Talk:Russia

Terrorist nation

The EU considers Russia a terrorist nation, why isn't this mentioned? Preferably in the first sentence of the article. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Source? HiLo48 (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

A 'state sponsor of terrorism' not a 'terrorist nation' but comes from this (additional: 1, 2, 3) Tweedle (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Which is something we already say towards the end of the Independent Russian Federation section. HiLo48 (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length before and doesn't need to be entertained any further. michael60634 / talk / contributions 23:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually several countries recognize Russia as a "terrorist state" itself, not just a "sponsor of terrorism". TylerBurden (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Terrorism in Russia has cited statements about various states’ and international organizations’ recognition of Russia as either terrorism sponsor or terrorist state.  —Michael Z. 13:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Russia is not a dictatorship! It is China, North Korea, maybe Cuba! 195.91.110.242 (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, well I can call Joe Biden a big dumb idiot, and say he's too old to be using Legos, and that his feet probably smell bad, and somehow, I have no fear I'll be poisoned or haphazardly fall out a window. GMG^talk 12:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Including Belarus on the map of Russia as part of the Union State.

Considering that the EU is shown on the maps of other European states Wikipedia articles, and that the Union State of Russia and Belarus is a rather similar union, perhaps we should show it on the map? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Republics

Article states there are 22 republics. The article about republics in Russia says there are 21 recognized republics. Wikifan153 (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems as if the 22d republic is the Republic of Crimea. Given that it isn't fully recognized as part of Russia and the article on republics of Russia does not count it, I think we should change it to 21. Wikifan153 (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not the division that isn't recognised, but the actual territory. I note the current map is hashed but without explanation, we should have some sort of note to explain the numbers. CMD (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

You mean the division of the actual territory that isn’t recognized is recognized? That is not the case. No one has recognized it.  —Michael Z. 22:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

An odd reading. CMD (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

To bring it back to the OP, perhaps it’s better to say there are 21 republics (and N oblasts, &c.) within the internationally recognized borders of Russia.  —Michael Z. 01:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

That would be a tangent from the topic of the section, and not how it's done on similar pages. CMD (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

There is actually an old note, I've expanded it to include 2022. CMD (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Spelling standardisation needed

There are a few -iz(e) spellings which should be changed to -is(e). PurpleQuaver (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Ethnicity

For the ethnicity portion of the infobox, would it not better to use the 2021 percentages in the "% of those who declared ethnicity" column here:

Ethnic groups in Russia#Ethnic groups of Russia, 1926–2021

This seems like a more accurate representation of the country's ethnic composition. Reverend Mick man34 ♔ (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Change map

Russia controls donetsk and crimea 43.241.144.234 (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Removal of maps

File:Us-su-maritime.jpg

On 03:28, 28 July 2023, User:Chipmunkdavis made a removal of the map File:Us-su-maritime.jpg depicting the border of Russia with the USA. The editor stated, "Very out of place in the infobox".

File:Map of the western border of Russia.png

On 07:12, 28 July 2023, they made another removal of a map, thumb, with the rationale, "Rv, infobox already has a locator map. Not the place of country articles to host maps of each border section".

I don't think the position of the editor is reasonable. Most readers only check the infobox and the lead of articles in Wikipedia, where they should find ideally the most important information of the page. I have found myself frustrated by the lack of proper visual information in the infobox. Many times I seek information about a country to see where it is located and its neighbors, only to find a map that provides no information about what are the names of the neighbors of the country. Therefore, I find the infobox incomplete. Other editors have found my rationale reasonable and at least one have shared the same frustration (see discussion Talk:France#Removal of map).

Russia is the largest country in the world by area. As such, providing only one map in the infobox for information is not enough. For that reason, I added the map File:Map of Russia-en.svg, depicting the whole of Russia and its immediate neighbors. But I find that because of the size of the country, more maps focusing on certain regions of the country were needed in the infobox to provide a better visualization of the position of Russia among its neighbors.

I believe many readers come looking for the specifics of the international borders of Russia, probably much more than for other items in the infobox like its coordinates, its demonym, its Gini, or its HDI. Therefore there should be maps of the borders of Russia that are labeled with the names of the relevant countries.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It is standard to have a locator map of each country, which already does show the surrounding area. Infoboxes cannot have everything, they are 'at a glance' sources of information. Maps could show a million different things, so we show the location. If you want labelled maps of the world, there are many places to find them. Similarly there are other maps for other purposes. As to the title of this section, this was also not a 'removal" really, but a reversion of edits which include one map which is very blurry and appears to have a Microsoft Office star shape in the default palette. CMD (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

It is standard to have a locator map and there should be more maps in the infobox to provide important information at a glance. Considering that switcher templates make maps only one or two lines each, it is reasonable to have such useful information in place. A picture is worth a thousand words. Per MOS:NOFORCELINK, "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links". It is better to provide important info in the infobox instead of making people search other pages. And as I indicated, it is not just my opinion but other editors share my opinion to a large degree or even completely.

About the star, for your information I used an open source program, not proprietary software. You are grasping at straws.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Open source program that imitates the default Microsoft Office palette, my apologies. There is as I mentioned a million things that could be included in maps, but we can't fill the infobox with a line for each. The more items, the less impactful the existing ones. If you want a general change across all countries to have labelled bordering countries (and seas?) be a standard inclusion, I suggest you raise a centralised RfC. CMD (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Or the default Microsoft Office palette imitated open source programs' palettes. After all, open source can be used commercially.

There are a million things that could be included in articles as well, but we can't just add everything. The key words are "important info". Of course we need to decide what information is due in an infobox and a lead. We simply have a different opinion on what is acceptable, necessary, or useful to include. Thanks for the suggestion of the RfC, I was thinking about going through the dispute resolution ladder but certainly a centralized RfC may be the route. Meanwhile, other editors' opinion are welcome as well.

Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Moxy and Mathglot:. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems like the same case as at Talk:France#Removal of map. I'll say what I said there: Support keeping both maps. It's intensely frustrating to come to a major geography article and find either a broader-geographical-context map or an internal-divisions map missing. Both are important encyclopedic information. And if this has anything to do with PNG format: SVG fetishism is tedious; there is no guideline or policy support for deleting images because they are in PNG format. PS: It is not necessarily important that both map types be in the infobox itself, as long as they are both near the top of the article so the reader can find them "above the fold" and without having to dig around for them. But putting them in the infobx ensures this. PPS: The general-geographic-region map is the more important one to have ealier; more readers are probably looking for "What is Russia next to?" than "What are the constituent parts of Russia?".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's not spam the info box with random images. Moxy- 00:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

What is spam for you in this case is very important information for me and many readers who want to know what is Russia. Therefore, several maps should be in the infobox because it is the place most readers limit themselves to. But as usual, the deletionists against the inclusionists. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Will have to.disagree.....several images in the lead is clearly undue in most cases and may cause accessibility problems for many. No need to have the same maps 2 times in articles lIke topography weather Etc. Pls review MOS:IMAGELEAD. Moxy- 02:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

In most cases is not in all cases and depends the topic.

I read MOS:IMAGELEAD. Any specific guidance within you wanted me to be aware of?

• "accessibility problems". I am all ears. I am sensible to that issue. Can you expand?

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGELEAD Images should be related to the text they are by. For example here you added administrative divisions and a weather map that are both already included in the article (in a more accessible format) and are not mentioned in the lead. Your edit summary seems to be related to Wikipedia:Lead fixation. As per our research of how readers navigate articles....the TOC will lead readers to these maps there are already in the proper sections as the TOC is widely used see data here. We also need to be careful not to fill the lead with to many images as most country articles already have three to five files in them... including flag, coat of arms Etc..... last thing we want for our country articles is a scrolling nightmare as seen at many city articles like New York City.... as we know most people will only scroll once and we're hoping that leads them to more WP:PROSE or the TOC in mobile view over just more images.... (see data link above for stats). We should try to retain our readers by leading them to more prose information or the TOC in mobile view for navigation. Moxy- 03:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Moxy, it is certainly controversial that you relate in an unclear manner my edit summary to lead fixation. Can you clarify the relevant part of said essay? Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:22, July 25, 2023 -added maps to infobox from the body of article (standard practice to repeat info in the infobox) because most readers only see the start of the article and don't go into the body unless looking for something specific. Wikipedia:Lead fixation "The effect is especially prominent on highly visible and already reasonably complete topics, such as Canada..." (note how a country article is used as an example) Moxy- 04:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

What effect? You are starting to make me feel uncomfortable. Thinker78 (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify regarding the lead fixation thing, I created the map of Guatemala and Russia, among others, out of a desire to provide other editors important visual information about the country. I noticed that in countries' articles there is no proper map with the names of the neighboring countries.

Oftentimes, there is even only a projection with the country showing small within the continent, which provides no clear idea of the country at hand. I was annoyed by such lack of information and decided to make maps to fill what I felt was a gaping hole in the infobox, illustrated by SMcCandlish feelings as well.

I do believe providing a map with the neighboring countries names is one of the most fundamental data of a country page, because likely readers come to this pages to have an idea where the country is at. In the case of Russia, as I stated elsewhere in the thread, it is a specially big country that needs more maps in the infobox for better info to readers.

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

According to the very page you shared (Research:Which parts of an article do readers read), 60% of readers in non-tablet mobile devices only check the lead, which backs what I stated that "Most readers only check the infobox and the lead of articles in Wikipedia".

You said the "last thing we want for our country articles is a scrolling nightmare". The New York City page you linked to has a gallery of many images in the infobox. A switcher template, which I use, doesn't display all the maps but provides for the reader to choose a caption in order to display it.

Also, the maps I added (which, again, appear only as a short caption and not as a full map unless desired) likely provide more sought after information than other items already in the infobox like the Gini, HDI (don't know what is it), Driving side, the Calling code, the Internet TLD (which I have no idea what it means).

No idea why you and the other editor balk at the maps of the borders that provide crucial info but are ok with such overly specific information in the infobox.

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree the info box is already overloaded with useless data....but this is the data we put in after many many talks despite my misgivings. Last thing we need is more random stuff. Moxy- 04:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you really think that providing fundamental info in the form of maps about where the country exactly is is random stuff? Really. Amazing. Thinker78 (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

But that's not all our adding is it Haiti? It's clear at this point the bulk of these edits do not currently have consensus for inclusion. Moxy- 05:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

In Haiti I added maps that other editors made, none of them were made by me. In there I did not limit maps for borders but the maps additions I included were limited to FOUR short lines of captions, less than 10% of the number of lines of the entire infobox.

Maybe in this thread there is no consensus because two editors including myself favor inclusion and two editors including yourself are opposed. But regarding those other countries, my edits stood for a while which meant there was implicit consensus for them until you reverted them. Read the WP:CONSENSUS policy. And as you said yourself, you wanting to exclude information from the infobox have not had the support from the community.

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Best be honest Haiti: Revision history maps added then removed in under 48 hrs...then restored by you and removed again in 7 mins by another editor. Moxy- 12:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@Moxy You are not that collegial in discussions are you? Can you try to be collegial instead of having this useless accusatory tone? Because you are basically accusing me of dishonesty. Kindly read the WP:CIVILITY policy.

Besides, I was talking about "other countries", not limited to Haiti. For example, in the page Guatemala, on 07:16, 27 May 2023‎ I added a map. It stood undisturbed for almost two months. Then I added maps and you reverted.

Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The article you referred to in this discussion was Haiti. Making a mass change across a number of articles to see where you won't get reverted is not a strong argument, and can become disruptive. If you want to cudgel someone about civility, do it on an admin noticeboard. CMD (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

This discussion is being derailed by lack of collegiality and false accusations. I call on the relevant editors to remain composed and address the edits in a professional and collegial way. It is ok to disagree, it is not ok to make false accusations. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2023

201.162.232.175 (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Russia is not under an authoritarian dictatorship, Putin was elected democratically and he isn't a dictator

 Not done: See sources linked. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

RS show map within recognized borders.

Let's discuss what map should the article show. Turns out reliable sources show russia map without its so-called "new territories", see for example https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17839672 . Manyareasexpert (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Transcontinental is redundant

The first sentence of the article reads Russia (Russian: Россия, romanized: Rossiya, [rɐˈsʲijə]), or the Russian Federation, is a transcontinental country spanning Eastern Europe and Northern Asia. "Transcontinental" is redundant here, just as it would be redundant to write "Hungary is a unicontinental country in Europe". As redundant writing is sloppy writing, I removed "transcontinental", but Undashing restored it without addressing the reason I stated in my edit summary for removing it. This ten-dollar word should be removed. It adds nothing to the sentence and looks like nothing more than an attempt to show off our vocabulary. Largoplazo (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Not really accurate. Hungary is a nation in eastern-central Europe. Its own page reflects that. Each country's page mentions the continent, with Russia, it's spread out over two. So it is consistent with other articles. 203.7.124.55 (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It's the opposite of consistent.

• Russia: Russia ... is a transcontinental country spanning Eastern Europe and Northern Asia, identifies the location with reference to two continents, after throwing in a redundant, show-off term.
• Hungary: Hungary ... is a landlocked country in Central Europe, identifies the location with reference to a continent with no redundant, show-off term.

"Transcontinental" has no more good reason to appear in the Russia sentence than "uncontinental" would have if it were added to the Hungary sentence. Largoplazo (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It would still do that even if the term "transcontinental" is removed, because both Eastern Europe and Northern Asia are mentioned, that's two continents. I agree it does seem redundant. TylerBurden (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the adjective is just unnecessary when it’s immediately followed by its own definition along with specific details. The redundancy could actually confuse, as readers wonder whether it means something more or something different. Delete it.  —Michael Z. 17:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree for conciseness it should not appear in the first sentence. But I think the word transcontinental could be used maybe in the second sentence.

Instead of,

It is the largest country in the world by area, its vast landmass stretching over the easternmost part of Europe and the northernmost part of Asia.

an option could be,

It is the largest country in the world by area and, being transcontinental, it extends across eleven time zones and shares land boundaries with fourteen countries.

I think the word transcontinental can provide further information to the reader. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

What further information does it provide? In your example, "being transcontinental" is irrelevant to what follows. As it happens, by convention, we treat Europe and Asia as distinct continents, but if we just treated them as one, Eurasia, so that Russia wasn't considered transcontinental, it would still cross eleven time zones and it would still share land boundaries with fourteen countries. Further, there are transcontinental countries that cover as few as one time zone or border only a few other countries. The implied connection is false. Largoplazo (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I guess you right. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2023

Please add category

Category:Member states of the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations

-- MaliMail (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Constitutional form of government or de facto system of government

It appears that until very recently wikipedia followed the policy of describing only the de jure constitutional form of government in country boxes. So Russia was categorized simply as a semi-presidential republic, which it is according to its constitution. If we adopt the policy of describing Russia as a dictatorship in its infobox, than that should be done systematically in all of Wikipedia (which I don't oppose, but will create a series of complications, according to the defintion of dictatorship and democracy). Knoterification (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)