Talk:Russia/Archive 1

message: === Imperial Ambitions ===
This concerns two contributions to the History section of the Wikipedia article on Russia, at least one of which reflected the idea of Russia having "continued imperial ambitions".
I happen to share the view that what may be called "continued imperial ambitions" of Russia represent a significant problem for Russia and for others, and i hope to see that view properly represented in the article.  However, the 4-word contribution is not an encyclopedic presentation of that view, but rather, standing as it did, a mere slogan. Wikipedia is not a place for slogans. (Nor is it a place for controversial points of view (we say "PoVs") to have the floor to themselves, which may become relevant here.) I've moved it here (rather than simply deleting it) in order that it not be lost from our attention.  I personally lack the background to write the test for the article that enumerates how those ambitions seem to be manifested.  (It should be obvious from my contribution time-stamped 13:42, 2003 Dec 15 (UTC) below this, how spotty my knowledge in this area is.)
Before discussing how to create a proper context for the PoV that is embodied in the phrase "and continued imperial ambitions", it may help to outline how this discussion arose.
:On December 14 (UTC), User:165.247.33.215  modified a sentence at the end of the History section, by adding the portion of the following that appears in bold-face type:
:: hampered by economic an imperial difficulties.
: An editor reverted the article to an earlier state (in effect removing the contribution), citing the fact that "the last edit did not make sense".
: I noticed that what the other editor had reverted was the contribution "an imperial".  (I made a guess at what the contributor had intended to say, namely that the word "an" stood for "and".  That was probably correct.) I wrote the following contribution (whose indentation i have changed to suit its new context) to this Talk page, Talk:Russia.  --Jerzy 08:52, 2003 Dec 17 (UTC)
: I agree that the insertion, into the current language "hampered by economic difficulties", of "an imperial", was not a constructive contribution.  I assume the intended wording was "and imperial", which is not utter nonsense but is IMO still too cryptic to be left in the article.  I haven't made an effort to figure out whether it's already adquately discussed, or what is the proper location for it, but IMO it is worth considering the "an imperial" contrib to be a complaint (true or false) that not enough is said, at least in that 'graph, about
:* Russian bases in Georgia and IIRC one of the Baltic states
:* Chechnya and other nearby Muslim insurgencies against Russian rule
:* Russian support for insurgencies (or de-facto secession) against Georgia (Abkhazia and S. Ossetia, IIRC) and Moldova (Trans-Dniester Republic?), and perhaps continuing resentment in Ukraine abt the dispostion disposition of the Crimea or its naval and/or commercial port facilities
:* Tatarstan, if my vague idea that Russia is still resented there is founded
:* centripetal tendencies elsewhere in the R. Federation (don't remember any constituent-republic names) that perhaps have less to do with ethnicity or religion and more to do with realism about Moscow's ability to reassert full central control, and its tendency to neglect them other than to complain about tax revenues not reaching Moscow.
:IMO, "imperial" is a POV, & not necessarily a helpful, term for it, but i can understand someone choosing it to summarize these relevant "difficutlies" "difficulties". --Jerzy 13:42, 2003 Dec 15 (UTC)
: I've since noticed that on December 15, User:165.247.43.27 contributed the bold-face portion of this:
:: hampered by economic difficulties and continued imperial ambitions. 
: I note that this editor, based on the content and the similarity of the IP numbers, is likely to be the same as the the previous one, or someone connected closely to them.
: I've removed that contribution from the article, but moved it here for future attention.
In my opinion (IMO), the removed text, and similar future contributions, should come to this section of this Talk page until such time  as advocates for their inclusion in the History section of Russia point out, or provide, explanatory material, heavy on verifiable objective facts but also including coherant chains of reasoning from the facts to the controversial assertions involved. When that effort succeeds, i and other editors will turn into advocates for inclusion of at least substantial portions of that, and of contrary points of view that likely will emerge, with their own objective facts and chains of reasoning.
There is reason to believe that at least one editor inclined toward a Russian-imperial-matters slogan is less than fluent in English.  While i am not prepared to make specific commitments, i have some interest in the subject; i also have some insight into the difficulties of expressing complex matters in a foreign language, and am hopeful that these would make me useful to a non-native speaker of English in helping clarify and standardize their writing.  I hope for opportunities to do so on behalf of both advocates and opponents of the slogan. --Jerzy 08:52, 2003 Dec 17 (UTC)
: I started an article on Russia on et:, and therefore I went through the intro of this article. I commented on seas, because I found serious problems there. While I am currently not working on the et:Russia article, I put this article on my watchlist in order to see if anyone reacts to my comments. So I got aware of the edit "an imperial". I didn't realize the intention of that contributor, and I just registered that the edit did not made any sense in that particular form. 
: I think it's a fact that in Russian politics there are strong centripetal tendencies (especially under Putin), but describing them as "imperial" is an interpretation that can be questioned. And I think it's a fact that Russia is interested in having as much influence on other countries as possible. But again I am not sure this should be interpreted as imperialism.
: I think that in the main article there is no need to address these issues. But of course, they have a legitimate place in the articles "Poltics of Russia]], and maybe History of Russia. And even those articles will grow too long and require further splitting and so on. I think the main article should be kept as clear and factual as possible. Andres 10:20, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  History sec'n 

message: This concerns two contributions to the History section of the Wikipedia article on Russia, at least one of which reflected the idea of Russia having "continued imperial ambitions".
I happen to share the view that what may be called "continued imperial ambitions" of Russia represent a significant problem for Russia and for others, and i hope to see that view properly represented in the article.  However, the 4-word contribution is not an encyclopedic presentation of that view, but rather, standing as it did, a mere slogan. Wikipedia is not a place for slogans. (Nor is it a place for controversial points of view (we say "PoVs") to have the floor to themselves, which may become relevant here.) I've moved it here (rather than simply deleting it) in order that it not be lost from our attention.  I personally lack the background to write the test for the article that enumerates how those ambitions seem to be manifested.  (It should be obvious from my contribution time-stamped 13:42, 2003 Dec 15 (UTC) below this, how spotty my knowledge in this area is.)
Before discussing how to create a proper context for the PoV that is embodied in the phrase "and continued imperial ambitions", it may help to outline how this discussion arose.
:On December 14 (UTC), User:165.247.33.215  modified a sentence at the end of the History section, by adding the portion of the following that appears in bold-face type:
:: hampered by economic an imperial difficulties.
: An editor reverted the article to an earlier state (in effect removing the contribution), citing the fact that "the last edit did not make sense".
: I noticed that what the other editor had reverted was the contribution "an imperial".  (I made a guess at what the contributor had intended to say, namely that the word "an" stood for "and".  That was probably correct.) I wrote the following contribution (whose indentation i have changed to suit its new context) to this Talk page, Talk:Russia.  --Jerzy 08:52, 2003 Dec 17 (UTC)
: I agree that the insertion, into the current language "hampered by economic difficulties", of "an imperial", was not a constructive contribution.  I assume the intended wording was "and imperial", which is not utter nonsense but is IMO still too cryptic to be left in the article.  I haven't made an effort to figure out whether it's already adquately discussed, or what is the proper location for it, but IMO it is worth considering the "an imperial" contrib to be a complaint (true or false) that not enough is said, at least in that 'graph, about
:* Russian bases in Georgia and IIRC one of the Baltic states
:* Chechnya and other nearby Muslim insurgencies against Russian rule
:* Russian support for insurgencies (or de-facto secession) against Georgia (Abkhazia and S. Ossetia, IIRC) and Moldova (Trans-Dniester Republic?), and perhaps continuing resentment in Ukraine abt the dispostion disposition of the Crimea or its naval and/or commercial port facilities
:* Tatarstan, if my vague idea that Russia is still resented there is founded
:* centripetal tendencies elsewhere in the R. Federation (don't remember any constituent-republic names) that perhaps have less to do with ethnicity or religion and more to do with realism about Moscow's ability to reassert full central control, and its tendency to neglect them other than to complain about tax revenues not reaching Moscow.
:IMO, "imperial" is a POV, & not necessarily a helpful, term for it, but i can understand someone choosing it to summarize these relevant "difficutlies" "difficulties". --Jerzy 13:42, 2003 Dec 15 (UTC)
: I've since noticed that on December 15, User:165.247.43.27 contributed the bold-face portion of this:
:: hampered by economic difficulties and continued imperial ambitions. 
: I note that this editor, based on the content and the similarity of the IP numbers, is likely to be the same as the the previous one, or someone connected closely to them.
: I've removed that contribution from the article, but moved it here for future attention.
In my opinion (IMO), the removed text, and similar future contributions, should come to this section of this Talk page until such time  as advocates for their inclusion in the History section of Russia point out, or provide, explanatory material, heavy on verifiable objective facts but also including coherant chains of reasoning from the facts to the controversial assertions involved. When that effort succeeds, i and other editors will turn into advocates for inclusion of at least substantial portions of that, and of contrary points of view that likely will emerge, with their own objective facts and chains of reasoning.
There is reason to believe that at least one editor inclined toward a Russian-imperial-matters slogan is less than fluent in English.  While i am not prepared to make specific commitments, i have some interest in the subject; i also have some insight into the difficulties of expressing complex matters in a foreign language, and am hopeful that these would make me useful to a non-native speaker of English in helping clarify and standardize their writing.  I hope for opportunities to do so on behalf of both advocates and opponents of the slogan. --Jerzy 08:52, 2003 Dec 17 (UTC)
: I started an article on Russia on et:, and therefore I went through the intro of this article. I commented on seas, because I found serious problems there. While I am currently not working on the et:Russia article, I put this article on my watchlist in order to see if anyone reacts to my comments. So I got aware of the edit "an imperial". I didn't realize the intention of that contributor, and I just registered that the edit did not made any sense in that particular form. 
: I think it's a fact that in Russian politics there are strong centripetal tendencies (especially under Putin), but describing them as "imperial" is an interpretation that can be questioned. And I think it's a fact that Russia is interested in having as much influence on other countries as possible. But again I am not sure this should be interpreted as imperialism.
: I think that in the main article there is no need to address these issues. But of course, they have a legitimate place in the articles "Poltics of Russia]], and maybe History of Russia. And even those articles will grow too long and require further splitting and so on. I think the main article should be kept as clear and factual as possible. Andres 10:20, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imperial Ambitions 

message: I have been trying to get someone to tell me if there is a Wikipedia standard for transliterating Russian names, but since no-one is able to advise me I am going to follow what seems to me the most sensible rule. In the name Будённый, I am going render ё as /yo/ rather than /e/ or /ye/, since that's how it's pronounced, and I'm going to render -ый as /y/ since /ii/, although orthographically correct, looks very pedantic. Thus it becomes /Budyonny/. If anyone wants to argue with me they are welcome. Adam 05:57, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an expert on Russian transliteration; I don't even speak the language. However, I've seen a lot of Russian transliterations that end with "-iy". Is this a standard transliteration of "-ый"? —Bkell 08:35, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Check out , it has a whole history of the issue, and links to various books. The variety of Google hits you're seeing is apparently just a hint of the contentiousness of the issue among scholars. Stan 15:19, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Transliteration of Russian names

message: Cantus wants to put accents on transliteration, and not on the Cyrillic text.  I have never seen a Russian transliteration with accents before. — Monedula 21:07, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have NEVER seen acute accents on Russian Cyrillic text, besides text books. And this is not a text book. I believe putting accents on the transliteration is a fair compromise. --Cantus 21:14, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So you have never seen a Russian encyclopedia in paper. And what can be wrong with the textbooks? At least, in Russian the acute accent always indicates the place of stress. But with the Latin-based scripts, acute accents may mean many different things. — Monedula 21:50, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Where to put accents?

message: I reverted the recent changes of some numbers by anon, because these things must be documented (e.g., like Andris did). Burden of proof is on changer, not on reader. I can put population 143,782,339. Prove that I am wrong! I say, CIA forgot to tally 3 more babies made by CIA spies in Russia. Not to say that to tally up to 1 person is silly, even for CIA. Mikkalai 15:27, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: Would you please settle this fight elsewhere?
--Gene s 07:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template //XXX infobox// revert war 

message: I removed the addition of information about an apparent exclave of Russia in Switzerland, because I couldn't find any verification of its existence, and in any case I think an exclave of 24 square metres (or was it supposed to be 24 square miles?) is not significant enough to be discussed in the section about the borders of the Russian state. Worldtraveller 11:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, there are few international sources talking about that exclave (e.g.: , p.  19). There is more knowledge of course in Switzerland itself, no idea about the Russian awareness. The exclave measures only 24 square meters, but is under full jurisdiction of Russia. Since most space is occupied by the monument anyway, there is no practical land use for Russia and it is rather a curiosity. Under this viewpoint I agree that it might not fit into the border section. El Suizo, 11:25, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Exclave in Switzerland

message: "most successful" is a point of view. "Wealthiest" is a fact. Prove that I am wrong. Mikkalai 17:46, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, wealthiest is objective and neutral. Worldtraveller 18:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: "Most successful" is not a point of view.  It means the person in question succeeded more than anyone else at something.  It doesn't mean it's a good thing.  We tend to think success is always a positive thing, but it's only positive if it's success at something positive. Superking 20:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I this context, it is a point of view of those who measure success in money. Quite a few people have different opinions. Yes, there are successful robbers. But a "successful businessman" is a person who created a succesful business. I disagree that his business was successful. Mikkalai 21:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most successful 

message: Isn't it right to move the page to Russian Federation?  Mikkalai 04:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that "Russia" is used more often than "Russian Federation". Additionally, Russian Constitution states that the names "Russia" and "Russian Federation" are equivalent. — Monedula 05:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: An anon (with no other contributions) recently changed their percentage in 2002 census fom 0.8% to 1.8%. I reverted, but I'd like someone to verify the numbers. mikka (t) 9 July 2005 01:31 (UTC)
:Most sources say 0.79% Armenians in the 2002 census. I have not seen any mentioning 1.8%. --Lysy (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenians

message: I find it amusing that of all foreign companies heavily investing in Russia only an alcoholic beverage company is mentioned. "Vodka, balalaika, matryoshka".... mikka (t) 16:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Economy

message: Under the Demographics section, is the order for the remaining ethnic groups based on population or is it just random? I suggest it changed to an alphabetical order or, if it is indeed in order of population, that it say so ("in order of population").
The list: 
Mordvins, Belarusians, Georgians, Avars, Kazakhs, Udmurts, Azerbaijanis, Maris, Germans, Evenks, Ingushes, Inuit, Kalmyks, Karelians, Koreans, Chinese, Ossetians, Dolgan Nenetses, Tuvans, Yakuts and still others
--Sir Edgar 08:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And 10% seems really huge chunk for "others". Does anyone have access to some more specific data for the Demographics of Russia article ? --Lysy (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

text: As a sidenote: 1% still makes much above a million, which can be quite significant minority, especially if concentrated in a smaller region. --Lysy (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic groups in Russia 

message: Another typical wikipedia anti-Russian propaganda - how is it possible that section Corruption in this article bigger then section Culture? If you hate Russians so much just forget about them - delete this article. Believe me, nobody in Russia is interested in your opinion, we know who you are.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.173.131 (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete this article