Talk:Russia/Archive 2

message: Currently the sidebar has some ridiculous statement about the date Russia gained "independence" from the USSR.  That makes absolutely no sense, and is ahistorical.  Everyone knows that the USSR was a de facto Russian state (in terms of power, influence, politics, etc), and to say that Russia declared independence from itself is a farce.  It's like saying the Austro-Hungarian Empire declared independence from the Holy Roman Empire in the early 1800s, when the capital of both was Vienna.  The capital of both the USSR and Russia was Moscow.  Seriously, people, let's get this corrected.  Russia did not declare independence, but recognized that its periphery states were leaving the union.  It's like West Germany declaring independence from Nazi Germany.  It's ridiculous.  --74.104.113.26 04:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be too scrupulous. If Ukraina, Belarus, etc. gained independence -- what, Russia failed to do it? 12 June, Day of Russia, from 1994 to 1998 was celebrated as "Day of Indipendence". As far as I know, nuclear rockets were spread across all territory of the USSR. Such gen. secretaries of USSR like Stalin and Khruschev were certainly not of Russian origin. Etc, etc. Russia is no more of USSR, than Ukraina or Georgia. Otherwise -- they all, taken alltogether formed the USSR, and you may even hear from people "My homeland is not Russia. My homeland was USSR". 193.233.36.12 16:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Independence" from USSR

message: Is there an accepted definition of "maritime border"? I don't see how Russia can be said to have a maritime border with Canada (presumably across the Arctic Ocean) but not with, say Sweden (from Kaliningrad Oblast across the Baltic Sea), Bulgaria and Turkey (across the Black Sea), Iran and Turkmenistan (across the Caspian Sea), and Greenland (also across the Arctic Ocean). Until someone can define "maritime border" I'm recasting the sentence and excluding Canada. --Angr/ 09:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Angr, your correction makes total sense to me, I think yours is a very good way to put it in the main article. May be listing of all those borders, which you made out quite accurately (oh, only perhaps need to add in Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany?) - may be such list belongs to Geography of Russia rather? As for the definition of "maritime border", before we get a hold of a mariner or a coastguard or a diplomat :) - might it simply be part of the border which runs the coastline or extends into the sea waters :) (the tricky part of course, all those demarkations, customs, different statuses, brrr-br)  - Introvert talk 06:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I excluded Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Poland because they're already mentioned as countries having a land border with Russia. I know how I would define "maritime border" if it were up to me: according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a country's territorial waters extended 22 kilometers from the shore; therefore two countries could be said to share a "maritime border" if they are separated by less than 44 kilometers of water. But that's my made-up definition, not an established one AFAIK. --Angr/ 12:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it'd be interesting to find out, thanks for clarifying. I previously thought that in the intro, it was okay to have used "maritime border" á la common sense because to a layman (like me) it'd simply state that this country faces another over sea waters. In the special "borders" section or article, an accurate definition would be used. You did both - avoided loose usage and made the intro even more clear - Introvert talk 03:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a layman in such matters too, and my common sense said I can see how Russia can be said to share a "maritime border" with the U.S. and Japan, but not Canada. That would be like saying the U.S. shares a "maritime border" with Portugal and Morocco, which strikes me as just silly. --Angr/ 06:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I am having a hard time seeing how Russia can be said to have close borders with the United States (Alaska, I presume), but not Canada. Russia and Canada basically face each other across the ice over the pole, and are quite contiguous, thank you. It's just that people aren't used of thinking of the polar projection when seeing a map of the Earth. I'm putting Canada back into the list, and if anyone wants to contest this, we can discuss it on this page.32.97.110.142 19:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based upon that statement, you could say that the United States has maritime borders with China or New Zealand (across the Pacific Ocean, just as Russia and Canada "border" each other across the Arctic Ocean. The only difference here is quantitative, not qualitative). There have to be limitations on distance from land in this definition, whether it be 22 kilometers, three miles, twelve miles, or whatever. If there are none, then we will get into ridiculous examples such as these. Backspace 08:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: But these are both just claims, as no other nations have recognized Canada's or Russia's claim to the North Pole.  One can say that their claimed maritime territories touch @ the north pole, but I don't think it would be proper to state that their maritime territories have common borders.  Also, that border would only be a point.  --chris 00:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An international court did indeed rule in the 1950s that if it wasn't legally contested, the extension of Canada up to the North Pole would become international law within a hundred years. And it hasn't been officially contested so far, in 50 years or so. And about the border being a point, I checked another famous example (the Four Corners in the United States), and mention is made that each of the 4 states at least touch one another at this point (in each State's WP article this fact is mentioned). --Ramdrake 17:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Maritime border"

message: In Russia#Spatial extent, the following is not clear:
: It is also often mentioned that the Russian federation spans eleven time zones. However, this is confusing because the points which are furthest separated in longitude are "only" 6,600 km (4,100 mi) apart along a geodesic.
I'd say it requires an explanation of why it is confusing.--Imz 19:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also often mentioned that Antarctica (which is smaller than Russia) spans 24 time zones. I don't know how far apart its extremities are along a geodesic, but I don't find this to be confusing. Backspace 21:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear paragraph

message: What was the point of putting in this information? Sure, other people want to know, but is there any point? If anything, please at least make that longer. That is a stud that needs serious work. Thanks.
:"That is a stud that needs serious work." That's what she said!  WHOO! --The Amazing Superking 21:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian "Names"

message: Was looking over the article, and I came across this paragraph:
"Like in the Balkans and Asia Minor long-lasting nomadic rule retarded the country's economic and social development. Asian autocratic influences degraded many of the country's democratic institutions and affected its culture and economy in a very negative way."
Isn'this a bit non-objective? It also seems very euro-centric and disrespectful for Asian people all over. I'll watch this page and see if it's changed, and what the discussion is. What does everyone think?
::::Danil, Russia: I think it's true. The Mongol Yoke that lasted for 300 years left a huge and very negative legacy. Mongols didn't directly impose their wild asian lifeslyle. But they did one thing - they brought Muscovy to power. And Muscovy, which was a very backwards and agressive Russian dukedom, took over all the rest Russian more developed dukedoms and killed Russia's European features.
:I don't think it's objective and the above statement is just reflective of the bias within Russia or in Western commentators on Russia. -- Simonides 04:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Objectivity

message: Hello. I keep discovering acute accents placed systematically on the letter following the stressed vowel transliterations from cyrillic script, and not the vowel itself. Please participate in this discussion — as yet, only my humble opinion has been voiced). //Big Adamsky 23:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Emphasis markers in transliterations

message: "See wiktionary: Russia for the name in various languages. 
Main article: Etymology of Rus and derivatives. 
The name of the country derives from the name of the Rus' people. The origin of the people itself and of their name is a matter of controversy."
No this is not a matter of controversy in the west its fully accepted and considered as a fact that the rus people came from sweden, "the matter of controversy" only exist in Russia mostly amongst russian nationalist that simple cant accept the fact that sweden actually did have some influence in russia (what was to become russia) when are russian nationalists going to give up this silly issue? my question is since theres no evidence what so ever that the rus peoples origin derives from elsewhere then Sweden, is it ok for me to make some minor edits maybe even delete? /Oskar
: Нет ни каких "фактов" о происхождении всех современных народностей на европейской территории Древней Евразии, только теории на основании обрывочных сведений. Так что всё правильно написано. =) /Rep.
: There are no "facts" about the origin of all contemporary national character in the European territory of ancient Eurasia, only theory on the basis of scrappy information. So "is a matter of controversy". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.222.223.26 (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: The Russians didn't build Nuclear Silo's at Cuba, it was the paranoia of the USA which made everyone think that and the Russians played on this and got the USA to withdraw its nuclear silos from Turkey in the process. Overal, thanks to paranoia of the Americans, Russians made themselves safer.
        Of course. The u.s. establishes nukes in Turkey --> Russia 
        established nukes in Cuba. Only fair.
        -G
             Curse my typo*  Russian nuclear silos are either classed as a myth to get USA to withdraw theirs from turkey, or the pending danger stopped within 13 seconds by a russian submarine commander who had to decide either or not cuba should fire the silos.
The Russians didn't have nuclear silos, but they did have nukes pointing at the US in Cuba.  They were just mobile missile launchers.  The movie "13 Days" does a good job portraying this crisis.
: Russian missiles been delivered to Cuba ONLY AFTER U.S. missiles been installed in Turkey and pointed to Russia. When Khrushev found out what there are new nukes with flight time only 8 minutes he was mad and order to answer with sending nukes to Cuba.
::Politically speaking, while it seems to be tit-for-tat the missiles in Turkey were not only outdated, but had been there a while and had maintained the balance of power. The balance was so delicate putting missiles in Cuba- even if the US already had missiles in Turkey like it did- was upsetting the balance of power. So while the missiles in Cuba might have been "fair," they were still extremly dangerous to both nations because of their effect on the balance of power. Though in the end I think everyone prospered from the move, the situation provided hope that there could be cooperation between the two powers.--JaymzRR 21:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cuba Crisis

message: There seems an inconsistency here, the page stated that Ivan III was the first to assume the title Tsar. However, officially it seems Ivan IV is the first Tsar of Russia.
:Which section are you talking about? Maybe it has been fixed. Ivan III was the first really to use the title (there are some older references, see Tsar), his son Vasili III also used it. However, Vasili III's son, Ivan IV, was the first to be officially crowned as the Tsar of Russia.--JaymzRR 21:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tsar of Russia

message: In the demographics section it say "Despite her comparatively high population, Russia has a low average population density due to its enormous size."  Why does it say "her"?  Shouldn't it say "Despite its comparatively. . ."?—This unsigned comment was added by 24.118.200.30 (talk • contribs) .
:Because the word "Russia" in feminine in Russian, and that particular passage was most likely edited by a Russian person.  I made a correction.  Thanks for catching this mistake!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was the one who made the it->she change. I even left the suggestion to hang here for a week or so before introducing the change. I think there were 4 changes in total. The reason was me seeing many English sources using the feminine pronoun. Looks like it's only used in patriotic speeches and such, though. Well, I'll revert the rest now, I guess... --Illythr 22:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess part of the anon's problem was that pronouns "her" and "its", both referring to Russia, were used in the same sentence.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 22:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gender language use

message: The following should sourced if it's to be re-inserted.  I wonder if predictions really belong anyway.
* In 2006, predicted 7.2%. It is the third highest predicted economic growth after China and India.  Dlyons493 Talk 21:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economy

message: The economy prospects section could do with rewriting by someone who knows this better than me. At the moment it is unbalanced, its positives not being balanced by the negatives, so it reads like a succession of disparate (sometimes questionable) statements Rmcubed 01:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economy prospects

message: I am reverting my edits. Low value chronological links are deprecated on Wikipedia. It's considered rude to revert another editor's edits without giving a proper edit summary or discussing in talk as I am doing here. Guinnog 15:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My edits

message: Why does 'Novaya Russia' redirect to this page. Novaya Russia is a fictional futuristic version of Russia found in the computer game Empire Earth and therefore this article contains no information on it. Maybe Novaya Russia should have its own page?Sam 11:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was fixed.  Although it could probably be made into a dab, including both Empire Earth and Novorossiya references.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Novaya Russia

message: What's wrong with having the square miles here, as well as the standard units? I certainly wouldn't call it vandalism to add this info. Guinnog 19:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Units

message: The article says nothing about "religion", "church" or "orthodox". Surely that information is both available and relevant. Charles Ulysses Farley 07:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: added link to the religion in russia. -- tasc talkdeeds 07:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Formed a "Religion" section right next to "Culture" and linked to the main Religion in Russia article.--Son of thunder 18:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Information on religion needed

message: After making my recent edit, replacing the list "(Hungary, Italy, Croatia, Finland, Romania and Slovakia)" by a general reference to Axis Powers, it came to my mind that an article or a section somewhere that tabulates the Eastern Front of Russia will be handy. Format: 
:Country--From--To--Forces---Losses
In addition to the listed above it would include Bulgaria and Spain (unofficial, but bloody bastards) (and Germany, of course). Any other combatants in Russian lands? 
Also what would be the title? Kind of World War II invaders of the USSR ? `'mikka (t) 19:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Japain? Russian army did fight and won against Japainese army. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dsazonov (talk • contribs) 15:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who fought USSR in WWII

message: I think a bit of information about Russia's current form of government (legislature, courts, etc.) should be inserted. Currently, the only way you'd know what kind of government Russia has is if you happen to click on History:Post-Soviet Russia:See also "Politics of Russia." Would someone be willing to write up a section/summary on this? Thanks. -HiFiGuy 18:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information you are looking for is available in this article, which, of course, should be featured more prominently than in the back of the history section of the main article.  Hope it helps.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 18:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Government

message: On the page, the name "Conor" or something to that effect is blanketed across the page. I can't see it inthe edit page, so can someone else fix it? Thanks, A. Rand-Om, I.P.
Hmm, I kind of wonder, if it's possible to keep watch over the number of times "Ancient Rus" is changed to "Ancient Russia" each month DESPITE the warning right beside it urging not to do so. It would make an interesting "Dumbass counter" for userpages... --Illythr 14:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this should be expanded to say "Ancient Russia (Rus)" or "Rus Era." or something other than "Ancient Rus". People edit it because it looks confusing/wrong, and doesn't make much sense. LeviathanMist 21:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May be "Ancient Rus (Древняя Русь, Drevnya Rus)"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.222.223.26 (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it looks confusing then they don't know what they are editing and shouldn't be doing so anyway. An appropriate replacement would be Kieven Rus, but that would hardly fix the problem. I've seen (Rus) with an apostrophe after it (Rus'), perhaps placing that (though I do not know if that is actually appropriate) would help curb some of the confussion. Or perhaps, someone could create a snipet article on Rus, and by making Rus a link people would not only be able to click it for an explanation on the name, but also be less inclined to edit it. I am new to Wiki though so perhaps that wouldn't be appropriate.--JaymzRR 10:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandals!

message: User 70.88.220.17, in a recent revision, changed the listing of Russia's Motto from "None" to "Live free or die."  "Live Free or Die" is the Motto of the US State of New Hampshire, not of the Russian Federation, and considering the discrepancy between those two entities, this seems like vandalism rather than a mistake or, on the offchance, correct.  Any objections to changing the Motto listing back to "None"?DougOfDoom talk 19:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That, of course, was vandalism.  Thanks for noticing this; it looks like it slipped through the cracks and was not reverted in time.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Motto (Russia is not New Hampshire)

message: Russia celebrate two independence days - 12 june (Russia Day) from USSR and 4 november (Unify Day) from Poles. It should be noted in article. Elk Salmon 12:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it your own conclusion that the National Unity Day may be classified as an independence day? If it is so, please beware of original research. I'm not aware of any independence days in Russia, as I am not of Russia's dependence on any foreign country, since 1380 at least. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is de facto independence day, celebrating liberating of muscovy from polish control. This day is official federal holiday. Elk Salmon 15:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  you're wrong. -- tasc talkdeeds 17:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  explain please Elk Salmon 08:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not. Poles were constrolling capital and tryed to install own power. There was also several centuries long occupation of Ukraine and Belarus. Union day is beggining of liberation. It's clearly independence as well as Russia day.Elk Salmon 14:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  yes, they did controlled half of the capital for very short period of time. But the main problem there wasn't "foreign rule", but rather just general mess and ununity in the society. Therefore, new holiday is not about "freedom from Poles" but about "end of disunity" or "end of dark times" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dsazonov (talk • contribs) 15:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Independence days

message: In Russia there are 0.41 percent Germans (a lot of immigrated to Germany). But I would like to know following: 
In witch area in the Russian Federation (Russische Föderation) are living the most Germans? In the Republik of Komi, Volga-Valley (new settlements), Ural, Omsk, Altai ...? 
i hope that here is sombody to answer my question!? Thank You! Simon
:And I hope at the same time the article History of Germans in Russia and the Soviet Union will be updated accordingly. 
:BTW, :ru:Русские немцы contains more info about modern Russian Germans than the English version. Any volunteers to cross-sync the wikis? `'mikka (t) 17:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Germans in Russia (Rußlanddeutsche)

message: Ok, dumb question, but a genuine one. What I mean is, if Russia is in Europe, does, say Vladivostock have representation of any kind in European affairs, given that it is in a country that seems to define itself as being European, yet the city is geographically in Far Eastern Asia. Martyn Smith 21:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My studies have led me to conclude Russia does not have a simple identity (like many countries in the globalized world of today), especially one that is going to be backed up by a definitive source worthy of Wikipedia. Though most countries don't pose the same geographical ambiguity, the racial and ethnic diversity of many countries rivals that of Russia's. On a purely personal level Martyn (like others pointed out) it's going to depend on who you ask. As for Wikipedia it would probably be inappropriate to state any such identity, unless referencing the identity controversy itself (which probably wouldn't fit real well on Wikipedia anyway).--JaymzRR 10:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What continent is Russia in?

message: Why is Russia's HDI 0.809 now?  In the List of countries by Human Development Index, the 62nd spot is filled by Russia, with an HDI of 0.795, medium.  It says that it's 0.795 at , too.  This page said that was 0.795 until recently, when it was changed.  Is it really 0.809 now, or did somebody make a mistake? BirdValiant 01:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, nevermind. BirdValiant 05:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scratch that, somebody changed it to even higher, at 0.810.  Why? BirdValiant 18:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Human Development Index

message: Hello. The article on the last Grand Duchess of Imperial Russia, Olga Alexandrovna Romanova, is complete of facts, biographical information, and is furthermore packed with the needed information. Now the information and technical matters within the article must be resolved in order to promote the article to Featured Article status. Thank you for your time and please visit the article here (Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia) and make comments on how to improve the article at its Wikipedia: Peer Review page here: . Thanks again. -- AJ24 23:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia

message: This may seem irrelevant to the article, but in a way it is relevant. I have a friend in Russia, and she says that her age is 27 when she was born in 1980. According to my calculations, she should be 26. Do Russians calculate age differently, as do some Asian cultures? If they do, that would be a relevant point to add somewhere to the Russia article or to a related article. Chris53516 01:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. :) --ajvol 08:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Serbia at least, people express their age in two ways: a baby who is born, say, a year and a half ago is one year old (godinu dana stara), but entered second year of its life (u drugoj godini). The first way is the most common but the second could be used as well (especially with people who wish to enlarge their age - someone 89 years old would most likely say that he is in 90th year). Maybe Chris' friend refered to something similar. Nikola 20:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the same is in Russia ("dva goda", "vtoroy god"). But it is not common. (Except years in calendar, so now is 2006th year "dvetisyachishestoy god", so Christ is 2005 and half years old). --ajvol 09:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think these explanations sound right. Thanks for helping me understand another culture! Chris53516 13:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added it to ageing :) Nikola 20:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian Birthdays

message: Is the Veto on Kosovo's status true? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if UNO will contrive the unique law for Kosovo and all self-proclaimed republics . Yes, if UNO will decide that Kosovo - unique case.Tavork 14:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ^+1. It's simply. Kosovo pays for idependence of Prednestrovie, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Plus there are Latgalia and Crimea. For Russia it is Kosovo and all others or nobody. Elk Salmon 14:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Latgalia and Crimea? I doubt that this territories will hold  referendums on independence or addition to Russia some time. They are really parts of Latvia and Ukraine in contrast to self-proclaimed republics. Tavork 19:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about Russia's inner separatist factions? --HolyRomanEmperor 16:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  The Serbian Republic in Bosnia and Herzegovina claims that it will follow the self-determination movement, support Kosovo's independence (in case of its declaration) and secede itself. Despite this is supported by none, not even Serbia - over 80% wants an independent Serb Republic and its entire government. Were there any talks in Russia regarding this? --HolyRomanEmperor 16:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Both. --PaxEquilibrium 14:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia's opinion on Kosovo? 

message: on whereabouts is their or there is an irrigation system for Russia to center in the polar ice caps.  you could also make a game console or build factories to make automobiles. your army is very strong but lacks the determination of money.  LIKE personal handguns, sleath helicopters, and nuclear fuel into rocket fuel for a space race.  i am merely a man but i can help you in anyway possiBle.  screen for. help. and make it for me. 216.109.11.130 07:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Technology

message: Someone vandalized the area where the flag is supposed to be. This article should be locked.
68.49.46.220 01:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I requested protection, but it was denied. Apparently it's not enough activity to warrant it. Chris53516 13:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism and locking page

message: The article on Viktor Khristenko, a former Prime Minister of Russia, could really use some expansion with references. His Prime Ministership is not yet mentioned. I added a little on his time as Energy Minister, but thats just within the last week or so. DRK 21:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Viktor Khristenko

message: I've reverted to the version of this article at 14:24, 3 October 2006 by Ezhiki. The reason why is because  turned out to be a confirmed sockpuppet of the permabanned user Bonaparte. Per WP:BAN, "any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves". I apologize if I reverted other people's edits as well, but when I checked the edit history, it seemed the majority of non-РКП edits were vandalism reverts. Please re-add anything important that has been deleted. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 01:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your deletion of the economy was bad, if you remove those things and someone dosent revert you then I will The Green Fish 13:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: A guideline on whether or not to italicize Cyrillics (and all scripts other than Latin) is being debated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Italics in Cyrillic and Greek characters. - - Evv 16:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics in Cyrillics 

message: I'd say that the whole section is unsourced and contains a good degree of Russian-friendly/Russian-centric POV. I've dissected its contents and below is what I think of it.
From that section:
:Encouraging foreign investment is also a major challenge due to legal, some cultural, linguistic, economic and political peculiarities of the country.
I'd shorten it to
:Encouraging foreign investment to Russia is a challenge due to corruption.
Next sentence:
:Nevertheless, there has been a significant inflow of capital in recent years from many European investors attracted by cheaper land, labor and higher growth rates than in the rest of Europe.
Usage of "Europe" and "European" is vague, because it is not clear which part of Europe is actually kept in mind; See below for more.
A good source (or many) about "higher growth rates than in the rest of Europe" is very much desired for. An economy like that of Russia is certainly bound to grow anyway, as it has been through a great slump throughout the 1990's, while "the rest of Europe" sounds vague, because Europe consists of many countries, some of those belonging to the continent of Europe, some of those in the European Economic Area, some of those in the EU, some of those in the Eurozone and all of these constructs/entities have different economic indicators, depending on each individual country's economy and how they are put together in those constructs/entities. The countries' economies are different and cannot be taken with just one slant. See Economy of Europe#Regional variation.
For example, Eurozone countries have high living standards and stable economies (see :Image:European Union GDP per_capita.png), but relatively small growth rates. EU countries in the Eastern Europe lack such high living standards countrywide, but their high growth rates are attributed to their catching-up to wealthy Eurozone countries (see Economy of the European Union#Economic growth). European countries in Eastern and Southern Europe that are not in the EU are very much poorer (see List of European countries by GDP per capita), either because they just emerged from wars or from communism and/or from dictatorship.
Continued:
:Amazingly high levels of education and societal involvement achieved by the majority of the population, including women and minorities, secular attitudes, mobile class structure, better integration of various minorities in the mainstream culture set Russia far apart from the majority of the so-called developing countries and even some developed nations.
*"Amazingly high levels of education" is supported by the article of Education in Russia, but it contains numerous unsourced statements.
*"Amazingly high levels of societal involvement..." Please anyone explain what "societal involvement" in Russia really means. Considering recent history, societal involvement as I understand it is at a rate of being curbed (Human rights in Russia,  & ).
*The word "Amazing" should be replaced with something that sounds more professional, otherwise it will read more like an advertisement.
From the sentence:
:...High levels of education and societal involvement achieved by [...] minorities
*"...High levels of [...] societal involvement" is also a vague description, because it may also mean "involvement in society (or societies) on a high level".
*The minorities are not specified, so please anyone bring sourced examples of minorities that have achieved "high levels of [...] societal involvement", because it's not clear as to which minorities have achieved such high levels and which have not.
*In addition, the minorities in question should be defined, whether they be based on race or ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, age or disability.
:*While Russia does not have gender parity similar to that in Nordic countries, then women's issues appear to be on a satisfactory level.
:*Recent news about Russia with regards to Georgia, the Caucasus, ethnic and racial minorities within and outside of Russia are not very well-saying about how the respective minorities are treated in that country.
:*Russia is a conservative country wrt gay rights (Gay rights in Russia#Modern Russia). The mentioned article indicates that the society in Russia is not yet ready to accept sexual minorities.
From the sentence:
:High levels of education, [...] including mobile class structure [...] set Russia apart...
What does "mobile class structure" exactly mean? Is there a better way to explain it?
From the sentence:
:...Better integration of various minorities in the mainstream culture
Here I should point out that it may mean what it says it means, but it may also also mean "better integration of various minorities into the culture of the mainstream". As far as I see it, it may not mean "better integration of various minorities with non-minorities", but "better integration of variuos minorities in popular culture" — minorities in televised and humour stage-shows/plays, humourists, (popular) singers and their performances and the like. So someone viewing Russian television might see minorities there performing or partaking in television shows, but this does not reflect how Russian society regards many minorities in real life.
In some Russian contexts, integration may instead be an official euphemism for assimilation, where dual uses of these words may be more a part of cultural imperialism. See also Russification, where coersive use of it internally in a country can then be claimed to result in "...Better integration of various minorities in the mainstream culture."
From the sentence:
:...set Russia far apart from the majority of the so-called developing countries and even some developed nations.
*The whole sentence smells of exceptionalism — in that Russia, in this case, is posited by way of one or many factors as set apart from other countries. The article on ethnocentrism said that nearly all nations feel that they have aspects which are uniquely valuable. Just that in this case, here was a purported fact, which has not been explained in depth and/or sourced in WP.
*"...so-called developing countries..." — this appears to deride the use of the phrase "developing countries". Adding to that, the countries are not specified and it is not clear which countries Russia sees as developing countries and how it sees itself.
Conclusion. PR that very much in tone leans towards supporting everything that is current in Russia, whatever its values.
Nevertheless, smarter people can read between the lines and I'd rather see good-natured results — that is, text with a neutral point of view — out of discussions and debates in here.
-Banikstark 05:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section: Prospect 

message: Please notice the questions a little upwards regarding Kosovo.
Also, has Russia any opinion at all on Bosnia's difficult status? --PaxEquilibrium 14:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kosovo/Serbia 

message: Would someone be so kind and delet the following nonsense?:
The descendants of the Imperial line are all members of the Princedom of Schwarzenberg (House of Schwarzenberg) in Germany and the Czech Republic. They no longer have any control in Russia, but continue to style themselves Imperial Highnesses as is their right under International Law. [citation needed)
Thank you
--80.95.254.1 06:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, so will delete. It would seem to belong to an article on the Romanovs, not an article of this length on Russia.
Rmcubed 00:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schwarzenberg 

message: The self declared republic of Transnistria between Moldova and Ukraine recently held a referendum that upheld its de-facto independence and a desire to have closer connections with Russia whom it sees as a protector from Modova which still claims Transnistria as its territory. Despite fighting awar to win its freedom and despite 97% of its population voting for independence the little state is currently under blockade by Moldova and ukraine, The Transnistrian page has been locked after repeated vandalism by Pro Moldovan interests. There is currently a very active and heated debate regarding the content for the main page and anyone interested in assisting in this would be welcome. Mark us street Nov 24th 2006
:This debate is at Talk:Transnistria. Jpeob 03:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transnistria

message: Could someone make an animated map showing the expansion of Russia throughout the 1000s to the present day.
:The Reference Desk:Humanities is the place to ask such a question. Even so, History of Russia has a number of maps showing expansion. One such map is :Image:1533-1896.jpg.gif, showing expansion from the 16th to 19th centuries. Jpeob 03:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: One of the major flaws, however, is the absence of inline references. I should like to see this article improved to the featured article standards one day... Cmapm 13:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images here are great!

message: I just found out that the comparison between Kosovo and Abkhazia could not be made (referring to the question I asked before) - two very different situations. In Kosovo it is Yugoslavia (Serbia?) which is accused for conducting massive (planned, organized?) ethnic cleansings and not the Kosovar government. So even if Kosovo becomes an independent state, the standard would be different for Abkhazia (I think). Although, I am not familiar with the South-Ossetian situation. Could anyone fill me in? --PaxEquilibrium 18:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely same situation. Albanians in Kosovo want to be independent. So as Abkhaz in Abkhazia, Ossetians in Ossetia and Slavics in Prednestrovie. Elk Salmon 06:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in Kosovo Albanians were a 90% majority, in Abkhazia before the war Abkazians were ~30% minority. On the other hand the fact that Abkazians were minority in their own country was a result of a deliberate policy of Stalin and even the Imperial government. Alex Bakharev 07:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree. To be precise, Abkhazia was a very ethnically mixed [with no majority] region with a barely 18% Abkhaz populace and Kosovo, an ethnically diverse region with an about 80% being Albanians. I think we can agree that South Ossetia deserves a more similar treatment - but then again. the contradiction is that we have a truce in O. and A. is practically independent (and Kosovo is not a very long way far from A.'s case) --PaxEquilibrium 21:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure, not. Why? MaxiMaxiMax 06:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abkhaz 

message: I searched everywhere, but couldn't find anything. Someone should add more animal information. I'll get Russian animal info later on and add it.Thylacine lover 02:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't there any animal information here? 

message: News
http://mosnews.com/news/2007/01/04/harevishnu.shtml
Chanakyathegreat 16:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient Vishnu Idol Can Change View on Russian History 

message: The text that has been inserted at the top of the Ancient Rus section is problematic. First of all, it is discussing the early prehistoric humans and not the Rus tribe so obviously it does not belong here. Second, it unfortunately needs to be rewritten. Besides the grammar and spelling requiring cleanup the description is incomprehensible missing details to understand what is being explained.
I would tend to say that, since the history section on this page is supposed to only be a summary of what is on the History of Russia page these prehistoric details are probably not appropriate on this page anyway. Not being a regular contributor on this topic, though, I don't want to be the one to remove anybody else's work.
--Mcorazao 21:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New stuff in Ancient Rus history section 

message: Just out of Curiosity, where is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by say1988 (talk • contribs) 
:Just out of Curiosity, wWhere did you find this in the article? --Illythr 15:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the article when the comment was posted it says, "Russia shares land borders with the following countries (counter-clockwise from northwest to southeast): United States, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia, and North Korea." Just because it was changed since then doen't mean you should be rude about it.say1988 00:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah I see, you mean this anon edit. It actually remained unnoticed for a while and was indeed removed after your initial comment. I therefore withdraw my snide remark and would like to apologise, for it was undeserved. --Illythr 01:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  land border with the US 

message: nothing about military power?? Cliché Online 18:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WTF?

message: In the introductory paragraph, Russia's land area is given only in kilometers squared. I have no idea what this means (nor do any of my compatriots), and I would greatly appreciate someone posting the figure in miles so that we could understand it.
SwedishConqueror 23:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yield to the power of the SI! Resistance is futile! Muahaha...ahem. Sorry, couldn't resist the base urge. 17,075,400 square kilometres equals 6,592,846.0908 square miles. If you examine the country infobox more closely, you may see that the area in miles is already there. Hmm, it's a bit off, though... --Illythr 01:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Say What?

message: I think people are confused between Russia and the Russian Federation.The Russian Federation consists of Russia and the terrories it controls.(note:I am not reffering to the soviet union)
For example take Siberia or Tartarstan.They are autonomous territories within the Russian Federation but they are not Russia itself.
The Tartars are citizens of the Russian Federation.They are not ethnicly Russian at all.
Some specific better examples are:
*The French guiana in South America.It is under french rule but it is not France itself.
*The Ottoman empire consisted of Turkey and the territories it conrols.It would be wrong to say that Greece used to be Turkey.Greece lived under Ottoman (or Turkish) rule.It was not Turkey itself.
The same logic applies here.If you take away all the atonomous territories of the Russian Federation,we are left with only Russia.
Seprate articles for Russia (excluding the non-Russian territories it controls) and the Russian Federation should be made.Nadirali نادرالی
:Wikipedia is not a place for original research.  In either case, I don't suppose you are able to come up with reliable sources supporting your views?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  misconception of russia 

message: "Russian Federation is divided into 86 federal subjects. Each federal subject is a constituent part of the Federation."
The number 86 is not entirely accurate - according to the official Russian government website (http://www.gov.ru/main/regions/regioni-44.html) there are 89 subjects: the oblasts are 49 instead of 48 and the okrugs are 9 instead of 7. If I understand correctly why the number is 86 on the site, the reason is that 3 subjects are about to disappear in the future. However, not all of the "mergers" have been approved through referenda yet and even if they pass the number will not be 86 for about another year. 
If I am wrong I would like to find out so please respond, and if not please change the info on the site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.250.23.128 (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The official government website is out-of-date, that's the problem.  Have you read the note in this article?  There were 89 federal subjects as of November 30, 2005.  On December 1, 2005, Komi-Permyak Autonomous Okrug was merged into Perm Oblast to form Perm Krai, and on January 1, 2007, Evenk and Taymyr Autonomous Okrugs were merged into Krasnoyarsk Krai.  Hence, as of today, there are 86 federal subjects.  As you correctly noticed, more mergers are on the way, but those will be taken into the account when they are completed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just how many federal subjects does Russia have? 

message: Hi,
Just an ordinary registered reader here. In the "unregistered" screen of this article there is an obscene sentence which disappears in the registered version.
Charles Carroll 11:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that's impossible.  There is no difference in the content shown to unregistered users vs. registered ones.  What probably happenned is that the obscenity had been removed by someone else by the moment you logged in.  Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junk in Unregistered Version 

message: I think independence should be replaced with formation and it should say after the collapse of the Soviet Union.--71.170.41.7 20:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Independence"? 

message: It's estimated what direct foreign investment reach at least $23 billion in 2006[7].
It seems as though this could be worded differently.
2/16 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.144.113.4 (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: In the section about Medieval Kieven Rus' there is no mention of fratricide which played a significant role on the development of Kieven Rus, as well as the migrations from the throne in Kiev to the Muscovite area.  This fratricide should also be mentioned because it played such a significant role for hundreds of years on as princes became martyrs and heroes, etc.  It would be hard in the current form to fit this in, in its propper significance, how the section is currently written.  I may tackle a entire rewrite for just that medieval section but I will need to wait until I have some time to pull the old books out.  I was looking for an excuse to thumb through the Primary Chronicles again though!  Anyone care to help out or if someone else wants to tackle it go for it. --JaymzRR 23:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider working on this article instead, if you intend an expansion. --Illythr 23:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fratricide 

message: The article is well-written in places and is a good read, but there are very few sources and entire sections don't have a single citation and as a result, it fails as a good article. Once these concerns have been addressed the article can be resubmitted. -- Scorpion 02:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to add some verifiable references. Lakers 00:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: How about a sports sub-section under the Culture heading?--Jeff79 03:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports Section 

message: OK, I'll give - what's with calling the section "Ancient Rus" ZBrannigan 20:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly because its shorter, if its not a official name it should be removed my suggestion.  Lakers 00:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the earlier discussion on "Rus" in this discussion page.Ischorr 18:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rus 

message: I did a move, and moved the article back to Russia, so "The Russian federation" redirects to Russia. FictionH 15:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move