Talk:Territorial evolution of Russia

message: There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this entry except it does not adequaltely cover ALL non-Russian territories of the empire.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.49.146 (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Russian Colonialism-term used in history to specific conditions and actions of Russian Empire that are similiar in form to colonialism in different parts of the world.
Article should be improved, deletion isn't right for widely used term.
Russian Identity, Nationalism, Colonialism and Postcolonialism
Ewa M. Thompson, Professor of Slavic Studies, Rice University
http://www.postcolonialweb.org/poldiscourse/ewt/1.html
I shall try to expand article. My country suffered from Russian Colonialism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomLis (talk • contribs) 16:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, I will wait a week, as you requested before submitting it for deletion. --Irpen 17:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian Colonialism 

message: This article seems to be centered solely upon Ukraine (with little accuracy). How about the conditions in other parts of the Russian Empire?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.97.122 (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about other regions? 

message: Colonization and colonialism are two distinct phenomenon and should not be confused. Everywhere it occurs colonialism brings changes. Marx considered it a necessary evil on the path to modernization. Views of leaders and historians of the imperial powers must not overshadow the views of the colonized who were not always of a difference colour than the colonizer.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.247.106 (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  COLONIALISM IS NOT COLONIZATION 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: As I post this, the Table of changes is not in true chronological order. Some years are out of correct sequence. If there is not a reason for this, other than error, a regular editor here is encouraged to fix it. 5Q5 (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of changes - some dates not in sequence 

message: For some strange reason the era from 1939 to 1941 seems to be missing from the article. The Soviet Union (representing Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution) invade/occupied in part or in total the countries of Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania during that period. Is there some ulterior motive, why this isn't mentioned in the article? --105.0.4.229 (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  1939-1941 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Should the city’s name be spelled Kiev or Kyiv in the text of this article.? —Michael Z. 21:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *Re: History of Kyiv, compare with the History of Lviv which uses both Lwów and Lviv. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  And Lemberg. Interesting. But two of those are different foreign names with different pronunciation, not just an alternate English spellings. Anyway, based on what do we determine which spelling to use where? Ukrainian was official in Soviet Ukraine, and Russian was discouraged in the 1920s, but then colonial Russification suppressed Ukrainian for much of the time after that. Or shall we use other contemporary English spellings like Kiow, Kiovia, and Kief? —Michael Z. 17:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's how reliable sources refer to them, then yes. But they don't, and you know that, it's a red herring.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are re-arguing the RM of the main article. I guess you mean to apply it to some exceptional cases, but what is the rationale for that? Please explain why the argument you have given here means that the preferred spelling of the city’s name should not be used in, for example, Declaration of Independence of Ukraine. —Michael Z. 18:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

text: You’re the one who wants the change, its incumbent on you to explain why, not me.—Ermenrich (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I spelled the city’s name Kyiv because the article is entitled Kyiv. I think it’s incumbent on Ymblanter to explain why he reverted a self-explanatory improvement to the article (“clear disruption, historical usage have not been discussed”), and I don’t believe anyone has satisfactorily done so. —Michael Z. 19:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did already many times, in particular, several times at this page, but you do not hear--Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your link has an I in it. What does that stand for? —Michael Z. 19:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC about the spelling of a specific place name to use here 

message: Regarding this edit - I dont understand the justification here. "We do not have a separate page for the USSR" does not make sense as a justification to me. An article is supposed to serve as a collection for relevant information as it pertains to a particular subject, I don't believe it is a collection of random information Wikipedia lacks an article on.PailSimon (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This article should clearly define its scope, and have the title, intro, and content reflect this. Is the subject the territorial evolution of Russia (including the RSFSR), or of Russia and the Soviet Union? In any case, edits to the article content should clearly distinguish these things. It’s not 1921 any more. —Michael Z. 18:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Modern Russia is also not the same as the Russian Empire. The clarification is certainly welcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Well, it says "The borders of Russia changed through military conquests and by ideological and political unions in the course of over five centuries (1533–present).", Present. I think this page can be developed this way. My very best wishes (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflation of the USSR with Russia 

message: This is a subject that needs good maps, and I think the ones currently used have a number of problems.  
# First off, the main "Expansion of Russia (1300–1945)" map.  Why do the different regions use different colour schemes?  I don't see any real benefit from it, and I think it makes it harder to judge the timeline of the expansion, because it means areas absorbed at similar times may have very different colours and shades.  
# The "Territorial development of the Grand Duchy of Moscow between 1390 and 1533" needs a key on the map itself.  If you click on it, you do get a key in the description, but the colours don't match those on the map.
# The "Russian expansion in Eurasia between 1533 and 1894" does what I think the previous two maps should do (has a key on the map itself, and uses clear colours for different eras), but the key obscures some of the baltic territory, and the image quality is terrible (most of the place names are illegible).
# The other maps in the "Table of Changes" could also be improved.  I think they would be most useful if they highlighted the newly gained territory and (in a different colour) the existing territory.  Some do that, but most either only show the new territory, or show it on a map of current Russia borders. Iapetus (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps