my" version, "After Lenin's death in 1924, a brief power struggle ensued, during which a top communist official, a Georgian named Joseph Stalin, gradually consolidated power, governed in an increasingly tyrannical manner, and assumed dictatorial power by the end of the decade" - this version was not written by me but has been up for years. And no, my knowledge doesn't merely stem from MSN Encarta, I added that to silence someone that said some of the information "sounded as though it was written by a disappointed revolutionary".--Miyokan 12:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And no, my knowledge doesn't merely stem from MSN Encarta, I added that to silence someone that said some of the information "sounded as though it was written by a disappointed revolutionary. Um, so you didn't actually read the source you used as a reference, which doesn't actually support the things you've added to the article? The whole point of references is that they are supposed to back what the article says. The Encarta article describes the USSR as "the original Communist dictatorship" and refers to "Lenin and his zealots". It also goes on to undercut all the wonderful things the Soviet Union is supposed to have introduced according to your version. (BTW, so you didn't add the sentence about Stalin, but you fought tooth and nail to reinstate it). Incidentally, funnily enough, The Bolsheviks introduced a one-party state under which dissent was ruthlessly suppressed and state control extended over all major industry is backed by the Encarta reference (it's common knowledge anyway). That's what Communist dictatorships do. --Folantin 13:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read the Encarta source and it backs up what the stuff it was supposed to. The Encarta article describes the USSR as "the original Communist dictatorship" - isn't it funny how I was the one who added the sentence, "the Communist regime that they established eventually turned into a bureaucratic dictatorship.". "It also goes on to undercut all the wonderful things the Soviet Union is supposed to have introduced according to your version" - No it does not, show me where it questions the free healthcare, education, social benefits provided, or the women's rights or other rights introduced. "(BTW, so you didn't add the sentence about Stalin, but you fought tooth and nail to reinstate it)" - is that supposed to be an argument? "Incidentally, funnily enough, The Bolsheviks introduced a one-party state under which dissent was ruthlessly suppressed and state control extended over all major industry is backed by the Encarta reference" - No, it doesn't. It says the after the Bolshevik-led October Revolution there was a soviet democracy, but then eventually turned to a communist dictatorship. And no one was questioning that dissent was suppressed and that the state eventually controlled all business, what was the point of that? PS-Note how the source says "people became disillusioned with the Provisional Government".--Miyokan 13:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

First page: "A point of pride was the government’s free provision of health care, education, and social-security benefits. Even here, though, problems of quality, availability, and equity simmered beneath the surface. Hospital treatment may have been without charge, but it was revealed in the 1980s that only every second hospital had an X-ray machine and only 20 percent of rural hospitals and clinics had hot running water. The sick often had to purchase therapy and medication through illegal gratuities. The Soviet elite, by contrast, received superior medical care in secret facilities closed to the masses. Underfunding of welfare programs, growing stress and alcohol consumption, and a worsening of environmental pollution caused a noticeable deterioration in health indicators in the late Soviet era. The infant mortality rate, which had plunged from 80.7 per 1000 live births in 1950 to 22.9 per 1000 in 1971, rose to 27.3 per 1000 in 1980, dropping somewhat to 25.4 per 1000 in 1987. Life expectancy for men, 66 years in the mid-1960s, sagged to 62 years by the early 1980s." --Folantin 13:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What does the quality of the services provided have to do with anything. You were saying that the Bolsheviks didn't introduce free healthcare, education, and social benefits, not the quality of those services - "all the wonderful things the Soviet Union is supposed to have introduced" - They DID introduce all those things.--Miyokan 13:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

People, try to stay civil here. Have some tea. Please, "carrying on like a child who doesn't get his way" and "fought tooth and nail" are contrary to "Misplaced Pages is not a battleground". Please check the following, for I am sure it applies here as well (even though that link on Russian gas reserves I cited below says "Eurasia"): Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Pieniezny (talk • contribs) 13:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(Continued> Equality of rights - but civil rights were equally worthless: "The initial justification for the abrogation of civil rights was that a brief interlude of dictatorship was a necessary precondition of the socialist paradise ahead. As that paradise receded into the indefinite future, the Soviet leaders felt free in essence to rule as they pleased. Neither the RSFSR constitution of 1918 nor the USSR constitution of 1924 made reference to the dominion of the Communist Party. That veil was removed in the Soviet constitution of 1936, which, while listing all manner of citizens’”rights,” explicitly said the Communist Party was the “leading core” of the state." --Folantin 13:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

How is this relevant to anything we've been talking about, I already know it eventually turned into a one-party state where dissent was suppressed.--Miyokan 14:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

On welfare: "Government-provided social services, such as health care, registered some successes in the USSR; they also suffered from overuse, corruption, and unequal access. Pensions and other income maintenance programs were extremely popular, but the sums provided were often insufficient. Partly in recognition of limitations on its resources, the regime in the 1930s reconsidered its earlier coolness toward the nuclear family and passed laws affirming the importance of marriage and of family responsibility for children and elderly parents. Even after income support was made more generous in the 1950s and 1960s, many Soviet citizens relied on their relatives to give them shelter and financial aid in their old age or at times of illness." --Folantin 13:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, during Stalin's rule many of the women's rights were repudiated. Homsexuality was re-criminalised in Stalin's time also. It does change change the fact that before Stalin, the Bolsheviks greatly increased women's rights and other rights, as the article says.--Miyokan 13:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So where can I find references to all these women's and gay rights in the Encarta article given as a source? --Folantin 14:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not in the Encarta source, you should be able to find it elsewhere easily enough.--Miyokan 14:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You gave that source as a reference for that information. That's a serious violation of basic policy and further confirms my doubts about the usefulness of this whole exercise. You've been caught misrepresenting sources. What would happen if we checked up on all the others? This is totally unacceptable in an ordinary article, let alone an FA. --Folantin 14:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not misrepresent anything. For some reason you assumed that I was talking about the Encarta source when I said "as the article says", even though there is no Encarta source next to that information in this article. When I said, "It does change change the fact that before Stalin, the Bolsheviks greatly increased women's rights and other rights, as the article says", I was referring to THIS article, as in Russia.--Miyokan 14:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Economy

According to the portuguese wikipedia Oil, natural gas, wood, are 80% of the exports? Could I get a source that it isn't? And what was the GDP in 1994?--Dwarf Kirlston 02:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

CIA Factbook - "Oil, natural gas, metals, and timber account for more than 80% of exports". I added it to the economy section.--Miyokan 02:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

from 1973 oil crisis "by 1980 the Soviet Union was the world's largest producer of oil" - I had believed it's oil production was more recent...--Dwarf Kirlston 23:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You are partially right: they were only the largest producer of oil at the end of the eighties. Oil and diamant were used to keep the Soviet Union afloat during the turbulent years of perestroyka (what Putin is supposed to be doing is an old trick). After 1991, production went down again, but from 1997, Russia+Kazakhstan+Azerbaijan again surpassed Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, our Misplaced Pages articles on oil usually do not even mention the Soveiet Union or Russia. Have a look at this. Only problem there (they mention it themselves, actually): the source they are using for estimated reserves overestimates the reserves in the Middle East, and underestimates reserves elsewhere in the world (perhaps not applicable to Canada, where tar sands are taken into consideration). I am sure reserves in Russia's Arctic are underestimated. But the successor to Putin will have no problem collecting money from energy exports, bacause of the immense gas reserves of Russia. --Paul Pieniezny 13:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. gravmag.com is impressive.

The article currently states that petroleum is a very small part of the economy. My understanding is that the increase in oil prices is the only cause of the upswing of the Economy of the Federatin of Russia.

I am hoping to fix the Economy section's lack of depth somehow. The Economic section as it is calls attention to the level of education which was inherited from the Soviet Union, the oil industry which was inherited from the USSR, the Financial crisis which was because of the USSR economic structure, yet does not say it!

--Keerllston 14:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the increase in oil prices is the only cause of the upswing of the Economy of the Federatin of Russia. - then your understanding is wrong, and you need to do some more research. The economy section is fine, and covers all the necessary bases. While high oil prices and a cheap ruble initially drove GDP growth, this stopped being the case since around 2003. Did you read the economy section?-

"Since 2003, exports of natural resources started decreasing in economic importance as the internal market has strengthened considerably, largely stimulated by intense construction, as well as consumption of increasingly diverse goods and services"

"Oil and gas contribute to 5.7% of GDP and the government predicts this will drop to 3.7% of Russia's GDP by 2011"

"Since 2003, exports of natural resources started decreasing in economic importance as the internal market has strengthened considerably, largely stimulated by intense construction, as well as consumption of increasingly diverse goods and services"

"Growth was driven by non-tradable services and goods for the domestic market, as opposed to oil or mineral extraction and exports"

"Russia's macroeconomic performance in recent years has been impressive. High oil prices and large capital inflows have contributed importantly to this success, but a principal factor has been the combination of strong growth in productivity, real wages, and consumption."

This sentence you wrote - The Economic section as it is calls attention to the level of education which was inherited from the Soviet Union, the oil industry which was inherited from the USSR, the Financial crisis which was because of the USSR economic structure, yet does not say it - this sentence makes no sense, what are you trying to say.--Miyokan 16:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, since I may have started this: I DID write "what Putin is supposed to be doing". There is no doubt that if for a number of years, the massive funds garnered by oil and gas are spent on pensions and wages for state employees, there will be an upsurge in internal domestic growth (Keynes still works here) but the question is whether, in contrast to the perestroyka years, Russian industry will be able to provide the goods that were still deemed luxury in 1999 - but that more and more people now think they should have. If it cannot deliver, the money created which before Putin largely went abroad with the oligarchs, will again go abroad as people will buy eg apartments on the Montenegrin coast to cover the danger of an insufficient pension later, or spent their money buying "luxury goods" produced abroad. Prices for more primary goods will increase, which they are already doing. So, there is a problem in the long run, when Keynes no longer works. Note that one also hopes that there will be other good side-effects of higher wages, like a reduction of corruption (particularly the militsya), better education and people living longer (demographic result). Note that the West's lack of knowledge about Russia is so great that we probably need to mention the simple, but wong idea (Putin uses the oil money to bribe the voters) as well. A nice example of ignorance: an important Belgian newspaper recently claimed that Russia would never let Chechnya go, because it provided 85% of Russia's oil. The newspaper refused to print the Russian embassador's denial. --Paul Pieniezny 17:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I like what you said about Russia not producing "luxury goods." These are the good it would be exporting or substituting as imports, these are the exports other than the 80%? non-commodities?

On the (hopefully) effects of success: Is the corruption in the militsya is significant? education levels are already rather high, how do you mean that they would improve or improve in sectors in which it is lacking?- life expecancy is rather low currently.

The (western) ignorance about Russia? (Do you mean that russians aren't ignorant or that the chinese aren't ignorant?) I think it's rather a kind of anti-totalitarianism, pro-democracy, that plays out rather "double edged". On one hand it's not very democratic, on the other it's not quite a dictatorship. Opposing it like a dictatorship would not make it stop being a dictatorship, and rewarding the democratic elements would not make those stronger. Oh, have there been articles on the idea that Putin bribes voters?

I am not entirely sure what the significance of the Russian ambassador's denial is or would have been. He is not responsible for the direction of Russian politics, nor does he necessarily understand the reasons for policies of the government, he is just a person paid to make russia look good. If the news article criticized his country he would obviously deny it.--Keerllston 22:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Meta-wiki: Thankyou for your comment - no, you didn't start this, this is normal for this article, Miyokan has a problem with anyone who wants to mess up this article (he made most of it, and he's done an impressive job getting it to where it is). I do want to change it- and economy of russia as well.--Keerllston 22:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"The economy section is fine" it's not brilliant, it's not wonderful, just fine. Well... then let's get it better.--Keerllston 22:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Miyokan

Why does this guy seem to control this article? Why is it always his opinion which you all follow? Why don't you just outvote him? If he breaks a rule, then get him kicked. -Bob72943 15:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Very odd comment from a user whose other comments are "hi" on user pages (spam?).

Miyokan controls this article, or in any case seems to, because he is dedicated to this article. He is the one that works hardest on it.

Truth cannot be voted on. Miyokan is not a Troll despite his message on his userpage. His opinion is valuable. Unlike that of a sockpuppet.

Misplaced Pages is against banning people in general if their contributions are not made in bad faith.--Keerllston 22:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposals for size reduction

As I have proposed to Miyokan himself, I suggest the merger of the "Armed Forces" section into the "Government" section, as well as "Foreign Relations." Most of the FAs I've read here of different countries do not seem to emphasize such sections. I feel that both these sections contain information that is not pertinent to the general description of Russia. I think the "History" section can be reduced in the same way - merge and reduce the first three sections and focus instead on the Imperial, Soviet and modern eras, which is more pertinent to general Russian history. An example is at user:Miyokan/Sandbox (the size there has fallen from 115k to 98k). I also feel that multiple citations should be removed, for the sake of the size. K a r n a (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: Section called "Society"

Under it have Demography/Religion/Ethnicities/LAnguages/Health/Culture/Traditions in any way that you please, but I making a section on Society would work well.--Keerllston 15:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is set out how all the other FA articles are. As far as I'm aware, no other country article has a so-called "Society" section.--Miyokan (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Culture Section

Russia's culture is distinct from that of other european countries. It's Culture can be divided into ], ], ], ]

I propose that the culture section should not leave anything out in a manner continued from the above. Comprehensiveness and succinctness can both be achieved.--Keerllston 01:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

A slight POV wording in the culture section

In 1932, Stalin made Socialist Realism the state policy; this stifled creativity but many Soviet films in this style were artistically successful, including Chapaev, The Cranes Are Flying and Ballad of a Soldier.

Any discussion on what is creative and what is not, would have to be POV, IHMO. Some people think that currently Hollywood is not creative, but that is their opinion,and I don't think it should belong in the Hollywood article. Same thing applies to the Soviet movie industry.So I propose to remove that part of the sentence. Any thoughts? PolkovnikKGB (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please remove the following from this article:

Geography: "I AM AWESOME LIKE A POONZAR". History: "I POON NOOBS".

These appear to have been inserted by user "Coldsnort". This user has already been warned for repeated vandalism.

Ramtash (talk) 05:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Reduction in "History" size

I am going to attempt to resolve the size problem here with the "History" section - (1) removing the specifics, deferring them to the respective articles, (2) giving a balanced summary of all the time periods - the Soviet and Imperial eras are of an obnoxious length, while the prior sections seem overemphasized. Please bear with me to examine what I am doing - the size problem is very pressing, as there will be many people unable to load this page because of the 110-115kb size. Shiva_eVolved 14:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Important - the size of the "History" section also diminishes the importance of the other sections, which are equally, if not more important. Shiva_eVolved 14:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Classic example - Napoleon made a major misstep when he declared war on Russia after a dispute with Tsar Alexander I and launched an invasion of Russia in 1812 with 600,000 troops, twice the number of the standing Russian army. The campaign was a catastrophe. Obstinant Russian resistance combined with the bitterly cold Russian winter dealt Napoleon a disastrous defeat, from which more than 95% of his invading force perished.

Is this a neutral analysis? No. Is the analysis of Napoleon's campaign necessary here? No. Leave it to the relevant article - this is a summary of Russia's history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiva Evolved (talk • contribs) 14:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

user:Shiva Evolved asked me to evaluate his recent edits, and I think they're fine, though going edit-by-edit I was a bit worried for a while that Napoleon's invasion was going to go completely unmentioned. Shiva Evolved has fixed that, and it looks like a good start to bring the article size down. Ahead, speaking to everybody interested in contributing to this article, there are one or two politically contentious subjects in modern Russia - gas diplomacy/heavyhandness, depending on your viewpoint, and crime&corruption, are the two that come to mind immediately, and these need to be written carefully as we all strive for a neutral point of view. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Map Language

I would sign in if I could remember my Password but I believe the Map at the Top of the Article should be in English not Russian as it is on the English Misplaced Pages. 71.176.153.111 (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

size reduction

the size of this article is now 104kbs long and it will surely grow further. The tag is needed to put over there in order to remind editors to improve the article. Coloane (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Culture, again

Why world-reknowned only? Seems very arbitrary. Surely it should represent significant figures in Russian culture. It also seems strange not to mention any of the films or filmmakers from the 60s and 70s. I'm not going to insist, as I've really no right to, but do reconsider. AllenHansen (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that you had better vote OPPOSE as this article also ignored many guidelines. This article is currently on FAC page. It seems to me there is no improvement comparing to the last nomination. Coloane (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Geography and places good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• Unknown-importance Russia articles
• Unknown-importance B-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles