Talk:Russia/Archive 17

First Crimea annexation has been replaced by 2022 invasion, later the invasion has been removed, but Crimea not restored. Xx236 (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Yup. And the current text makes it sound like Russia only attacked Ukraine this year, ignoring we’re in the ninth year of the Russo-Ukrainian War.

And if Russia’s land area is significant enough to mention in the lead, then perhaps it’s also significant to mention that Russia itself disputes the figure, and considers itself enlarged twice by military conquest, in 2014 and 2022. —Michael Z. 18:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Haven't looked here in a bit. Made a change to link main article on Military history of the Russian Federation...iif we dont list 2022 invation by name this will never end so..... Russia has been involved militarily in a number of countries in the former Soviet region since the 1990s culminating with sanctions and war crimes investigations related to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Ref added to main article...can be used here if need be.Slider, D.; Wegren, S.K. (2022). Putin's Russia. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 416. ISBN 978-1-5381-4869-3. Retrieved 2022-12-06....Moxy- 19:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

That is very MOS:EUPHemistic.

• “Has been involved militarily” = has illegally occupied territory, invaded, and conducted wars of choice
• “In the former Soviet region” = in Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine
• “since the 1990s” = always (14th Guards Army was already stationed in Moldova when Moldova and the Russian SFSR became independent states)
• “culminating with sanctions and war crimes investigations” = culminating in an eight-year war of aggression, numerous atrocity crimes (including war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, incitement to genocide, and a serious risk of genocide imminent or already occurring, according to reliable sources), and international condemnation and sanctions

 —Michael Z. 20:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

You have missed some other conflicts. Mellk (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Tajikistan civil war and some Russian civil wars belong in the lead?

Perhaps 2nd Chechen counts, as Russia had de facto recognized its sovereignty by signing a treaty.  —Michael Z. 04:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Which civil wars? Mellk (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

See List of wars involving Russia#Russian Federation (1991–present).  —Michael Z. 04:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Or stop being coy and write what you mean.  —Michael Z. 05:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Because I don't know what you are referring to as civil wars. Is it the Chechen wars? Because these were not Russian civil wars. Mellk (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, I don’t know what you mean by some other conflicts.  —Michael Z. 06:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Also there are the wars in Syria and a number of African countries if it is not limited to just FSU. Mellk (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Can't we just shorten the sentence to "Russia has been primarily involved militarily in various post-Soviet states since the 1990s". Why is only Ukraine mentioned exclusively and not Georgia, Transnistria etc.? The 2008 war in Georgia was the first European war in the 21st century. So I believe it should be shortened and there should simply be a link to the article itself in the lead. The history section is there for a reason. Calesti (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine is the most significant one (mostly because it hasn't gone well for Russia and is ongoing) but sure the Chechnya and Georgia ones can be mentioned as well. Volunteer Marek 03:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Speaking about recent wars by Russia, here is what can be included to the lead (based on the version in Ukrainian WP). One should only make wikilinks:

Russia is one of the eight recognized nuclear powers, and it has the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, equaled only by the United States. After the collapse of the USSR, the Russian Federation participated in a number of wars, mostly in the post-Soviet states: in Nagorno-Karabakh (since 1992), Transnistria (1992), South Ossetia (1991–1992 and 2008), Georgia (1991–1993 and 2008), Tajikistan (1992–1997), Syria (since 2015), and in Ukraine, first by annexing Crimea (2014), then covertly invading Donetsk and Luhansk regions (since 2014), and finally, by attempting to occupy the entire Ukraine (from 2022). A number of armed conflicts also took place on its own territory: between the Ossetians and the Ingush (1992), the First (1994—1996) and the Second Chechen wars, with additional hostilities in Dagestan.

This is great and very brief summary that does not seem to miss anything. Would it be OK, with a few fixes? My very best wishes (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

That would certainly be an improvement over what we have now. Volunteer Marek 02:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Then I can try to make proper wikilinks and double check this later. My very best wishes (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Minor wording: rivalled only by that of the USA, but apparently not equaled.  —Michael Z. 16:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

That is far too long and detailed for the lead. It's an entire paragraph on its own. CMD (talk) 02:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, we have here only 3 phrases, which would replace 3 phrases in current version. I assume this page is about Russian state after dissolution of the Soviet Union, i.e. the Russian Empire and Soviet Union were different states, although there was obviously a significant degree of succession. Otherwise, I would not suggest it. My very best wishes (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Would not be bad for the body with a source. But the lead is not a place to list place after place causing a sea of blue.... let's keep the main article link on the topic and add what's here to there. We have an article about the military history of Russia during this period. Moxy- 03:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

It already is a sea of blue. Why that sea but not this sea? And the whole problem is that the lede does not adequately summarize the body. Volunteer Marek 03:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

en.wiki practice is that modern country articles cover the history of the state throughout different periods of state succession (and in some cases articles go even further, to states which they didn't directly succeed from). CMD (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Succinctly. What we have now is that almost half the lede is about states that came before modern "Russia". Volunteer Marek 03:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

That is a ubiquitous problem for almost all country articles; going on about History rather than actually talking about the country. Should probably be severely trimmed (along with the article's History section proper, which is similarly uncurated). CMD (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that all history predating the modern Russian state after dissolution of the USSR (the subject of this page) should be trimmed. Still, there is a question to be reflected in the lead: what this country is notable for? This is just as for any other WP page. And that country is notable, among other things (WMD, a significant territory, etc.) for aggressive wars against its neighbors (they did not attack Baltic states yet only because they are members of NATO). To clarify that point one should simply list these wars. My very best wishes (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Those new to country articles should review Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Lead. Moxy- 03:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This article’s history is completely biased towards a colonial, statist point of view. The world’s biggest state succeeded dozens of countries on its territory, but the history is all about rulers in Moscow. It’s about the Soviet Union which had twelve successors, the Russian empire which had multiple successors and technically no continuator state, and Kyivan Rus most of which is not in Russia and which had no continuator state. This history treats 95 percent of Russia’s territory as terra nullius, as if it didn’t exist until some tsar’s soldiers set foot on it. At the same time countries that were never part of the Russian Federation are treated as integral.

Yes, a lot of standard history sources also display similar biases. But a lot do not, and there are volumes of history about Russian territory and peoples of Russia that are completely ignored. See WP:BIAS.  —Michael Z. 14:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The lack of regional coverage has been brought up in previous GANs. Regarding successor states vs territory, that is in line with Talk:Nazi Germany/Archive 12#RFC: Poland as predecessor/successor in Nazi Germany infobox, which is the most recent RfC around this theme. CMD (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Folks, I believe most of you are compltely missing that is is NOT a POV issue but a linguistic issue.

Russia is an _English_ shorthand work for _multiple_ polities which often had absolutely nothing to do with each other except being of the same/similar people *from the English perspective*. It reflects the ENGLISH interpretations of what Russia meant *in English context*. Not any objective reality.

Frankly, I have no idea how to resolve this. This is problem of the whole EN Wikipedia where present-meaning shorthand words are turned into articles for polities. For some it kinda works, for others it just completely breaks. Russia being a prime but not the sole example.

The only truly non-conflicting solution would be separate articles for:

- "Kievan Rus" (or Kyivan, whichever side of the political baricade prevails)

- "Russian Empire"

- "Soviet Union"

- "Russian Federation" => most of the current Ukraine/World War stuff would fall here (+ redirect on top to "Russia (historic)" for historical meanings)

- "Russia" => this must be an unconditional redirect to "Russian Federation" as the most common thing someone are looking for

- "Russia" (historic) => this should ONLY describe the meaninfg of the Word "Russia" in English over the centuries and include links to the various specific polity articles, including SU or Kievan Rus

I hold no illusions this can be fixed in the current atmosphere of a no-holds-bared PR war.

But it is important to understand that "Russia" (in english) has a WAY wider meaning that "Russian Federation" which this article is mostly describing. And that "Русь" (Rus') and "Россия" (Russia) are again completely separate terms which are, unfortunately, often conflated in English publications.

Until this is resolved, there will be eternal conflict of what "is Russia" and what "is not RUssia" as multiple answers are correct depending on WHEN.83.240.62.117 (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

You are attempting to argue against the entire Anglosphere (or at least the Western Anglosphere) here, not just Wikipedia. Dispute the sourcing like some of the others in these discussions if you are opposed to the article content, and bring your own reliable sources. I don't know what you expect other editors to say if your argument can be summarised as "I think everyone is wrong except me, but I have no idea what the solution is." Yue🌙 00:08, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Anon did bring up some points that are important to consider. Russia claims the heritage of, is inhabited by many of the peoples of, and lies in much of the territory of two former empires.

Finland and Ukraine, for example, are no longer within any empire and are not part of Russia. We should keep that in mind when editing the encyclopedia. Be aware that Russian history often appropriates Ukrainian history more than it does Finnish,

The article “Russia” is about the current state within its borders, i.e., the many countries in the Russian Federation. This article’s history is heavily slanted towards the history of only one of them: it focusses on previous states centred in Moscow and St. Petersburg, and a predecessor centred in Kyiv. But it all but ignores the histories of scores of nations in the RF before their conquest by Moscow. It traces the history of the Slavic Russian nation, but not so much the other Russian nations.

In this way it is WP:BIASed towards the Russian states’ official colonial versions of history, and arguably not encyclopedically objective in its emphasis. This is partly because a lot of sources also display this bias. The recent use of memory politics by Russia in persecuting its war in Ukraine have helped make some of this clearer. Decolonizing trends in the study of history are helpful too.  —Michael Z. 18:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Wrong place for how history books should cover Russian history. How do you expect other nations to be covered in this article? They cannot all be mentioned, or if only some of them are mentioned, then is it "unfair" to those not mentioned? What is the criteria for that? Especially considering that only a small percentage as a whole are other non-Slavic/indigenous populations mostly concentrated in their respective regions that have their own articles. Mellk (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Other nations? The article mentions several Tatar states, but treats them as the other rather than part of the history of Russia. It’s as if they didn’t exist until they were conquered.

It’s not about books should, it’s about we shouldn’t ignore a lot of books.

Small percentage? We know that ancestry of a significant percentage of Russians includes non Russian heritage. We know that the vast majority of Russia is homelands of the nations of Russia other than Slavic Russians. 95% of Russia is outside of former Kyivan Rus lands. 97% is outside of medieval Old East Slavic territory. Big percentage. Why is the early history of most of the Russia peoples missing?  —Michael Z. 21:51, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Those Tatar khanates were not part of Russia until they were conquered in the 1500s. They were formed after the Mongol-Tatar invasions, which is mentioned. I see that you mean this in a geographical sense (people who lived within the borders of present-day Russia) but lots of different peoples have lived there over thousands of years (some of this is mentioned in early history). But I see the article could probably use a mention of other indigenous peoples (such as Siberia) for example in demographics. Maybe a bit more on the republics. But these would be small changes/additions only. If we are talking about people not of European descent then it is quite a small percentage of the total population. Personally I do not think it would make sense to completely change the history section so that the histories of all peoples within present Russian borders are covered in a linear way. Mellk (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Also in regards to the times of Rus', if we go before that, much of that territory was inhabited by other peoples before Slavic migrations to the area and the assimilation of other peoples such as Finno-Ugric (though this also happened during that time). Mellk (talk) 22:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is the early history of most of the Russia peoples missing? Because that is how all country history articles are written, reflecting how history books and reliable sources are generally written. It's an odd complaint to bring up specifically for this page. CMD (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I’m looking specifically at this page. And all countries are not Russia, which remains the largest part of an enormous empire, after other empires have decolonized. It is fundamentally different from other countries.

I look at United States and Canada, and see an attempt to integrate the history of Indigenous peoples and African slaves. India and China talk about the constituent cultures in history.

But this article’s lead and history section all but ignore the peoples native to 95% of Russia’s territory.  —Michael Z. 05:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The US and Canada articles do not integrate the indigenous people, they have them in a separate section and then follow history in the East->West direction that those countries expanded in. India focuses on a few core areas of civilization and is light on the peripheries, while I'm not sure how you're reading the China article, because it does not bother with its peripheries at all. CMD (talk) 10:58, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Michael Z Sorry. But what you write is revisionism. I shall hope you recuse yourself from editing the article in this tone:

"all countries are not Russia, which remains the largest part of an enormous empire"

Today's Russian Federation is the result of the breakup of the former Russian Empire of 1917, its re-formation under the federal setup of USSR, which ultimately did not work, and the eventual formalization of the 1917 breakup in 1992. The whole notion of CCCP considering/treating the peripheral republics a "colonies" is for debate itself, but even if we presumed that extreme POV for the sake of an argument: From the recent history we now know that the USSR broke-off *more* territories into separate republics than would be appropriate of an "Empire shedding its colonies". The case in point is the wars in Caucasus, Trans-Dniester, Crimea, just for those where the peoples of the place refused the "leaving the empire" notion the moment the notion was even considered to a point of raising arms.

That is because those places did not consider themselves to be "Colonies". And the people knew very well what a colony is. So any notion of "they did not understand" would be absurd. Anti-colonialism was the main USSR political message for the better part of a century so all kids learned this early in school.

Were you correct, in the same way one could claim, Scotland and Wales are "occupied colonies" of the English Empire and tToday's Federal Germany is a "Prussian Empire" which is yet to let its colonies be. Not to mention US being the same "East Coast Empire" as far as West Coast and Central US are concerned. All totally absurd revisionist concepts. The same is for your notion of Russia of today being an "Empire".

To help you a bit:

The whole concept of a colony (as opposed to e.g. suzeraintry) is that the hegemon *extracts resources* from the "pristine" colonies. I.e. it is primarily an economic relationship. For a start, the primary objective for the existence of the Empire of Russia of old was defense-focused. That is why places like Georgia even ASKED to be admitted for defense protection. The drive was to "anchor" the borders on natural features to make the state defendable. The only land which was truly "colonised" was the Far East, but there it was mostly pristine land which was historically uninhabitted. So the best analogy there would be what is Alaska for US. Yet no one considers Alaska "an occupied" colony. And for good reasons. Ah an last, all peoples of the conquered territories were considered the subjects of Russian Empire (of 1917) historically. Often even on prefferential terms even compared to the "original" subjects of the time. I would advise you read on the meaning of empires and colonies, suzerainty, vassalage and differences between. Not all places an empire controls/manages are colonies, not all colonies have an empire as its managing entity and not all land which was "colonised" is a colony.

You have right to your worldview/POV. Absolutely. But shall not abuse WP to push it. Closing it here to avoid WP:FORUM. The points needed to be made were made.83.240.62.117 (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

What I meant by that statement is that the Russia Federation comprises most of the territory of two former empires, the Riurikids’/Romanovs’ and the Bolshevik/Soviet, and as such is composed of numerous nations that were colonized by them, and that they are all part of Russia and its history, and that the article shouldn’t ignore them.

But one can easily find hundreds or perhaps tens of thousands sources that explain how today’s Russia the remnant of empire and its government is trying to preserve, revive, and expand it with its ongoing occupations and revanchist invasion in neighbouring former colonies. Please don’t insult our intelligence by pretending this is a surprising idea. Putin and his functionaries regularly state it quite plainly.

Consider recusing yourself for gaslighting.  —Michael Z. 17:58, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Well. I was not, nor am, POV-pushing or even editing the article. Nothing to "recuse" from thus. Suggest to work on your narrative building skills. Too many holes in them. And no, no WP:BOLD will come from here. Your virtual reality is safe. There was time I invested in WP content. That time ended when WP became just another battlefield of narrative warriors. Good luck in your battles. No interest in them. 83.240.62.117 (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess you missed me starting with "Frankly, I have no idea how to resolve this." That was written because this issue is "pulled" into Wikipedia from the external sources being time-disparate in their interpretation of reality. This combines with the WP structure inherently unable to preserve their temporal context (at all times).

Something that, objectively, is true (as in sources consensus) for the Russian Federation may be objectively false (as in sources consesus) for The Russian Empire of the late 1800s and again true for the Rurik Russia. Now, how to reconcile that when a sole factual(list) statement is required? One simply cannot and when tries is bound to fail - inevitably preferring one of the -objective- truths over the other as time-based reservations cannot always used.

So, my point is other:

"Trying to resolve a fundamentally temporal linguistic issue by reconciling fact(uals) is not gonna work. It simply cannot. There is an inherent dichotomy embedded which cannot be rooted-out no matter one tries."

That was the main message.

The rest of the original post is only explaining the problem - to quanlify it properly for those who do not "have my mind". 83.240.62.117 (talk) 10:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

The Russian federation has been declared a Terrorist state income regions which should be referred within this article. 2A02:C7E:5725:EB00:45A6:A1EE:B13E:7AD9 (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Terrorist state is referred to in the article. As for income regions, I am not sure what you mean. CMD (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm quite sure this has been discussed at length before. Russia is not a terrorist state. Michael60634 (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Whether it is or not is a matter of personal opinion. Whether it has been designated as such by certain bodies and institutions is a matter of just WP:V. Volunteer Marek 06:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The article already says that the NATO Parliamentary Assembly designated "the Russian state under the current regime [as] a terrorist one". So it's already in the article. But just because a NATO group and Lithuania say something, it doesn't mean it needs to go in the lead. If that's not the point of the original talk comment, I'm not sure what the point is. Michael60634 (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Also the European Parliament, Council and Commission. Also, Lithuania is in NATO. Volunteer Marek 09:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Article omits freedoms of speech and facts circulating in the free world. Their head of state is bent on destroying Ukraine and the website is commiting the evil of doing nothing. Thus, in doing so the website is taking the wrong side. 93.107.89.134 (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's job to take sides in a conflict. Wikipedia's job is to be an accurate source of information. Michael60634 (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what this is about. Wikipedia has extensively documented the War in Ukraine. 25stargeneral (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I think most Wikipedia editors agreed that it is highly preferable to call Russia an authoritarian nation only, instead of a dictatorship or authoritarian dictatorship. Can it be reverted back?? Sng Pal (talk) 11:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Pls see Dictatorship#‎Authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Moxy- 13:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I and you both know that no such survey of Wikipedia editors has been conducted. We can write what Russia officially is. We can quote what reliable independent sources say. But we don't write what you (and other hypothetical editors) think. HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

This is making a massive claim off a singular very vague and inaccessible source (that has already been used on this article to justify three different government wordings). It should be removed and reverted to "Federal semi-presidential republic", inline with the standard country format and the sources. Or at least reverted back to the more original "under a centralised authoritarian government" wording. --SgtLion (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Scholars argue over the degree of dictatorship.... as in authoritarian totalitarian or a hybrid version. Kolesnikov, Andrei (Apr 19, 2022). "Putin's War Has Moved Russia From Authoritarianism to Hybrid Totalitarianism". Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Retrieved Nov 9, 2022.......but most sources are very clear on worded as we are.Prof. Dr. Martin Krzywdzinski (26 January 2020). Consent and Control in the Authoritarian Workplace: Russia and China Compared. Oxford University Press. pp. 252–. ISBN 978-0-19-252902-2. OCLC 1026492383. officially a democratic state with the rule of law, in practice an authoritarian dictatorship Moxy- 02:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I would like to add to this discussion in that, by definition a dictatorship means that the people do not get to elect their leader or have a say in their government. A country ruled by a person or a group of people with little to no check on their power. In the case of Russia, the election polls have tended to agree with the outcome of the presidential elections (See 2018 Russian presidential election for example). Now, the elections were definitely not fair, due to Russia's tight grip on the Media and Putin doing whatever he can to get rid of Political Opponents. However all of these fall under Democratic backsliding and Authoritarian democracy, not under Dictatorship. Calling Russia a dictatorship seems to be coming from anger at the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which could easily dispute its neutrality. Now a section talking about Authotarianism in Russia would definitely be welcome, but we should uphold the neutrality of Wikipedia (And generally any website made to spread knowledge). My suggestion is to at least move the "under an authoritarian dictatorship" part to be under a footnote explaining that this is the opinion of some scholars. Ahmed4040amr (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ahmed4040amr This would be true if elections weren't completely fraudulent. Russia operates as a dictatorship under the guise of democracy, and elections are merely ceremonial leftovers from the Yeltsin era.

Russia is a personalistic dictatorship despite a party bureaucracy existing. Yes, the majority of Russians tend to support Putin but Putin would remain in power regardless.

There is a lot of anger at Russia for its invasion, but the label of dictatorship is intrinsicly true regardless of emotion. CracksInTheFloor (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

There is speculation in that answer, negating your claim that it is not influenced by anger. HiLo48 (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@HiLo48 Calling it speculation is incorrect CracksInTheFloor (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

You used the word "would", in predicting the future. I have no doubt you are certain that's what would happen, but by definition it's still speculation. HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@HiLo48 No, I said Rusaia would be an authoritarian democracy if the elections weren't fraudulent. CracksInTheFloor (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

You said "Putin would remain in power regardless." That is a prediction about the future, and hence speculation, and hence pointless. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@HiLo48 Electoral fraud has occured before, this is an analysis of trends that have been occurring for the past 20 years. CracksInTheFloor (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It's original research and fortune telling. HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It's neither of those things. It's the published opinion of experts who study Russia that the current electoral system is rigged in favor of Putin and there are no functioning democratic institutions. 25stargeneral (talk) 08:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@HiLo48 It is not what editors think, but what is. Much like how we don't think of North Korea to be totalitarian, but it is in actuality. CracksInTheFloor (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

We can definitely insult Russia as a dictatorship because the German Institute for International and Security Affairs has written that the invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 has catapulted Russia from hard autoc­racy into dictatorship. The negation of rights has accelerated, propaganda is massive and the suppression of independent media such as Wikipedia, opposition and civil society comprehensive. Source: https://www.swp-berlin.org/en/publication/russia-on-the-road-to-dictatorship

I am positively certain that academics and astute scholars know more about this topic than you. I demand that this ceaseless debate about Russia´s true form of government be stopped at once. AlbrechtVonWallenstein (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I demand your opinion for Russia to be considered a dictatorship be rejected. Temp0000002 (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

McFaul, M. “Russia’s Road to Autocracy”. Journal of Democracy, vol. 32, no. 4, Oct. 2021, pp. 11–26. "scholars argue over the degree of dictatorship that has taken hold, but no one classifies Russia as a democracy today.."Moxy- 20:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Respected expert Galeotti is now writing “as Vladimir Putin’s Russia slides into totalitarianism,” implying that dictatorship is already established.[1] —Michael Z. 20:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• I think "consolidated authoritarian regime" is worth using, for example[2]. Mellk (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed

  De facto Consolidated authoritarian regime under a de jure semi-presidential republic is a good choice I feel. Sng Pal (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, my friend, but as Wikipedia’s co-founder said in 2007, Wikipedia is broken beyond repair. It is only loosely a public encyclopedia; the vast majority of decisions are made by a select 1% group of highly opinionated, intolerant, emotional individuals. Maybe one day, Sergey. PolPot1975 (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

'Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia, which were annexed in 2022' is ambiguous , I assume you mean the oblasts, not cities. The oblasts were 'annexed' by Russian law, not even de facto. If the map shows the whole oblasts it misinforms. Russia wants to control whole Ukraine, but controls systematically changing parts of the four oblasts. Xx236 (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The map shows Russia and its disputed territories, not what parts of these territories Russia does or does not control. The map doesn't misinform as it doesn't claim Russia controls these four oblasts. Michael60634 (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

It could be easily misconstrued, as who expects the idiotic situation of “annexing” territories that a state doesn’t control and have never been part of it? It should be clearer for readers not familiar with the details. —Michael Z. 00:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Michael, you misinform. Russia 'disputes' existence of Ukraine as a whole, not of the selected oblasts only. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/world/europe/putin-war-ukraine-recolonization.html There is also Transnistria and two parts of Georgia.

Putting Ukrianian areas on the map of Russia supports Russian imperialism, Russian war crimes. It is inhuman. You quote 'наша цель - счастье всего человечества', Who is 'us'? Joseph Stalin or Vladimir Putin? If it is your opinion, which kind of happiness generates your support for the Russian imperialism?Xx236 (talk) 07:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

It does misinform because these are illegally annexed territories and are not recognized by the UN or international law and are not legally part of Russia 101.175.139.69 (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Kherson City isn't under Russia's control anymore, so this map is futile now. Pondering to Putin's irredentism makes no sense, and thus Wikipedia's map here is misguided. I would suggest we make something akin to the page on Taiwan, which shows two maps, one in its accepted territory, and the other under its claimed territory (which includes the entire China).--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

7 days, no solution of the problem. I prefer to not start an edit war, but the map and Note a misinform and should be removed.Xx236 (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The page is a bad joke.Xx236 (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree

Showing two maps - one with the reality and one with the claims is the best way to resolve this issue. Sng Pal (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

"Authoritarian dictatorship", while accurate as a term for the Russian government, is not specific enough. There are different kinds of dictatorships, and it's better to clarify which one Putinist Russia is. The one term that I would suggest the most is personalist dictatorship or personalist autocracy. The idea that Russia's regime is personalist - i.e. centered around a single individual - is shared by many thinkers, both inside and outside Russia, such as Barbara Geddes, one of the main important theorists of authoritarianism and empirical catalogers of authoritarian regimes, and Yekaterina Schulmann, prominent Russian political thinker. Other political scientists who share that opinion include Thomas Graham, distinguished fellow at the US Council on Foreign Relations; Alexander Baturo, Associate Professor of Government, Dublin City University, Ireland; and Erica Frantz, Associate Professor in Political Science at Michigan State University.

Other terms that could be used would be informational autocracy (this term is especially common in Russian anti-Putin intellectual circles, and was coined by Russian economist Sergey Guriyev) - referring to the regime's use of propaganda rather than brute force to maintain control. Marxist thinkers like to use Bonapartism, and there is also the term Rashism, which I find propagandistic but which could still be used. TheImperios (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The informational autocracy article says “An informational autocracy does not use violence or direct repression on its political opponents.”. Does imprisoning a political opponent count as “direct repression”? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the text does indeed suggest that the Soviet Union just dissolved magically, for no reason at all, maybe because they got bored of being so awesome:

" the Soviet era of the 20th century saw some of the most significant Russian technological achievements, including the first human-made satellite and the first human expedition into outer space. In 1991, the Russian SFSR emerged from the dissolution of the Soviet Union as the independent Russian Federation. "

Like, nothing happened there in between? Volunteer Marek 02:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think any readers will read the current text as suggesting magic, and don't see how your piping affects the potential magicality of the reading. CMD (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Any reader that is not already knowledgeable about the subject (I sometimes get the sense that some Wikipedia editors are writing for themselves rather than a likely audience) will think that SU decided to just dissolve cuz why the hey not. Volunteer Marek 06:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Readers will not "think that SU decided to just dissolve cuz why the hey not". CMD (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I'm sure people know that superpowers, or even just any country at all, don't just decide do dissolve without reason. Michael60634 (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The lead is not expected to include all details. On this matter they can be found in the History section. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Yet it chooses to include some details but not others. Why is “first ever human satellite” essential but economic collapse of SU is not? Volunteer Marek 06:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I personally find space exploration far more interesting than economics and politics. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thats nice. De gustibus non est disputandum. However, “i personally find” is not a Wikipedia policy. Volunteer Marek 06:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, just like “Russia’s monarchic rule was abolished and replaced” by no one in particular, and how the RSFSR conquered former Russian-empire colonies “with three their Soviet republics.” The lead is a sea of euphemisms. It ought to say who did what, and not bend over backwards to avoid mentioning Russian colonialism.  —Michael Z. 04:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It mentions the revolution. Or do you expect something long like "Following the February Revolution, Nicholas II abdicated and the Russian Provisional Government was established, ending monarchic rule in the country"? Mellk (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

And the civil war is mentioned, what do you expect to have written instead that does not bend over backwards to avoid mentioning Russian colonialism (I also guess your point is also SU is actually just Russia in this specific case for your argument)? Mellk (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a great example of why passive voice is bad writing style. Using subjects and active verbs this could introduce a bunch of facts that make it much clearer without much more text, possibly including that:

• The tsar abdicated at the urging of military and government officials
• A provisional government was violently overthrown by the Bolsheviks communists
• Nations in the empire tried to establish independent states
• The Bolsheviks reconquered some Russian-empire territory by a combination of military conquest and the imposition of their own puppet governments

This would indeed help the reader understand imperial Russia, post-imperial states, the RSFSR and the USSR, and events in 1991 to the present.  —Michael Z. 00:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Similarly, “emerged from the dissolution” gives no clue as to what actually happened.

“SU is actually just Russia” – I would never put it that way. But the Russian nation, however one defines it, has a very long imperial history, and its leader is trying to preserve an empire that started falling apart around 1991, so something along those lines. Also help dispel any notions that Crimea was always Russia, Ukraine was always Russia, Finland was always Russia, Kamchatka was always Russia, &c. We may as well try to relate post-colonial history as it’s done in 2023.  —Michael Z. 00:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

In general, in addition to the omission of certain info, there’s just a bunch of passive voice usage that even putting POV issues aside, does not make for GA quality level article writing. Volunteer Marek 06:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The wording of that specific sentence is a non-issue. I think you will find a piece by even the most fervent anti-Russia author to be pro-Russia unless their introduction is a winded polemic. If you see problems and have solutions, dedicate your time to writing the latter down for others to consider, instead of making general complaints and vague platitudes. Yue🌙 01:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Russia in 2022 became leading country in terrorism. 78.60.222.37 (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Russia#Post-Soviet Russia (1991–present) Moxy- 16:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, last paragraph there, and more detail in Terrorism in Russia#2022.  —Michael Z. 17:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, which info should be summarized in the lede. Volunteer Marek 20:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

This quote from the write up on the Soviet Union feels like it’s pushing an agenda. The United States page doesn’t talk about manifest destiny costing “millions of lives”, it rather gently says we took territory and Native Americans were displaced. Maybe let’s keep the editorializing off this website 2600:8800:721F:BE00:7540:CF24:522E:9182 (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Industrialization and 'collectivization' did come at the expense of millions, if not tens of millions, of lives, as according to many sources. If you want to add something about the U.S., an entirely separate article. Then do so, as long as you can back it up with reliable sources. TY — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is the Kuril Islands now part of Russia, not an uncontrolled territory unlike Crimea and the Oblasts? I thought it was still disputed to this day... Any reasons why? MasterWolf0928-Æthelwulf (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I added a note and link to the mention.[3]  —Michael Z. 22:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The article is also conspicuously missing any reference to the disputed nature of Russian's ownership of the Kuril Islands within the international community. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Addressed in #Small question., below.  —Michael Z. 22:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The lead should make mention of the situation of the occupied territories of Georgia, as it is directly relevant to the current borders, legal or illegal, of Russia. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Russia has not annexed the occupied Georgian territory. CMD (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I have edited the text to recognize who occupies these territories.[4]  —Michael Z. 23:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The article does list international borders, and this is a place it could mention which are disputed, and perhaps which are un-delineated.  —Michael Z. 23:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

There's a typo in the section Etymology: "[...] who were orginally [sic] a group of Norse merchants [...]". The correct spelling would be "originally" Recica2 (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done CJ-Moki (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

In accordance with the article's language used (British English), I would like to suggest changing "ruble" to "rouble" as the consensus is that "ruble" is American English and "rouble" is Commonwealth English. CorwenAv (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Editors contemplating this request may want to look at Talk:Ruble#Request for comment. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I just read that, and have no idea what the conclusion actually means in reality here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I simply want to request some sort of consistency. An article written in American English would not use spellings such as "centre", likewise an article written in British English should not use "ruble". A certain user seems intent on imposing a single spelling across the website despite obvious evidence that it is a dialectical distinction. CorwenAv (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

What you say makes sense to me. What Jonesey95 said didn't help at all. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this article in British English should use the British spelling rouble. The RFC linked above reinforces exactly that with its decision: “this should be treated as a normal ENGVAR issue,” meaning maintain consistency within the article, per MOS:ENGVAR  —Michael Z. 21:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done  —Michael Z. 21:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much, glad to have this fixed :) CorwenAv (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac: As an editor involved with Corwen (and TheCurrencyGuy, their sockpuppeteer, who has a rouble predilection), I have reverted your edits per WP:BMB.

Notwithstanding the RfC outcome (which I respect), the fact that no one besides Corwen/TCG decided to change "ruble" could mean that editors do not deem "ruble" to be inconsistent with the otherwise-British English used on the page. NotReallySoroka (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @NotReallySoroka, but I made the change because that was my own determination as well, once it had been brought to my attention, and would still do so.

The article ruble says ruble is American and rouble is “Commonwealth.” The British-English ODE says “rouble (also mainly North American ruble),” and the American-English NOAD says “ruble (also rouble).”

The RFC determined that spelling of r*ble should follow articles’ ENGVAR. So as this article is tagged “use British English,” I would still change it. Okay?  —Michael Z. 22:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The spelling should clearly be changed back to rouble. There is no excuse for reimposing a spelling mistake in the context of the language variant the article uses just because a banned user noticed it. 89.242.184.95 (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Russia has been characterized as a dictatorship since March 2022 I think and I think that this description shouldn't be here. Wikipedia characterises Russia (and Belarus) as dictatorships while other countries in Central America and Africa which have way lower scores in Democracy Index are not characterised as dictatorships. This can be quite misleading and I think that we should either keep the de jure political system in Russia (and Belarus) or change half of Africa and Central America to dictatorships. Bilikon (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say. There is no other standard. What reliable sources may or may not say about other countries doesn't tell us anything about Russia. If you believe those articles don't accurately reflect the sources, that is a discussion for those talk pages. But there is no question that the sources characterize Russia as an authoritarian dictatorship. You are essentially saying we should contradict the sources here because you believe other articles are wrong. What could possibly be the use in that? Factual errors on the encyclopedia don't cancel each other out. 25stargeneral (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@25stargeneral Yeah, the issue is that people are calling only anti-Russian western sources as "reliable" using this as an alibi to claim whatever anti-Russian source media outlets says regardless of its actuality because "Oh hey, that big western journal said that, it must be true!" without considering the clear bias of said sources 151.38.253.181 (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

An issue is that people are calling reliable neutral sources “anti-Russian” without justification. It’s actually a documented aspect of Russian propaganda: labelling everything that does not adopt the Kremlin’s imperialist anti-Ukrainian POV as “anti-Russian,” “Russophobic,” “nationalist,” “fascist,” “Nazi,” and so on. —Michael Z. 16:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Looking through some of your other contributions on this subject, I'm thinking maybe it was a mistake to treat this as a serious comment. I've issued a DS alert. 25stargeneral (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

No Central American countries that have a lower index than Russia (much less “way lower”). Only 6 sub-Saharan African states out of 44 have lower scores than Russia.

Democracy Index 2022 says:

Russia recorded the biggest decline in score of any country in the world in 2022. Its invasion of Ukraine was accompanied by all-out repression and censorship at home. Russia has been on a trajectory away from democracy for a long time and is now acquiring many of the features of a dictatorship. (p 4)

A corollary of the war has been a pronounced increase in state repression against all forms of dissent and a further personalisation of power, pushing Russia towards outright dictatorship. (p 12)

 —Michael Z. 07:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Buddism it’s second native Russia’s religion of three racial and ethnic nations in Russia with own lagre territory and congregation Dmitriy Tehlin (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CJ-Moki (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@CJ-Moki https://www.rbth.com/arts/327646-kalmykia-buddhism-russia Gerçois (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Gerçois:  Done CJ-Moki (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@CJ-Moki thanks Gerçois (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Gerçois: You're welcome. CJ-Moki (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

"Under the administrations of Vladimir Putin, Russia has experienced democratic backsliding, and has become an authoritarian state under a dictatorship, with Putin's policies being referred to as Putinism."

Frankly, this could be better written. It seems kind of run-on-y

Under the administrations of Vladimir Putin several changes have taken place. Russia has become an authoritarian state under a dictatorship and has experienced democratic backsliding. Putin's policies being referred to as Putinism within the media. (maybe add some other media sources too)

And put this in a new paragraph. DarmaniLink (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a wrong map on Wikipedia (British). They show the map of russia with the Ukrainian territories illegally annexed by the genocidal war. Wikipedia.com must correct this map right now, if it stays that means that Wikipedia.com supports terrorism. 188.191.238.238 (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

It is correct note.Why did not Wikipedia react to? 4Mykola (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Possibly because the title did not mention maps. Which map are you talking about please? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I think they are talking about the map in the infobox. Which correctly shows territories Russia claims as her sovereign territory but which have limited recognition (shown in a lighter colour to indicate such). Wikipedia uses the same approach for Azerbaijan. India, Israel, Morocco and Pakistan, there is no reason not to follow the convention of marking disputed territorial claims. 89.242.184.95 (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You are completely correct; disputed claims are always shown on Wikipedia maps on nation-state articles regardless of recognition. They are to be displayed even when such claims have zero international recognition outside of the claimant nation (the case in almost all territorial disputes) or are considered by the international community to be unjustified/unethical/just plain silly. The emotional claim by OP that "Wikipedia supports terrorism" is very juvenile and frankly ridiculous.

Also further see China and List of territorial disputes. WikiAcct789 (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mellk reverted my edit with per MOS:LEAD the lead ideally needs to be four paragraphs, hence one paragraph for history; also "East Slavic lands" ignores migrations and Finnic tribes, Muscovy as a "component" formed later[5]

1. Four paragraphs is a rule of thumb. “Needs to be” seems unnecessarily inflexible. The history paragraph covers 950 years (c.600–1547) of pre-Russia and 240 years (1721–1961) of Russia, and readability and understanding is improved by splitting it.

What is the role of migrations, Finnic tribes, and Muscovy that is omitted? I don’t understand the objection. My objections with the current text are that new things are named without indicating their relationship, and the use of passive verbs casts no light on what they represent.

2. The second sentence beginning with “Kievan Rus’ arose” is about the 9th century. Do you mind the low-information word “arose” is expanded to “was established as a state by Varangians”?

3. How can we say where it arose, if not with “in East Slavic lands.” How can we relate the first sentence about the East Slavs to any of the rest?

4. Do you mind if “with the Grand Duchy of Moscow growing” is expanded to “with the principality of Moscovy being established and conquering neighbouring principalities”?

5. If “one of its components” is inaccurate, can we connect Muscovy to previous sentences with “a new principality on its northeastern periphery”? —Michael Z. 19:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned by others before, the history paragraph is already too long, so splitting this paragraph and adding more (inaccurate) information is unnecessary. Mellk (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

What’s inaccurate in the above?  —Michael Z. 19:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Saying "in East Slavic lands" is inaccurate. Saying "was established as a state by Varangians" is an oversimplification. Mellk (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

What is an accurate description of where “the first East Slavic state, Kievan Rus', arose”?

What is the simplest way to name who established it as a state?  —Michael Z. 19:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

That is something for the body to go into detail. Mellk (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Well if it’s too long, then I will shorten it so it is not so scattered and confusing.  —Michael Z. 19:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be obstructing improvements by objecting to any change but refusing to justify your criticisms or admit to any possible improvement. This is disruptive.  —Michael Z. 19:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Or maybe your edits are not "improvements". I have told you why. You have a strange fixation on the early history, I mean, you suggested some time ago to just clearly stating that Russia is not Rus even though it does not say that. Mellk (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so I am trying to tease out of you what you will allow to be improvements. You can decline to participate, but what you are doing is like WP:DISRUPTSIGNS 4: “Does not engage in consensus building.”

What’s written there allows and perhaps implies that Russia is Rus. It names a bunch of things implying that there is some kind of continuity and is vague on the details. It is poorly written. I want to improve it.

If you won’t allow it to be longer, maybe I can improve it at the same length if you allow me to edit. If it is too long, I will cut some of it. If you’re not willing to let me edit, just say so, and we can move this to the appropriate forum without further delay.  —Michael Z. 20:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It already says the first East Slavic state. That is clear enough. The history paragraph has already been discussed before including your complaints about the colonial, statist point of view. What you show is an unwillingness to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Mellk (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

So, you won’t even allow me to improve the structure and clarity?  —Michael Z. 20:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking me for. I gave my reasons for that particular revert.

There are only two sentences for the history up to the Russian Empire. I suppose the first sentence could be changed to emerged as a recognisable group in Eastern Europe, if it is not specific enough. Saying in East Slavic lands is inaccurate unless you want to say that the Finnic tribes did not exist. Mellk (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I’m asking you to let me improve the disjointed lead, so this article doesn’t have to remain B-class forever.  —Michael Z. 17:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Are unsourced edits like this going to increase the grade? By the way, the reason why Polotsk (and others) were not mentioned is because this is referring to the regional powers. Mellk (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it isn’t. Another example of poor writing: it doesn’t say “of the regional powers,” whatever they are.

Again, you’re harping on improvements while preventing dealing with the obvious serious problems with the writing in the lead.  —Michael Z. 19:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Vladimir-Suzdal, Novgorod Republic and Galicia-Volhynia are mentioned beforehand. And by including Polotsk you are missing others. More importantly this is unsourced. The source does not mention Polotsk and it says "only the Republic of Novgorod escaped occupation" just like how it was reflected in this article (also where does it say "surrendered" which you added?).

Start by not continually making unsourced changes which for an admin is shocking. Mellk (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It also mentions Murom, Polotsk, and Rostov before. It was not referring to out of “only the regional powers.” It was referring to “only.”

Now you’re easing into making assertions about me, personally. I’ll warn you not to continue along this path.  —Michael Z. 19:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The quote from the source is: "Of the principalities of Kievan Rus', only the Republic of Novgorod escaped occupation, but it paid tribute to the Mongols". Your edit was an unsourced change, simple as that. Mellk (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I would like to fix a mistake on the population of the country it is actually 143.4 million people in the country. 119.18.0.228 (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CMD (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

According to Institute of Sociology in Russia Academy of Science (biggest russian scientific organization) there are 79% of Orthodox Christians in Russia [6]

According to Levada-Center (biggest russian sociological organization) there are 74% of Orthodox Christians in Russia[7]

According to Pew Research (on of the biggest international sociological organization) there are 71% of Orthodox Christians in Russia [8][9]

According to VCIOM (Russian Public Opinion Research Center) there are 68% of Orthodox Christians in Russia[10]

According to Russian Church's officials there are 75% of Orthodox Christians in Russia [11]

According to Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) there are from 70% to 80% of Orthodox Christians in Russia [12]

According to EUREL (sociological organization in University of Strasbourg) there are 80% of Orthodox Christians in Russia [13]

According to Acton Institute (american sociological institute) there are 70% of Orthodox Christians in Russia [14]

...

Then why this article contains such an outdated data as 47.4% ?

Mumbling macaw (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

To try to answer your question, there is a difference between 'identify' (the wording of the question the majority of your sources are using) and 'belong', the wording the source in the inbox uses and Source 9 (EUREL) of which you have tagged mentions quoted; "According to data from the Russian Centre for the Study of Public Opinion, in 2010 75% of those interviewed claimed to be Orthodox. However, a significant number of these Orthodox do not themselves say that they are members of the Church. According to a survey by the SREDA Research Centre in 2012, only 41% of the Russian population claim to belong to the Russian Orthodox Church."

When dealing with religious statistics, it is probably better to use the wording of 'belong' rather then that of 'identify'. Why? Because a large degree of the population may 'identify' as a religious identity due to their cultural background but do not necessarily belong to a 'religion' or are 'religious' (whatever way we want to call that) themselves, to take an example, in the Pew Research article 81% of Women identified as Orthodox but only 63% had a belief in God. It may be worth however including these sources in the section on religion along the lines 'while only 47% claim to belong to a Christian denomination, 80% of Russia self-identifies with Christianity' Tweedle (talk) 11:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Mumbling macaw is a sockpuppet of Отрок 12: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Отрок 12/Archive. About the Sreda Arena Atlas, it is the most reliable survey of religion in Russia ever conducted, it was a complement to the 2010 census, and it was holden by the independent research organisation Sreda with the support of the Russian Ministry of Justice; it is therefore a set of official statistics related to government institutions. Those listed by Отрок 12 are small-sample surveys from private organisations, qualitatively not matching with the Sreda Arena Atlas.

Also see the various past discussions here and here.--Æo (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The article currently contains:

”Human rights in Russia have been increasingly criticised by leading democracy and human rights groups.”

I would swear that human rights groups do not criticize human rights in Russia; they most probably criticize human rights violations in Russia.Redav (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

For the early history and up to the date of official adoption of the name "Russia", all the mentions of Russian territory should either use the period correct name, or say "territory of today’s Russia", just like it does in any other article on history of any other country.

This means for example in the section "Early history" the phrasing "the first human settlement on Russia" should be changed to "on the territory of today's Russia" since there was no "Russia" back then. SpicyMetaBalla (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Why is Crimea included in the Russian population count in the infobox? It does seem a bit extraordinary given that Taiwan is not included in China's population. If internationally unrecognised claims are to be included as part of the infobox then it should either be for everyone or no one. 118.211.121.167 (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Because Russia controls Crimea, whatever your opinion is of its status, so it is included and itself is enumerated in their population census. If China controlled Taiwan like Russia controls Crimea I can say for certain we would include a population figure with Taiwan included and not included. Tweedle (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Where is the standard set that population is to be determined by census results and not internationally recognised territory? 118.211.121.167 (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

It is internationally recognised that Russia controls Crimea. HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The more relevant point on control is that items such as censuses will include Crimea, as Russia will be operating its administrative functions there. China is not running its census in Taiwan. CMD (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The original user has a point. Two versions of population should be mentioned. One number for its internationally recognized borders. The other one for its occupied territories.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I don't see "two versions of population" for, say, Israel, much of whose de facto territory is not recognized internationally as Israeli. Seryo93 (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is, whether we include in population counts territory that is simply annexed by force by a country. My question is, where is the standard set? If the only thing that matters is whose troops are occupying the land at this exact moment in time, well and good, that's the way it is, but you need to provide some proof that this is the standard for population counts across the entire website. 118.211.121.167 (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

That’s a nonsense answer. Crimea is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. Crimea’s population is internationally recognized as in Ukraine. So it is not a reason to add it to Russia’s population, no matter who estimates or counts it. The census is immaterial, as the population figure is not even from the illegal Russian census, but a more recent estimate.

Why give Russia’s population including some occupied Ukrainian territories (Crimea) and not others (parts of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia)? The current situation is bizarre, but it underscores the illigitimacy of pretending Crimea is Russia in the infobox.  —Michael Z. 21:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the legitimacy of Russia's authority there, it still oversees the region. Gerçois (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The legal status is occupation, not “oversight.”  —Michael Z. 08:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac, no matter what their legal status may be, they are the ones in control Gerçois (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

So what? What is your point? Under their control or not, Crimea is not a part of internationally recognized Russian state which is the subject of this article. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay. But that doesn’t make it Russia, nor its population Russia’s population.  —Michael Z. 22:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

(And as I mentioned above, that still doesn’t explain why you want to include the population of some places that Russia controls in Russia’s population, but not of others.)  —Michael Z. 22:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

That is really the main thing I was getting at. Only some users now say as a defence that it's because Crimea is included in a census and the other areas are not, but I fail to understand where or how this standard has been set. 118.211.121.167 (talk) 09:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac because they are not in the russian census we can't remove Crimea because is in the census Gerçois (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure we can. There’s all sorts of Russian propaganda we don’t report as fact. The field is “population of Russia,” not “the Kremlin’s aspirational population of Russia.”  —Michael Z. 14:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac it is a fact that Crimea right now is under Russian control whether illegal or not, it is not propaganda, Gerçois (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah but that still does not make Crimea a part of Russia. Do you not understand what a state is or how do international laws work? DoctorWhutsup (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

As are parts of the Donbas, but we’re not discussing Russian control.  —Michael Z. 21:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Someone fix that please. Calesti (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac: Could you please fix what you have done to the population density parameter in the infobox? Calesti (talk) 09:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The number is unclear (as I tagged it), unsourced, and doesn’t appear in the article body. I’d rather remove the number than remove the tag which is preventing it from being displayed.  —Michael Z. 19:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

In the table where it has the general information of Russia like the flag, coat of arms, claimed territory on the globe, I request that '(Russian)' be added next to Russian language of The Russian Federation (Rossiya Federatsiya) as other countries have this feature. KlashyCashyTrashy (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I support this change as every article does this per MOS:LANG. I noticed there is an editor's comment asking that editors get consensus first before using the native name template, but can anyone enlighten me as to what the opposition is to its inclusion or the reason behind having this article be the sole one not to use that template in that specific part of the country infobox? Yue🌙 07:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Yue Could you link to that notice? I don't see it on the article page. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Wait, nevermind, it didn't load correctly. I got it. That's weird. I really don't see any issue with adding the native name template here (?) Actualcpscm (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Yue The account who added this notice, @mspriz, has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. From what I can tell, there was some kind of edit war here in 2021; This [15] was the edit that added the notice. Given these circumstances, I've gone ahead and added the native name template. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the suggestion. Apparently, the native name template does not italicize cyrillic text (see e.g. the article on Serbia), so this is just gonna look like that. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Can this description still legitimately be applied to Russia? I'm not referring to how Russia is a dictatorship (since that's also mentioned in the infobox), I'm referring to the "federal" part. While Russia is still nominally a federation, in practice it now operates as a unitary state. All autonomy that the federal subjects previously had, has been systematically dismantled in favor of total control from Moscow.

For that matter, I'd also question the inclusion of Kievan Rus' (sic) in the timeline of Russia's formation. Russia is not a successor of Kyivan Rus'. This is akin to if the United States infobox included the Acts of Union 1707 as part of American history. — Red XIV ^(talk) 01:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I feel that's implicit in the dictatorship part. Dictatorships are inherently centralized. 25stargeneral (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Federalism and dictatorship are not mutually exclusive. The former distinction (federal vs. unitary) just describes the system of organising subnational entities and their relationships with the national government. You can still have a dictator at the head if the systems are bent far enough. I recall that the "Government" section of the infobox used to have "de jure" and "de facto" forms of government listed, which I prefer because as you suggest, the federal system in Russia has eroded to the point of the label being meaningless or contradictory. However, this was presumably changed because not enough reliable sources give the same complete label, or there may have been concerns about neutrality when picking which labels to use. Yue🌙 05:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The term used to mark light-green territories on the map is more than just dubious. The vast majority territories in question do not fit the definiton of disputed. I suggest that the terminology should be changed to "Russian-occupied territories" because well, that is what they are, are they not? DoctorWhutsup (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@DoctorWhutsup it includes the Kuril islands disputed is more appropriate Gerçois (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I'd say "Russian-occupied territories" is the most accurate description of the Kuril Islands, too. Or at least the southernmost four islands that Japan still claims. — Red XIV ^(talk) 01:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

More dubious is that the map does not highlight Abkhazia or South Ossetia in light green Iskandar323 (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

South Ossetia and Abkhazia are both currently independent states that operate their own government, which is not under the direct control of the Russian Federation. Russia does not claim it as russian Gerçois (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it just patrols the borders with its army. Russia also claims it is not 'at war' in Ukraine. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The infobox map should not go even further than the Russian government in claiming various territories. CMD (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 they are highly influenced but not under direct control unlike Ukrainian occupied territories which are under Direct control Gerçois (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The map is a locator map of Russia, so only territories that someone says are Russia are shown: so occupied parts of Georgia and Moldova do not belong (unless we agree to change the scope of the map).

It includes two colours, representing territories with two different statuses:

1. Dark green: internationally recognized as Russia.
2. Light green: not recognized as Russia.

All the territories in category 2 have been:

• Occupied by Russian military.
• Claimed as Russian by Russia.
• “Annexed” by some procedure claimed as legal by Russia but violating international law.
• Not recognized as Russia by most or all states nor by the United Nations, including the respective state the territories belong to.

The label should clearly cover this common situation of them all. Just “disputed” is a WP:EUPHEMISM that unnecessarily leaves out too much, gives the impression that the situation could be different or even opposite from the reality, and therefore non-WP:NPOV because it allows a counterfactual pro-Kremlin, anti-other states, anti-UN, and anti-international law interpretation.  —Michael Z. 07:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand why the Kuril Islands keep getting brought up as a reason to keep the phrasing "disputed territories". The circumstances and situation surrounding the occupied territories of Ukraine are different from those of the Kuril Islands dispute, so why not just have two colours then? Or how about just have the caption be more specific: "Russia on the globe; occupied territories of Ukraine and the Kuril Islands disputed with Japan shown in light green". Yue🌙 07:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I would agree to either as an improvement. But although they are different, I believe all of the territories in question are objectively occupied by Russia.  —Michael Z. 21:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the distinctions do not matter; I support a change from "disputed" to "occupied". As you said, there is no reason to euphemistically describe the territories occupied by Russia as "disputed", especially when the "occupied" is used by all the reliable sources available on the matter. Yue🌙 05:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Calling southern Kuril Islands "occupied" is pushing a POV. And the territories in Ukraine in light green are not even fully occupied. So it must be stated as disputed, or the territories of Ukraine specifically as claimed. Or a combination of both. Mellk (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

“Occupied and claimed by Russia”?  —Michael Z. 21:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not like the current map. But for now something along the lines of:

• Russia on the globe, with disputed territories shown in light green, including occupied territories of Ukraine

The map does not show other occupied territories, so it cannot simply say "occupied territories". Mellk (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, it can, but it can properly just say “Russian-claimed territories” and omit their occupation status. If you demand more detail, which is not necessary in the infobox, we can expand it to “Russian-claimed territories, including Russian-occupied territories.”  —Michael Z. 21:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Also those islands are under Russian control since their annexation, so "claimed" does not work, nor does "occupied" unless the goal is not NPOV. Mellk (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I don’t understand the problem with the last. Russian-occupied territories are necessarily under Russian control. Some Russian-occupied and/or Russian-controlled territories are claimed as part of Russia, and others are not.

”Russian-occupied and Russian-claimed territories” is inclusive of all the light green areas.  —Michael Z. 21:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I only see in RS that Japan claims those islands, not the other way around. Because they have not been in control of those islands since the 1940s. Saying Russia claims those islands sounds very odd. Usually Russia is described as administering those islands. Mellk (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Which sources say that? Do they

not say Russia occupied the islands at the end of WWII? Do they say the islands are part of Russia? If not, then it does seem that Russia is claiming them too. It does not seem odd to me.  —Michael Z. 22:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

It is pretty standard for it to say it is administered by Russia and/or claimed by Japan. For example: [16]. Even the U.S. officially does this for maps.[17] Often it is just shown as part of Russia without any label.[18] Mellk (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

What about the term Annex territory ??? Moxy- 22:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

That’s a pretty good roundup, thanks. Britannica is imperfect: says the chain was ceded to the USSR, but in the next sentence implies the four southern islands were not ceded (“Japan still claims”).

I see that current CIA World Factbook maps still follow the same advice for detailed maps,[19] But neither their locator nor country maps of Russia or Ukraine show this level of detail at all.[20][21]  —Michael Z. 07:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Eventually internal border changes and annexations during World War II created a union of 15 republics: this seems like it trivializes important fundamental structural changes in a multinational union. The recognition of union republics representating national groups is more than “internal border changes.” The wording unintentionally conforms to a Soviet POV that also expressed itself in Russifiecation and destruction of nations.  —Michael Z. 15:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I found the cited source, and improved the sentence according to what it says.[22]  —Michael Z. 00:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The source doesn't at all support "an expansionism of the Soviet imperial system, an expression of Russian nationalism, created a union of 15 republics". I'm not sure exactly what that is supposed to mean, but the Russian nationalism described in the source is about ethnic domination within the union and within different republics, as well as external domination of the Warsaw pact. It does not touch upon the reason the various republics were created. It doesn't support the current text either mind, and doesn't at all talk about World War II or border changes, so there's some old text-source integrity failure here. I've tagged with fv. CMD (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

“Expansionism” is precisely about turning outside of the union into within the union, border changes, and WWII occupation of additional territories (as well as domination of other Eastern European states, although that is not mentioned in the sentence). The fifteen ethnic republics were created and used specifically as a vehicle for ethnic domination.  —Michael Z. 05:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that isn't in the source. CMD (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

But it is.

P. 148, ¶ 1 states that Russian nationalism led Russians to dominate political framework within a cluster of contiguous states. This is precisely the Soviet republics in their borders (and the Warsaw Pact states). The succeeding three pages go on to describe this in more detail including the role of the Russian imperial identity.  —Michael Z. 15:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

(It’s also very interesting to see how the paper’s description of geopolitics has stood up for four decades, even in light of Russia’s current war in Ukraine.)  —Michael Z. 15:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It does state that, but that doesn't support either the sentence on the page or the sentence you wrote. For a start, the "cluster of geographically contiguous states" does not refer to the Soviet republics, but to the Warsaw Pact only. There is again not much there about the RSFR dominating the political framework, the political framework in general, nor much about WWII, WWII border changes, etc. CMD (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

My mistake, you’re right that that refers to the WP. The article does set out the general history of Great Russian dominance over the peoples of the Soviet empire over three centuries culminating in the USSR of the 1980s, but a better source is needed for the statement regarding development of republics.  —Michael Z. 17:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Ukrainian territory invaded by Russia should not be shown on the globe map as a disputed one. Presenting it in light green suggests that it belongs to Russia and supports russian propaganda. 109.70.118.146 (talk) 09:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Because it is disputed and it is under the full control of Russia 2601:603:2181:9BF0:F908:F8C0:CF8F:B464 (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the “annexed” territories are only partially occupied and actively contested.  —Michael Z. 21:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that what I was trying to say 2601:603:2181:9BF0:2CA7:94F7:596F:D55C (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

No light green does not mean disputed, it means claimed. However, Russia has occupied the Crimean Peninsula and state during the Russo-Ukrainian War (2022). So these place should be in dark green just like the rest of Russia. Also the right side of the map shows a light green spot too which is Kuril Islands (not sure if u can spot it). The place should also be in dark green, just like the Crimean Peninsula and other areas as mentioned above, as the Russian has invaded these places and then occupied it. Hence, Kuril Islands should also be in dark green. As to when Russians invaded Kuril Islands, u can refer to this article Kuril Islands dispute 756gamernowatroblox (talk) 08:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The map has to show actual recognized Russia, and that is dark green.  —Michael Z. 15:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

But isn't it a common understanding that dark green means actually controlled territory and light green means claimed but Ukrainian territory is invaded and capture one so it must be dark green. Plus the article didn't state anything about whether this territory this recognized to be under Russia. 756gamernowatroblox (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

or maybe u can add another colour which represent territory controlled by Russia but recognized internationally to be under Ukraine. Please also do the same for Kuril Islands. 756gamernowatroblox (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

See several previous discussions about this map. I don’t believe a country locator map should have to be updated every time an advance is made in an active war zone. It should have stable defining information on the subject, and showing spurious Russian claims in other states is already pushing beyond this.  —Michael Z. 17:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

So r u saying that after the Russo-Ukrainian War (2022) another colour would be added to show that the invaded area is controlled by Russia but in international community it is under Ukraine, same for Crimea (or maybe not since Crimeans voted to join Russia.) 756gamernowatroblox (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m not saying that. I’m not commenting on your assumption or your assessment of any fraudulent “referendums” by Russian occupiers. What will be appropriate in some undetermined future is a WP:CRYSTAL prediction.  —Michael Z. 16:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

See examples in reliable sources: Britannica,[23] World Factbook.[24]  —Michael Z. 18:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Are those sources reliable? 756gamernowatroblox (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Both are put forward as sources in WP:PLACE, for example.  —Michael Z. 15:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Are these invaded area controlled by pro Russian separatist? If that is that case, if u have access to editing, please add another colour to indicate area controlled by Russia/Russian pro-separatist but not recognized by international community. If u don't have editing access, please help me find one. u can add the additional colour to other nation wiki pages if applicable. 756gamernowatroblox (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Also after the Russo-Ukrainian War (2022), and if Russia/ Russian pro-separatist still occupy part of Ukraine, will the part of Ukraine still continue to be in light green like Crimea and Kuril Islands? 756gamernowatroblox (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The subject of the map is where is Russia, not where are Russian troops in control. The two colours represent internationally recognized Russia and Russian-claimed Russia (the latter is also problematic because the Russians haven’t clearly defined it).  —Michael Z. 19:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

If Russia/Russian pro-separatist or Ukraine is not in controll of the invaded land, who is in control of the invaded land? 756gamernowatroblox (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not a map of territorial control.  —Michael Z. 16:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Also Russia/pro-Russian-separatist also invaded and occupy Georgia during the Russo-Georgian war, however, the area which Russia/pro-Russian-separatist invaded and occupy up to this day is not in light green! Why is this so? 756gamernowatroblox (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The difference is that Russia doesn’t claim parts of Georgia as Russia.  —Michael Z. 19:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

What? 756gamernowatroblox (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a map of Russia and Russian claims. Not a map of Russian occupations.  —Michael Z. 16:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Change the territories Russia gained from occupying Ukraine from "claimed" to "occupied" just below the country's map where the occupied territories are highlighted in light green. Blade70 (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: "Claimed" seems like a more accurate description of the current situation, since the extent of the occupation of these areas might vary through the course of the war. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Change the arrows indicating GDP movement (not population) from neutral grey to a color. So change them from, say NeutralIncrease or NeutralDecrease to just Increase or Decrease.As1999610 (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Why? If GDP has increased due to making more tanks some would argue that is good and others bad. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

This is the only country article where I have seen GDP arrows as neutral. I don't see any reason for that to be the case. There should be consistency across articles. Whatever the reason behind those GDP changes might be. 2601:2C2:980:6710:DDDA:1D1F:39A4:DC61 (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I am surprised if no other articles have GDP arrows as neutral. I am not an economist but I understand that economists do not always consider an increase in GDP as a good thing. I have asked for comments here from [[25]] in the hope that someone more knowledgable than me will comment Chidgk1 (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

See Gross domestic product#Limitations and criticisms Chidgk1 (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Probably the arrows should match other articles. We're not taking a stance on whether GDP is good or bad, and especially not on what countries get special treatment, just how best to convey information to our readers. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

If I understand it right the green arrows mean “good” and the red “bad” so by putting a red or green arrow we would be taking a stance on whether that particular increase or decrease was good or bad. For example we all agree that an increase in HDI is good so the up arrow is green. Similarly I think the decrease in Gini is good so I agree that down arrow is correctly green. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that considering GDP to be a neutral factor is more of taking a stance. Simply saying an increase is positive and decrease is negative is not, as that usually goes without saying for something like GDP. You're saying it should be neutral because of some external factors related to war, when the default when not taking into account factors like this is that is should be a positive or negative thing. 2601:2C2:980:6710:45E4:C4AB:CEDE:41FD (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, by saying it is neutral, you're kind of implying that a country with a GDP per capita of, say, $80,000 and a country with a GDP per capita of, say, $1,000 are equally successful as GDP is a neutral factor. 2601:2C2:980:6710:45E4:C4AB:CEDE:41FD (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

It is not implying that at all. Up and down mean up and down, and GDP or GDP/capita mean exactly what they mean, and we have whole articles one can read to help understand their implications.

But by making a rise and fall green and red, you are saying that a rise is always good and a fall is always bad.  —Michael Z. 16:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: Is now out here challenging IMF stats as "dubious". LOL and he claims no "reliable" sources have been published. God. See List of countries by nominal GDP or IMF's October 2022 database. This article from the Economist from December 2022 explicitly calls Russia the ninth-largest economy in the world. Please change the arrow back to green, thanks. I love how this guy suddenly climbs out of his hole every now and then with an agenda to alter/remove data to his liking and how he suddenly jumps to conclusions without backing them by reliable sources, very ironic. Calesti (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

IMF data is generally full of holes and methodology issues, but in this instance, any GDP rise is likely just a result of the rise in oil prices, which tends to drag real/nominal GDP in weird directions for oil producers even if non-oil growth sucks. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not an expert on Russia or economics but I am working on Oil in Turkey and as you know we import a lot from Russia. So if you understand the economics of oil it would be great if you could read that article and make constructive comments on its talk page. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

You are usually not an expert on anything, but you are definitely an expert at manipulating articles and trying to boldly remove data without any consensus. And obviously you succeed at it since there's only one semi-active editor of this article, who's a Ukrainian. I mean come on, if IMF said Russia's economy declined, then it would suddenly become reliable. Whatever right....let's get this sentence removed too. Calesti (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Calesti, it’s inappropriate to call out the supposed nationality of editors and imply something about it. Please don’t.  —Michael Z. 17:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

If you know about the real price of Urals oil it might be useful if you could improve that article Chidgk1 (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

if you think IMF is unreliable you need to take this to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Most start with this Moxy- 15:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Even if you accept the IMF as reliable:

1) List of IMF ranked countries by GDP is hopelessly out of date

2) List of countries by GDP (nominal) and List of countries by GDP (PPP) are based on cites from October and November whereas the Russian 2022 fiscal year did not end until 31 December

3) Does the IMF actually give ranks or has the ranking been done by an editor of List of countries by GDP (nominal)? If the latter then the margin of error of 2.1 might be such that it could be higher than 2.2 or lower than 2.0 which are the adjacent countries. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The IMF just provides the data by country listed alphabetically, so no ranking. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: Big brain moment. We clearly do not rank economies. Since when do we do that? The U.S. is the largest economy in the world according to List of countries by GDP (nominal) and IMF, but who edited that? Some random user. And that's why its a lie, because we're all blind and cannot see statistics. You definitely know how to beat around the bush and waste everybody's time while not doing anything constructive. Go edit some irrelevant article about Turkey. Coz we need to make this tag stay there stuck like an eyesore for the next eternity right? You need to tag the sentence about nuclear weapons next to get that removed as well.

Every single country article on Wikipedia uses IMF as an economic indicator in the same way as it has been used in this article. Calesti (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Other people have constructively and politely answered my points 1) and 3) above, which was good of them. Perhaps you would like to answer point 2) constructively and politely? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned in the article, Russia has stopped providing key economic metrics (which it is actually obligated to provide as a Worldbank member) since shortly after the beginning of the conflict in 2022. That doesn't make the IMF or World Bank unreliable sources, but it puts them in a position where they are much less equipped to provide accurate data than they usually would be and are to some extent forced to accept as fact the cherrypicked data points the Kremlin communicates to them. There is certainly a large body of work on the effects of the sanctions on the Russian economy that would suggest much more substantial changes:

Carnegie Endowment: What hiding the stats does for Russia :

In the four months since it went to war with Ukraine, the Kremlin has blocked public access to an unprecedented volume of economic statistics. Those operating outside the government machine have been left working in the dark, with the quality of independent evaluations and predictions suffering accordingly.

1. Since April 2022, the Russian authorities have restricted access to all foreign trade statistics, including those relating to exports, imports, and trade within the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).
2. Freely available import statistics really could be dangerous for the Kremlin. They would shed light on a key problem for Russian manufacturers: structural deficits resulting from the exodus of foreign component suppliers and the breakdown of technical and production chains. The scale of this issue was already clear in figures for industrial production in April provided by Rosstat, Russia’s state statistics service. In comparison with April 2021, auto manufacturing fell by 85.4 percent, production of elevators by 48 percent, washing machines by 59 percent, and refrigerators by 46 percent.
3. The central bank has stopped publishing information on the structure of Russia’s international reserves: from the end of March, only figures for total amounts have been updated, with no detailing of the specific assets.
4. Similarly, the government has allowed Russian companies to stop publishing data until the end of 2022, while the central bank no longer requires banks to provide the key data stipulated by Russian accounting standards.

Yale: A Year after the Invasion, the Russian Economy Is Self-Immolating

1. "... voluntary business exits of companies with in-country revenues equivalent to 35% of Russia’s GDP that employ 12% of the country’s workforce."
2. "In the initial months following the invasion, Putin’s energy earnings soared. Now, according to Deutsche Bank economists, Putin has lost $500 million a day of oil and gas export earnings relative to last year’s highs, rapidly spiraling downward..."
3. "Russian oil exports have held amazingly consistent at pre-war levels of ~7 million barrels a day, ensuring global oil market stability, but the value of Russian oil exports has gone from $600 million a day down to $200 million a day as the Urals benchmark crashed to ~$45 a barrel, barely above Russia’s breakeven price of ~$42 per barrel..."
4. "Since last February, millions of Russians have fled the country. Moreover, the fleeing Russians are desperate to stuff their pockets with cash as they escape Putin’s rule. Remittances to neighboring countries have soared more than tenfold and they rapidly attracted ex-Russian businesses."
5. "For example, in Uzbekistan, the Tashkent IT Park has seen year-over-year growth of 223% in revenue and 440% growth in total technology exports.
6. Meanwhile, offshore havens for wealthy Russians such as the UAE are booming, with one estimate claiming 30% of Russia’s high-net-worth individuals have fled."

TL;DR Of course IMF and Worldbank are high-quality sources, but they're transnational organizations that have to work (primarily) with what their member states provide, alternatively I assume with other sources of hard data. But the Kremlin is only providing them with cherrypicked data, the veracity of which is at least dubious. On the other hand even the 40-man team around Prof. Sonnenfeld in Yale has so far only been able to approximate certain data-points that illustrate a much more dire state of the Russian economy than GDP numbers suggest, but they haven't been able to provide competing numbers.

It is also possible that through some very creative accounting, the massive cash influx during Q3/21-Q3/22 caused by astronomical gas prices is somehow leveraged by the Russian Central Bank against the existential crisis of many domestic sectors like manufacturing, the loss of over a million tax-paying, often highly skilled individuals and the cash-efflux caused by their re-locating, often along with their businesses, as well as the re-locating of an estimated 30% of high-net-worth citizens, which is also likely to be accompanied with significant assets having been divested out of Russia - at least while that was still tolerated by the Kremlin.

While I don't mind using data provided by the IMF for now, it seems to me whether in a footnote or in the Economy-section of the article, the effects of the sanctions quoted above from reliable sources should be given more space than 1 or 2 vague sentences. --196.44.118.37 (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the key things to watch here are non-oil economy indicators/other metrics. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

In the infobox, it says Russian is the official language and national language. Is there any reason for the distinction? It seems redundant to say both things. Is there anything wrong with just labeling it "Official language" instead? Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 09:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The cited source actually says that Russian is the national language of the RF, and in twenty of twenty-one autonomous republics Russian and the titular language are state languages. Official language was a Soviet designation which is no longer in effect.

I also wonder if the status of Russian has changed in constitutional amendments since that source was published.  —Michael Z. 13:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Having just checked, the amendments only seem to have added in an explanation for why Russian is the national language: it is declared to be "the language of the state-forming [государствообразующий, i.e. instrumental to the formation of the Russian state] people [народ, could also be translated as "nation" or "ethnic group"]". I.e. it is the national language because it's the language of ethnic Russians. Otherwise the constitution refers both to Russian and the languages of the republics as "state languages" (which is better translated as the "national language") - Russian is the "state language" of the entire federation; whereas Tatar, Chechen, etc. are "state languages" of their respective regions. 79.104.50.145 (talk) 08:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Where is the source? The constitution itself should be a sufficient source to cite for the status of languages, although a secondary source would be preferable. —Michael Z. 15:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to sound pro-Russian or something but "...under authoritarian dictatorship" isn't really the official term for the Russian gov., I would rather change it to "pseudo-democratic" or "corrupt (majority party) puppet government". It's not like an official communist government where the dictator is clearly defined in the constitution like night and day. I want to hear more opinions as I'm okay keeping it as it is as long as the consensus holds.- Alexceltare2 (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• "Russia: Freedom in the World 2023 Country Report". Freedom House. 2019-07-20. Retrieved 2023-04-17.

Moxy- 12:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Russian officials are a reliable source - "...under authoritarian dictatorship" seems a reasonable summary of reliable sources to me Chidgk1 (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Cite current WP:RSes on the subject. Let’s say what they say, and avoid WP:OR by not making up our own descriptions.  —Michael Z. 15:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

based on this https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Russians the ratio of russians in Russia is not 80%... just cca. 71%.

btw these 2 wiki articles refer the same source (a russian census in 2021).

which article BalassaMakto (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

..which article contains the "truth"? BalassaMakto (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

No idea - so do you want it deleted from this article? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The larger number is the percentage out of all people surveyed that reported their nationality. If we assume that this proportion holds for those not reporting it, then it can be a proxy for the overall percentage. Seems completely dubious in my opinion, and should not be done without reference to a source that says so.

The smaller number is the percentage self-reporting out of the total population. It is correct if we describe it as such.

By the way, the correctly rounded calculated figures are 80.8% or 81%, and 71.7% or 72%.  —Michael Z. 17:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

You are correct yes, I would personally go with the 72% figure and provide a footnote explaining why it is low, in this particular case being that poor enumeration rates has led to ROSSTAT having to declare loads of people as 'No ethnicity' (1, 2, 3, 4) the same case is already present in the lead of the demographics page. Additionally you would need to re-adjust the ethnic minority percentages as well, see here for this taken into account (2021 column). Tweedle (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the note,[26] but IMO that is insufficient. The infobox says the population is either 147,182,123 or 144,699,673, and it says 80.8% are Russian: a calculation based on the absolute figure of 105,579,179 out of a “total” of 130,587,364. What it implies is outright wrong: that there are either 119M or 117M ethnic Russians in Russia.

There needs to be a figure that makes sense on the surface. Not a misleading figure, with a hidden note justifying it with hidden assumptions.

I will correct this.  —Michael Z. 21:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

OK that is perfectly fine, to be fair I was not opposed to either (hence my adding of the note) but the 72% figure made more sense to me anyway so thank you for changing that. Tweedle (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The description is "Russia on the globe, with occupied territories shown in light green", while the complete territory of Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts is in light green. These regions where formally annexed by Russia, but it occupies only parts of them - e.g. regional capitals Kherson and Zaporizhzhia are controlled by Ukraine. I propose to change the description to something like "Russia on the globe, with light green showing annexed territories of Ukraine, which are partially occupied by Russia". Wikisaurus (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I reverted @Moxy’s change of the description to “annexed.” My dictionary says to annex means to “add (to one’s territory).” But the Russians have failed to occupy and add all of the light-green territories to their own. They only claim it’s annexed. Some sources reflect this using scare quotes, as in “Russia declared the "annexation" of Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, Luhansk, and Kherson oblasts,”[27] or phrasing such as “Zaporizhzhia, one of five Ukrainian provinces Russia claims to have annexed.”[28] others simply refer to the occupation of territory and don’t use annexation at all, because it does not reflect reality.  —Michael Z. 14:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Was using the legal term that links to explanations that has nothing to do with "full occupation" but annexation by decree^[1]. It is also the term used in our articles about the topic after move talks. ...Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation ^[2]... Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts ^[3][4][5] that is linked in the note. We should not be scared about directing our readers to articles that further explain the topic....do what is best for your readers to learn more....put aside any personal POV Moxy- 18:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s just like instances of people “arrested in absentia.” If you just call them arrested without any context, you are not doing the reader a service. Linking to explanations is great, but it doesn’t excuse misleading text, which needs to be able to stand alone.  —Michael Z. 03:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

its why we link articles so people can read and learn more...did you read?. Try doing what is best for readers to find info. All linked in article anywas....your attempts of hidding info will take more then one link. Good luck. Moxy- 04:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac, @Moxy, maybe one should replace "claimed" by "annexed and partially occupied"? One can read "claimed" as "claimed only, not controlled". Wikisaurus (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think so. One can rightfully read annexed as claimed and controlled, so that is potentially misleading. Claimed is literally correct and makes no implication about occupied or not.

The problem is that there are Russian-claimed territories in Japan and Ukraine with several different kinds of status and changing hands: too complex to convey fully in the infobox without adding two more colours and a short paragraph. But the details are in the article, so the current legend is sufficient.  —Michael Z. 13:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Estimates of what GDP will be in 2023 could be wildly wrong depending on whether the oil sanctions price cap holds or not Chidgk1 (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

One would think so, per WP:CRYSTAL, but some people get very overcited about updates. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pyruvate I undid your change to 2023 as I think that kind of estimate would be more suitable for Economy of Russia but I have no objection if you would like to amend to more accurate 2022 figures Chidgk1 (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: You could use the latest updated 2022 data by IMF in April 2023 database; instead of the October 2022 one. Isn't that supposed to be better and more up-to-date? Calesti (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@Calesti: Good suggestion but when I tried to query the database I could select Russia but not the particular GDP stat. Maybe because I use an ipad - it said select a GDP but I could not select Chidgk1 (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I see Tass gives a 2022 GDP figure in roubles but obviously they are not a reliable source https://tass.com/economy/1601481 Chidgk1 (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: TASS is unreliable. I do agree the economy is way too volatile at this time to put the 2023 estimates, we can wait until October for that again. Here is the updated 2022 statistics from the 2023 April IMF database. Calesti (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

thanks have updated infobox Chidgk1 (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Moxy:, @Chidgk1: We were supposed to drop stats from the lead right? And if we are going to use 2022 data in the infobox, then what is the point of using 2023 rankings in the lead? Rankings fluctuate time to time. Maybe the lead's third para's opening sentence could be something simple along the lines of "Russia's upper-middle income economy ranks among the largest in the world, relying chiefly upon its abundant natural resources." Calesti (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you @Calesti: that "ranks 65th" is not significant enough to be in the lead. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: Can you make the change to my previous suggestion? It is more informative and fitting. I do not think anybody opposes the change. The ranking was added recently anyway and is excess. Calesti (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Done but I am not going to argue if anyone reverts it Chidgk1 (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with your stance. We ARE in the year 2023 and therefore the estimates/projections provided for the year of 2023 by the IMF for any country should be legitimate to be stated for the country's. IMF is a renowned international organization and the information published are therefore legitimate to be included in the country's data. For countries that IMF was not confident in making projections, they did not do so, as in the case of Afghanistan / Lebanon / Pakistan / Sri Lanka / Syria / Ukraine / Venezuela. Like I said before, data from previous recent years like 2021 and 2022 are prone to subsequent revisions anyways, so it's not "set in stone". If you are keen to achieve 100% certainty in all figures, then perhaps all population data should only be from official census? That will render the data outdated, so we must strike a balance and I contend that GDP figures as projected by the IMF for the CURRENT YEAR should be used. Pyruvate (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned above I cannot see the figures - but I would be interested to know whether the IMF gives any error bars for its 2023 estimate Chidgk1 (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I see at https://info.ceicdata.com/behind-the-curtain-of-russias-data-gdp-to-return-to-growth-in-q2-2023 that other forecasters vary between 1% drop and 7% growth for 2023 with the IMF and OECD, expecting 0.3% growth and 4.3% contraction, respectively. In other words they have no idea. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Some time after the invasion began, Russia's infobox changed to describe the country as a dictatorship. I wonder what's Wikipedia's stance:

• A: Russia had already been a dictatorship, but this information was only updated following the invasion
• B: Russia was not a dictatorship before the war; however, their political crackdowns following the invasion have since turned them into one

675930s (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The article’s current consensus text: “Under the administrations of Vladimir Putin, Russia has experienced democratic backsliding, and has become an authoritarian state under a dictatorship, with Putin's policies being referred to as Putinism.” Subject to change at any moment, as far as a “stance” is concerned. You may find more details in some other articles, and if you do, please let us know if this can be improved based on them.  —Michael Z. 22:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

change "crisises" to "crises". TheOneTEM (definitely a human) (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Heart ^(talk) 00:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Please help to give me the access for update the Religion of Russia. I'm so sorry if my wish is disturbing you. N-KA-A8932 (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

What would you like to change and what source do you have?Moxy- 14:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason this article contains no information on Russia's legal system (other than in passing) and crime? A nation's legal system is an important and fundamental aspect of its society, so something akin to what Germany or France has would be logical. There are also notable criminal aspects, such as its organized crime and having one of the highest rates of incarcerated people. TylerBurden (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

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

• Russia& -39;s Mir space station is backdropped against Earth& -39;s horizon. Original from NASA . Digitally enhanced by rawpixel. - 41997987775.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The article for Kievan Rus says it was founded in 882. Plus shouldn’t it also mention when Rurik became the prince of Novgorod in 862? MaxwellWinnie102 (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Also I think it should also mention the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 26 1991. MaxwellWinnie102 (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

“ it has more advanced per capita rankings among the most populous countries and has steadily increased international development assistance and debt forgiveness to developing countries. After the United States, Russia is the second most populous country with a "very high" level of human development and other advanced rankings (such as the Human Capital Index and other living standards), is undoubtedly considered a country of the Global North, and was classified as a high-income economy in 2012-14.” It’s quite problematic and not accurate to begin with Russia performance in indicators of standard of living is very low , by GDP per capita Russia is ranked 65th way behind developed countries , it has one of the heights level of corruption in the world (ranks 137th) ranks 146th by Democracy and ranks 52nd by HDI so it’s not accurate and quite not true. Qplb191 (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• Very funny. Palau, Romania, Panama and Seychelles, ranked 55, 56, 57 and 58 on this list of countries by GNI (nominal) per capita, are officially classified as high-income economies by the World Bank. But since Russia ranks 61st out of 191 countries, this rank immediately becomes "very low". Yes, 58th place is "very high", but 61st place is obviously "very low". Also take into account the population of the countries. Countries with small populations sometimes can achieve good results more easily. Countries ranked from 1 to 66 in 2021 are officially designated "very high" by Human Development Index. Only 3 countries on this list have populations over 100 million and they are the United States, Japan and Russia. Look carefully at list of countries and dependencies by population and say how many countries among for example the 25 most populous have advanced indicators. Only the United States, Russia, Japan, Germany, France, UK and Italy have a "very high" level of human development. Among countries with populations over 100 million it is only the United States, Japan and Russia. Not all of Russia's rankings are good, but when you intentionally pick only the worst, it's cherrypicking, bias and a violation of NPOV. Really look at the lead section for Panama or other countries. The article points to Panama's ranking in the Human Development Index, but you intentionally removed that information about Russia. Because all rankings are "very low" in Russia. Very funny. _ruASG⁺¹  15:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)