Jump to content

Talk:Russians/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

The infobox redux

The infobox seems to be a target of a new edit war. I have protected it for a week so to reach some consensus. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

General principles

The infobox have a number of conflicting purposes:

  • The people there are some sort of a bragging list, showing different contributions of Russians to the world;
  • At the same time this is supposed to show how an average Russian looks like (and typical variations of the norm)
  • The pictures should be of reasonable quality and copyright-free.

Thus, the people in the infobox should be:

  • World-famous, preferably household names known to an average en-Wikipedia reader (American or British high school student or graduate). Like e.g. Mendeleev, Leo Tolstoy or Tchaikovsky.
  • Usually cause positive connotations both in the West and in Russia. That excludes e.g. Ivan IV, Lenin, Brezhnev, Gorbachev or Putin.
  • Self-considered ethnic Russian - that excludes e.g. Boris Pasternak (a Jew) or Stanislav Richter (Baltic German).
  • Not being of very unusual appearance. Some people thinks that this e.g. excludes Pushkin, as his African ancestry is not usual for Russians even in the modern times and was extremely unusual in 19th century.
  • Have a good quality picture unquestionably copyright-free.
  • We should provide a balanced mix of genders, epochs, occupations.
  • The number of the pictures is limited. 16 is OK, 20 maybe OK, more seems to be excessive.

Any other considerations? Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Current version

No principal objections but:

Anonymous version

I am strongly against inclusion of Vladimir Putin as he is a very controversial modern politician who a significant part of our readers consider a criminal. Also is Boris Chertok a household name in the west? According to his Russian wikipage Chertok was born in a Jewish family, is it disqualifies him from the box on an ethnic Russian article?

3 women among 25 people do not look right IMHO. The occupation mix is better IMHO but we have gone from 16 people to 25 is it excessive? Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

lol who cares how many females are iut there. are you a crappy femenist or what?69.195.124.132 (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion for 16 people: Nevsky, Peter the Great, Lomonosov, Suvorov, Mendeleev, Tchaikovsky, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Tsvetaeva, Korolyov, Pavlov, Kandinsky, Pavlova, Sikorsky, Gagarin, Netrebko — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.222.229.1 (talk • contribs)

Strongly Oppose - For said reasons below.

  1. Sergei Korolev can be replaced. I can overlook that.
  2. Alexander Popov is a household name and recognized as one of the fathers of the radio. Although Oleg Losev isn't, I purposely put him in because his contributions are tremendous despite being largely unknown.
  3. Suvorov is though to have been 1/4 Armenian. I believe that the general rule should be that someone is at least 1/2 Russian.
  4. The gender gap is even larger with you proposition so I don't see why you're objecting to a problem that you're seeking to escalate.
  5. Finding a non-controversial Russian leader is very hard. Which one isn't filled with controversy?
  6. The ideal size should be 3x5 or 4x4. The only featured article with an infobox about ethnic groups features that style.

Khazar (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

So what about my suggestion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.222.217.126 (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, 93.222.217.126, you've asked me to join in the discussion, so I will. IMHO, I find these galleries to be a sinkhole for editor energy and time (i.e., this is why I don't consider them to add value). They are not even a parameter in the ethnic group infobox, but were introduced by someone at some point because they decided that WP:ITSIMPORTANT. Soon, every ethnic group wanted one. Some are plain laughable (i.e., Italians: Dante Alighieri, Columbus, Bernini, Marco Polo, Machiavelli, et al). I don't know how much time I've wasted on articles on my watchlist where IP and SPA changes to South American galleries have driven myself and other editors mad. Everyone wants to add their favourite rapper, sports hero, TV star, supermodel, etc. and remove ones they don't like. The Romanians warring just got so out of hand that we reached consensus to just delete the gallery... so, that's my personal preference. I wish I could do the same to the Ukrainians article and... well, every article.
As for Alex's objections to using Pushkin, how do you identify a 'typical' Russian? Do you have access to the DNA of all the people you'd wouldn't object to being representative of "Russians" in order to establish that they are of the correct haplogroup? It's not my intention to be rude about the process of selection, but I honestly don't find these galleries to be of any intrinsic value. As for Alexander Nevsky (Rus' is not "Russia", no matter what kind of spin you try to put on it) and Anna Netrebko (Kuban Cossack ancestry with a Ukrainian surname?) being "Russians"... well, er... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Your proposal? I find it absurd. Why? I don't need a reason because all these collages are built on opinions. As for Iryna, that's all a matter of opinion and many people like myself do not want Pushkin in the collage. Khazar (talk) 06:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy Just a question: Do you like the current version more than mine? I mean, Losev, Prokhorov.... but no Tchaikovsky or Dostoevsky? That's mega bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.222.217.126 (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Воевода, if you wish to make bold changes to this section, please follow WP:BRD. I've reverted your new line-up of Russians featured in the infobox because there has been recent edit warring over who should feature and who should not. Please check talk pages before changing content as there may be information as to consensus regarding the content you wish to change. Thank you for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I honestly believe that removing the collage altogether is the best choice for this situation. I would fully support such a proposition. Khazar (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Support - This was done on the Romanians page for the same reasons: it becomes a sinkhole for editor time and energy and, of course, edit warring. Everyone who looks at such articles immediately wants to change someone to their own, personal favourite so there's a never-ending string of IP edits to contend with. It's not even a parameter in the ethnic group infobox and has just been deployed all over Wikipedia because someone saw it on other ethnic group page. In fact, it's an exercise in self-lauding which I'd love to see removed from the Ukrainians page... and, well, every ethnicity page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Nationality, Ethnicity, etc.

I found this topics extremely controversial, especially when it comes to big nations like Russians, etc. Everyone start to draws water to his own mill "No he's not X, he's Y", "He has 0,00000001% of Nigerian blood". That's pathetic. If we dig deep enough we can question also are these 80% Russians in Russia are actually of Russian ethincity? You know, there is no question about ethnic background in Russian census. They questioned only nationality. I'm of Ukranian ancestry but I call myself Russian. I'm not anthropologically different from some Russian. Am I Russian, or still Ukranian? What we should do, check up haplogroups of all who perceive themselves as "Russian", also dug up all graves and check them? I think that every article on ethnicity should be rewrited as article on nation and create much smaller separate articles on ethnicity without all these great figures, farts and whistles.109.195.3.97 (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

There IS a question about your ethnic group in Russian census. They ask you about your национальность which for people in Russia means ethnicity. And people reply accordingly: Tatars say they're are Tatars, Yakuts say they're Yakuts, Russians say they're are Russians. Just look at the results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexxzz123 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Constructiveness

@Al Khazar: What exactly is "unconstructive" about the infobox? You are aware that nearly all ethnic group articles have one, right? I fixed the persons depicted in chronological order, removed some that weren't actual Russians, added famous people missing, and it came out really good and should be kept. --Steverci (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Al Khazar: If you will not defend your reverts, I'm going to restore my edits. --Steverci (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't negotiate with people who abuse sock puppets. You've caused a lot of trouble on other topics in Wikipedia and have been topic banned as a result. Don't let this one be another topic ban. Khazar (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't abuse sock puppets; IP's 5.128.39.92, 209.237.142.206, and 69.195.124.132 are not me. Regardless, please read Wikipedia:Don't remind others of past misdeeds. It is an accusation of bad faith, a personal attack, and an example of incivility. Again, defend your reverts or I will remove them. --Steverci (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
They all appear to be. Like I said, I don't have to defend anything since sock puppetry is not tolerable here on Wikipedia. Bring this up again and you'll find yourself at the center of a sock puppet investigation. Khazar (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Steverci, past misdeeds are overlooked unless you make it evident that you haven't actually learned anything from those mistakes, and are resuming the same behavioural problems. At the moment, it certainly looks as if you're becoming disruptive here and on the Romanians article, pushing for an image gallery there, also. Why are you obsessing about something there's been consensus to remove because it's proved to be a time and energy sinkhole for editors? What, according to you, makes it so important? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Iryna, accusing someone of WP:POVPUSH is uncivil. You clearly have no idea what is going on here and are exhibiting bad faith. Al Khazar has been reverting my edits without any reason and is now making accusations and personal attacks, and I've been very patient in trying to discuss this. And yet you accuse me of behavioural problems? --Steverci (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Iryna is well aware of the faults of having a collage in an Ethnic group info box. It's simply a waste of time and is like having flags in the infobox. The only difference is that the officials at Wikipedia haven't been as quick to pick up on how wasteful the former is like the latter. Khazar (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Steverci, you are being WP:DISRUPTive here, and on the Romanians article. As Khazar notes, I am very, very much aware as to what is going on. You've still not been able to make any arguments as to why a gallery/collage is advantageous. I've already spent my valuable time trying to establish why you want it back on the other article; now you expect me to engage with you further on non-arguments for the reintroduction here. Your to and fro-ing in trying to wear other editors down is now becoming downright WP:POINTy. Please present a solid argument based on policy and guidelines. If you can do so, then we'll all have something worth discussing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

infobox pictures

I just briefly read the above discussion; can someone kindly explain why it is seemingly redudant to create a gallery of pictures of notable Russians here? Russian is both an ethnicity and a nationality in the strictest senses of the words, but this infobox is obviously ment for the ethnicity Russians,'aka Slavic Russians, aka natively East Slavic Russian speaking Russians.

I think this is all pretty common logic no? So could someone tell why the pictures are removed from the infobox?

Kind regards - LouisAragon (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm also curious about that issue. kazekagetr 08:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to go through the talk page archives regarding this issue. A gallery has never been a parameter in the the 'ethnic group' infobox. It is still not a parameter, but something that someone had the bright idea of introducing to the infobox of one article for an ethnic group at some point. Other ethnic group articles decided that they like it because WP:ITSIMPORTANT and followed suit. With the number of articles the average Wikipedian has on their watchlist, it is an energy sinkhole spending half our time undoing changes to the gallery after various one-off contributors have come through and put their personal favourites into galleries, followed by edit warring between a number of users over who, what, why belongs in the gallery (but most prominently, never actually discussed).
Personally, I'm fed up with having to check whether the person added to the Latin American whatever ethnic group's gallery actually is of that ethnicity. As has also been discussed on the Romanians article, other long time editors agree that it's WP:NOTVALUABLE to waste editor time on articles that rarely see any real content development, but merely have their galleries played with because Wikipedia can is a resource anyone can edit... and do... constantly... frequently... irritatingly. We've had enough of the 'neglected article' syndrome, and the 'interested parties with their own ideas as to what constitutes an ethnicity' syndrome to call it a day on some articles. I'd like this to be applied across the board, but that's not likely to happen. If we're sick to death of content introduced to the article as not being worth the grief, effort, or importance, it reverts to being a WP:PAGEDECIDE issue. Editors maintaining the page have reached consensus that it's been given an adequate period of time to prove itself to be a liability. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Iryna Harpy, get what you mean, and I can find myself in that rationale. If that's what the consensus demanded, then that is how it will be. I'd recommend adding that it's been discussed in a note under the Banner Shell though, so that we can avoid getting the same questions over and over. - LouisAragon (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Cheers, LouisAragon, for an excellent idea! I've become acclimatised to contributors not even bothering to look at the talk page, much less bother reading the talk page messages under the banner shell, that it didn't even occur to me. Not all regular editors, new contributors, or passing IP's are as diligent as you in actually paying attention to talk pages (I'm sure you're utterly stunned and amazed by this revelation )! I've now added a 'circular argument' template.
While I can also appreciate that such image galleries have the potential to be interesting and informative for readers, by their very nature they call for WP:OR decisions in establishing who constitutes a member of the ethnic group and who does not (how do you define an ethnic group: through DNA; self-identification by those who lived in a previous era that wouldn't recognise the concepts being applied; by how a more contemporary individual defines themselves?). The concept of ethnicity is far more complex to unravel than might superficially be imagined. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Iryna Harpy I'm happy that we're once again having the same idea about how it should be. Even more perfect that other numerous users agreed as well :) Thanks a lot for adding the note already under the banner shell btw!
I concur with you about the concept of ethnicity placing on Wiki as well. It's a very fluid concept in general, even sometimes in modern day/every day life, when discussed. Especially for such "continental" nations like Russia, it's rather difficult. Of course everyone knows that the Russian ethnic group is something that exists for a long time, but I guess this way is just for the best. Maybe some day when someone else will bring it up and many users will say they want a gallery back, then we can do that.
I think we should perhaps apply this same rationale for the galleries of Ukrainian people/Belorussian people as well, given how closely they and Russians are and were historically related (I don't think I need to waste a single word about this, especially for someone who's Ukrainian herself, haha) and the fact that there was no such country as Ukraine/Belorussia until just several decades ago. As you indeed say, the concept of "ethnicity" is a complex thing that can easily be adjusted given what conditions are prevalent.
In our era however, we can see that ethnicity is, to a noticeable degree, determined by (often ungrounded) nationalism.
- LouisAragon (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd love to be able to apply the same principle to Ukrainians, etc... but the problem of identity issues are as equally entrenched there as on the majority of articles surrounding ethnicity. I've always avoided discussion regarding who is 'Ukrainian' and, therefore, 'appropriate' for the gallery there even if I consider entries there to be inappropriate. As with many of these articles, however, there are contributors/editors who do !vote for representative notables, therefore it's difficult to bring up a discussion as to its being OR (or wishful thinking). Considering that Eastern European articles fall under ARBEE sanctions, even bringing the topic up is perilous. I don't want to be the centre of an edit war, nor to be accused of having other POV ulterior motives. At the end of the day, so long as the regular editors for that article !vote for who is and isn't included, it's a challenge. It would be a positive move to initiate more community-level discussions as to who and what is actually being represented, but it would also be extremely problematic. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion

A move discussion relating to this article is open at Lech, Čech, and Rus' talk page. Khestwol (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Russians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Checked Archived versions correct x 2; error page x 1 changed to correct archive. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Israel again?

There no source about "ethnic Russians" living in Israel. Where does the numbre 1,240,122 come from? 85.250.220.3 (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Mendeleev

Dmitri Mendeleev was a famous personality of ethnic Russian descent too.--141.19.228.15 (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC) | image31 = DIMendeleevCab.jpg| caption31 = Mendeleev

I'd like to ask fellow editors how does the gallery from the infobox help the reader. What's it's role? How does this gallery provide encyclopaedic content? Why is it better to include such a gallery in the article? Hahun (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

This was already discussed as pertaining to this article alone (see Talk:Russians/Archive_6). Consensus was that it it contravened WP:NOR. More pertinently, it is an energy sinkhole for editors working on this article and every other 'ethnic group' article. There has been absolutely no discussion here as to reintroduce a gallery (i.e., nothing to demonstrate WP:CCC that this is suddenly a good idea). The fact that WP:SPAs and IPs pop in specifically to create a gallery because they've decided WP:ITSIMPORTANT, then add their own personal favourites and end up edit warring over who should be in, how many people from the ethnic group should be there (12 to 500: take a number, any number) is pure WP:BOLLOCKS. There isn't even any courtesy in checking through the archived talk to find out whether the issue has been discussed before. Well, it has... with bells on. Consensus still stands as no gallery as the result of it being a right royal pain in the butt. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Concur with Iryna, the gallery struggles are silly. Max Semenik (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Portraits

Chickpeaedits, may I ask for a rationale of your revert? Max Semenik (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Whatever, I support the removal as per above. Max Semenik (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

I invite everybody to post their opinions about the gallery of personalities from the infobox at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#The_necessity_of_galleries_of_personalities_in_the_infoboxes Hahun (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC can be found here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Russians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Checked Archived captures correct. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Russians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Russians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

millions became refugees

Number would be useful. Please remeber the difference between ethic Russians and former Russian Empire citizens of other ethnicities, eg. Georgians.Xx236 (talk) 10:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Russian population figures

The number of Russians indicated in the 2010 census is 111 million (81 percent of population that declared their ethnicity) however there were 5.6 million Russian citizens who did not declare their ethnicity. The composition of this group is same as the population that did disclose their ethnicity, according to the Russian government. There is also the issue of the 1.1 million ethnic Russians in the disputed Crimean peninsula, which is de-facto part of the Russian Federation.

81 percent of 5.6 million is 4,559,837, making the ethnic Russian population 115,576,733 . If Crimea is included, the population is 116,765,711.

Is there anyway to include this number in the infobox? Or should the 2002 census be used instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retaurn (talk • contribs) 19:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Retaurn: You've raised a good point, and I'll get back to you as to my suggestions on how best to handle it using WP:CALC after another issue (which has just been drawn to my attention) has been dealt with. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

change

The article needs to be retitled "Ethnic Russians". I would do so myself, but a page with that title already exists (and is redirected elsewhere). Gringo300 (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Russians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Russians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

1,200,000 "russians" in Israel proves that Wikipedia is The Free Comedia and not encyclopedia

5.102.216.40 (talk) 07:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I have amended the entry to be 895,000 Jews of Soviet descent, which excludes all non-Jewish citizens of Russian descent. There are an estimated 1.3 million Russian speaking Israelis, but I couldn't find a good reference for that.Jameel the Saluki (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Aliyah could not commit not a Jew. You either do not know the rules of Aliyah or deliberately distort the data. in Israel and 10 thousand ethnic Russians will not be typed.Hatchiko (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Jew NOT russian

Why in article included jews ? Article about russian ethnical but NOT about Jew or other immigrant from Russia.

I repeat once again

Russian is a specific ethnos - and not citizenship.

The Jews from the USSR, the Russian Empire and the Russian Federation are obviously NOT Russian.

Where statistics on nationalities are not exactly corrected by a calculation method — for example, in Brazil, from the number of immigrants from the Russian Empire, the USSR and the Russian Federation deleted the number of Ukrainians who are known and used the statistical reference data, although they are old but nothing newer — as there was no migration flow in newer period.

In the US, he removed from among Russians — Jews from the USSR. What do they have to do with Russians?

I removed the item in Germany, since all these millions are the Volga Germans by 95%. Yes, there are Russians in Germany, but not more than 150 thousand, mostly in mixed marriages. And their children do not identify themselves as Russians. They consider themselves Germans from Russia. And therefore do not belong to the Russian ethnic group.

There is still a lot of garbage data type in Canada where both Jews and other nationalities are included in the Russians.

According to the data received, the number of Russians cannot exceed 130 million people.

Making big numbers has propaganda goals. and does not meet the requirements of neutrality.Hatchiko (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I brought the article in authentic form. Where possible, he excluded from the number of Russian Jews, Germans and Ukrainians immigrants from the former Russian Empire and the USSR. All of them are taken into account in their national articles and apparently not Russian, despite the fact that their former citizenship was from this region.

Where it is impossible to remove from the general calculation - the United States and Canada, I left the numbers along with the Jews and the Germans. But this is the only possible assumption.

Do not add to the number of Russian Israeli Jews from the USSR - they are not Russian, they emigrated under the Aliyah program in which there could be no Russians. A small number of monasteries live in Israel, but they are all citizens of either the Russian Federation or France or the United States. They are counted in those countries.

Knowledge of the Russian language does not make Russian. In Bulgaria, this is a second language and 30% of the population speaks it as well as their native language - but they are Bulgarians.And I repeat once again - do not add to the number of Russian Jews and Germans from Russia. Many people speak Russian this is one of the UN languages ​​- but they don’t become Russian. In Russia, more than 100 nationalities and citizenship does not mean belonging to an ethnic group.

Unfortunately, I did not find more accurate data on Russians in the USA. In addition to the 1993 note in the Harvard Journal that the majority of people from Russia are Jews and not Russians.

I tried to remove from the data all cases of double counting but small populations less than 40 thousand did not process.

Do not worsen the article.Hatchiko (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The Joshua Project as a source for statistics

The Joshua Project has been a sticking point on multiple ethnic group articles using their figures to pad out the infobox for diasporic groups in the infobox of ethnicity articles. The Joshua Project is not a reliable source in the manner that a government census is. They're a private interest group and, as such, any statistics gleaned from them should not be used. I'm happy to discuss this with other editors, however I think it's high time this article toed the line with all other such articles in Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, following WP:BRD, I've removed the single instance usage in the infobox for some 4,600 in Venezuela. It was the final - and insignificant enough - diasporic populations entry in the infobox. Had the Joshua Project been used as a reliable source for a large diasporic figure such as Canada or the United States, it would have been removed ages ago. There has been activity on the article since I posted here, therefore I'm assuming that this decision is understood to be a good one and won't start a bout of edit warring.
Incidentally, it's also being used on the Ukrainians article as one of the base estimates for the number around the world... and is a good demonstration of the Joshua Project's figures as being flawed. That's going to be the next on the list for removals. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category:Slavic countries and territories

It is currently being proposed that Category:Slavic countries and territories be deleted. This article is related to that category. The relevant discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8#Countries and territories by language family. The discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Russians. Krakkos (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Great?

User:CentreLeftRight, I don't know what we are gaining by having "Great" in the lead referenced to someone who is obviously not a modern and objective scholar of Russia and its history. In other words, I agree with this edit, though not with the insult in the edit summary. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: If people have objections they should voice it here on the talk page. When I see an anonymous editor removing referenced content with the edit summary "Russians aren't great" on a protected page, that tells me nothing other than it is likely vandalism. I do not care if "Great Russians" is included or not in the lead because I am not the person who originally added it. However, if there is a different interpretation of the term "Great Russians" and people think it should not be removed, they should prepare some sources and state their grievances here. CentreLeftRight ✉ 21:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and not everyone knows how to edit on Wikipedia. I'm just saying they have a point. BTW, whether something is vandalism or not should be weighed carefully. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Actually, it's a title used historically in both Russia and Ukraine, but not only as "Great", but also as "Greater". There is an trashy, pejorative barely referenced article in Wikipedia for Greater Ukraine. Traditionally, "Greater Ukraine" constituted Central Ukraine such as Kharkiv, Kiev, Poltava, and any number of other vicinities directly alongside the right and left banks of the Dnieper. For Russia, it was also based around the era of old Rus', except taking the shift of Rurik power (still all disputed, of course) to Muscovy, yada, yada, yada. The term, "Great Ukraine" is not used in the "Ukrainians" article because, in all honesty, it has been turned into another right wing, political football (i.e., I'm from "Greater Ukraine" and people marvel at how beautifully spoken I am in cultural Ukrainian... sort of a Ukrainian version of British BBC English). Leningrad has taken over from Moscow as being the most beautifully spoken Russian, picking up the reins from Moscow. Lviv, and Galicia have taken over the reins from the old cities which are predominantly Russophone, despite many considering themselves to be Ukrainians. What it all means for the articles about the people, other than terms from the murky past being used for 'badness and evil', and would make me wonder what its significance is if I were a reader without knowledge of the regions. Changes being made to this terminology are not vandalism as they are usually done in good faith, except that the user who made the change thinks they're writing into a forum and has the right to be a nasty nationalist about their opinion. Personally I don't know how the use of "Great"/"Greater" enhances the article. I'm good with it either way, but I would like to see a policy or guideline justifying its use. It may have been there for aeons, thus consensus by default, but we all know consensus can change. If I had to !vote on the matter, I'd say drop it as redundant unless a good argument for retention was made. Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Unclear secion on Russian Empire

"The Russian Empire was formed by Russians in modern-day Russia". This sentence seems a bit confusing to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilya-42 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Russians are not Ruthenians

Ruthenians, Rus (original term) have nothing to do with Russians. Rus started in Kievian Rus, in Kiev, territory of modern Ukraine. While Russians came from Moscow, Novgorod, etc. which are hundreds of kilometers from Kiev. Peter the Grand have chosen to call his people Russians, but before this they were called Muscovites. Now, Russia is claiming that her origin is Kievan Rus, but it is not true. There are Ruthenian people (русини) now. They have nothing in commun with Russia, or Russians. They are living in West Ukraine, Checz Republik, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T0mk0us (talk • contribs)

My reason for reverting was that the article about the Ruthenians is not as definitive as your comments. In the article it is mentioned that the Ruthenians may in fact be ancestors of the modern Russians. Dr. K. 00:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Crazy boy from Polish borderland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.227.9.148 (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The article is not a neutral point of view

The main map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians#/media/File:Russian_people_around_the_world.svg which using black / red colors in it does not follow the policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view I have negative impression when I see this colors like this nation is aggressive. I would suggest to change the colors to neutral ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.82.189 (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Corection

Until the Russian Revolution, Tsarist Russia never specifically called the people "Russians", referring to them instead as "Great Russians", a part of "Russians" (all the East Slavs).

Maybe redirect to Ruthenians ? It's a common name for all East Slavs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.15.241.95 (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Picture

The traditional religion of Russians is Christianity. Placing a photo of a Neo-Pagan ritual as a representation of Russian traditions is very strange. 188.243.183.151 (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done This change was reverted initially but was changed back. (see [1]) --- Mullafacation {talk page|user page} 17:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Please stop adding a picture with neopaganist ethnic nationalists to infobox

This image has nothing to do with russian culture or tradition. There is no such thing as "russian national wedding" or "russian national traditions" etc. It not related to ANY russian tradition, custom, rite etc at all. This rituals was created in mid-2000s by groups of nationalist close to neo-nazis who calls themselfs neopagans which are a very tiny minority in Russian society. 99,9% of russians never heard about "russian national wedding". Read something about Russian wedding traditions and try to find there some clownish druids with leaves on their heads and stylized swastikas. Such images in an article about Russians turn Russian culture into a clownery, bring the article to the point of absurdity. Akerlea Velázquez (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done This change was reverted initially but was changed back. (see [2]) --- Mullafacation {talk page|user page} 17:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

US number does not include Russian Germans

Hello! The note in the infobox that the US number includes Russian Germans is not correct; it is "cited," but the cited page says nothing at all about Russian Germans. It is simply Census Bureau data based on self-report, and the USCB does not ask people for more specific categories of Russian or German. Anecdotally, most of the descendants of the Volga Germans just identify their heritage as German in the US (I know a few). But regardless of anecdote, unless someone can produce a citation stating that the number includes Russian/Volga Germans (which I doubt), that statement is potentially misleading and should be removed. I have abandoned my account, otherwise I would do it. Currently at a work computer. - 198.177.93.253 (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian people in Japan

Please add Japan in the significant population box. There are 10,000 Russian people in Japan and 30,000 if you include the Northern Territories. Thank you. 2001:268:9877:3BA0:702D:39FF:FECE:6A49 (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended protection?

I believe there should be extended protection on this article due to the current events happening. There may be vandalism here I believe. I am not a very experienced editor here, so I would like to hear some other editors' opinions on this. Firestar9990 (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

There hasn't been any recent disruption so semi-protection is sufficient for now. Current protection was applied a couple years ago. See WP:PP for further information. Mellk (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Catherine the Great

She shouldn't be included in this article, since this article is about the Russian ethnic group. Catherine the Great was not Russian. She was born a Prussian/German. Leading Russia does not make her Russian in the sense used in this article (ethnically). She converted from Lutheranism to Eastern Orthodoxy, and become fascinated with Russian culture - that's correct, but she wasn't Russian.

Therefore she should be removed from the box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernio48 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Norway?

I am a Russian who lived in Norway for 5 years and I can tell you there is a big Russian community there.There are at least 2000 Russians in Norway — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruskiguy (talk • contribs) 15:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Russians in XI century?

“Orthodox Christianity is their historical religion since the 11th century”

There was no Russians in XI century. Moscow didn’t exist for several centuries more. People of Rus can be defined as one of the ancestors of russians, but it’s not even close to be the same people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.33.124.87 (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Genetics

The wording in the "Genetics" section should be changed. Instead of "non-Slavic" it should be "recent", as "non-Slavic" could also mean the preexisting people who heavily participated in the formation of the Russians. However, 8% of Russians belong to the one of recent Y-haplogroups I1-M253. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.249.47.134 (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The number of ethnic Russians in Germany, US and Brazil is much lower

Russia Germans and Russian Jews are no ethnic Russians so the number of ethnic Russians, especially in Germany where the vast Majority of Russian Migrants are ethnic German Regmirants and a smaller part are Jews, is much lower. The biggest part of Russian Immigrants who came in the second half of 2010 until now to Germany were Muslims from Northern Caucasus, especially Chechens by the way.--Alchmistischer Chemiker (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Russkie

I’ve changed the romanization from russkiye to russkie (corresponding to the modified Library of Congress system), the most common spelling in reliable sources,[3] comprising over 90% of the corpus over the last two decades.[4]

The advice in WP:RUS is a personal essay, describing a non-standard system guaranteed not to consistently match the romanization of any standard system. It should be ignored, and preferably replaced with a standard system that’s commonly used in reliable sources.  —Michael Z. 17:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

May I ask

Why it says "the Russians" and not "Russians"? 2603:6011:9600:52C0:645E:6895:7583:F219 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

It's odd, I don't see why the article uses a "the", there's no grammatical reason to do so. I found that this change to the page was first made on 30 January 2021 (link) by a user Danloud, who is a banned sockpuppet account. See the pages for Germans or Belarusians (which has the same base name!), which don't use it. FelixSta (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2023

Request to either remove, or look further into validity of a claim of 7.2 million Russians living in Ukraine, as the linked source is totally unrelated, the claim seems completely made up, and might actually be an intentional misinformation...


In the table about Russians in various countries, there is stated that there are 7.2 Russians living in Ukraine, but the source doesn't say anything about it, and probably it was used to slip though the approval process in hopes that noone will actually translate and read it,, and i couldn't find a single source confirming that number or anything even in the same ballpark. From what i came up with, it seems to either be intentional disinformation, but it also might be counting both people who identify as Russians, added up with people who identify as Ukrainian who use Russian as their main language. But those are definitely not Russian.

The stated source is invalid and doesn't mention any number like that anywhere, i wasn't able to find anything proving or even hinting the validity of this claim. It honestly sounds like something they would would be saying on Russia-today and it seems completely made up. 85.160.14.188 (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The number matches other well-sourced figures appropriately. In Demographics of Ukraine#After World War II, it states that in 2001 the census indicated the figure was 8,334,141, or 17.2% of the total population, and other years are similar or higher. Tollens (talk) 04:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Images

My edit was reverted with the following edit summary: " good faith, but adding pictures of arbitrarily chosen "national heroes" is against WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES".

It's a flawed reasoning done in good faith because the pictures weren't in a gallery, it wasn't a photomontage, and it's not against Wikipedia rules to have a few pictures of famous people in an article about a nation or ethnic group, as long as the people are well-known or important in that nation's history, just look at the articles Ukrainians, Polish people or African Americans for comparison. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that the use of the "gallery" tag is the problem. As I understand NOETHNICGALLERIES, the problem is the arbitrariness of the selection. If Tolstoy (I personally think that "War and Peace" is one of the best books ever written), then why not Dostoevsky ? Why, among the multitude of Russian athletes, Sharapova ? Why only the "good guys" ? Why not Lavrentiy Beria, Lenin, Vyacheslav Molotov, Nikolay Yezhov ? Rsk6400 (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
@Rsk6400:, I disagree with your suggestion to replace the images of Leo Tolstoy or Pyotr Tchaikovsky with the images of "bad guys" Lavrentiy Beria or Nikolay Yezhov, not to mention that the images you deleted were in the "Culture" section. I wonder why you have only focused on one select ethnic group and don't try to push for the same changes in articles about other nations and ethnicities? I'm still assuming good faith, so I believe you've misunderstood the guidelines or you want a general change in the guidelines that would apply to all nations and ethnic groups, but I don't think readers and editors would support your changes if, taking the "Ukrainians" article as an example, you replaced the Ukrainian poet Taras Shevchenko with "bad guys" such as Vlas Chubar, Stepan Bandera, John Demjanjuk or Roman Shukhevych, or if you delete the pictures of all famous and publicly known Ukrainians from the article, because Shevchenko is there and Lesya Ukrainka is missing. I would not support such changes either, because pictures of great national poets and writers like Shevchenko or Ivan Franko are more suitable for an article about the nation than pictures of "bad guys" like Shukhevych or Demjanjuk.
Per WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES — "Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a photomontage or gallery of images of group members". Plain and simple. Wikipedia guidelines don't see a problem with a few pictures of famous people unless it is a photomontage or gallery. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I didn't suggest to replace some of the images with Beria or such people. I asked that question only to demonstrate that selecting images is often arbitrary. The problems of other articles (like Ukrainians) are not relevant here. We should look at good articles like Icelanders: Two pictures of real prominent people plus one picture of a monument, all of them mentioned in the text. British people has four pictures plus the stamp of the late Queen. One article where I was involved (not a good article), Germans, has none. If you doubt the neutrality of my editing, see e.g. my comment at Talk:Portuguese_people#Ethnic_galleries. NOETHNICGALLERIES links to two discussions. The concerns voiced there are arbitrary selection and contentiousness of the selection. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Dubious content - Genetics

The genetic section includes some dubious statements with unclear verification, such as "genetic purity", "East Slavs identical to West Slavs", "unusual homogeneity", etc., all cited by rather old references (from 2002 and 2012).

This stands in contrast to newer studies which highlight at least some heterogeneity and admixture events.[1][2]

Caution should be raised when someone speaks about "genetic purity", especially when these claims stand in contrast to:

Therefore, Siberian admixtures into Northeastern Europe likely began prior to 6.6 kya, coinciding with the expansion of Y-Chromosome haplogroup N1c1 among Siberians and Northeastern Europeans (7.1–4.9 kya). Since haplogroup N likely originated in Asia (Shi et al. 2013) and currently achieves its highest frequency among Siberian populations, its presence among Eastern Europeans likely reflects ancient gene flows from Siberia into Northeastern Europe.

Wang et al. 2015:

Orange172212 (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is more recent study from 2017 that contradicts your claims.
https://bmcgenomdata.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12863-017-0578-3
According to geneticists, "Ukrainians, Belarusians and Russians have almost identical proportions of Caucasus and Northern European components and have virtually no Asian influence". However, many ethnic minority groups from Russia were found to be characterized by the presence of significant higher amounts of Asian components, yet European ancestry also makes up the majority of their respective gene pool: "European components account for 50% - 90% of admixture vectors in both Turkic and Uralic speakers of the Volga-Ural region". Other ethnic minorities, such as from the Caucasus region, harbored predominantly "Caucasus and Iranian" components. Telleroftruth2000 (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Studies are primary sources. If different primary sources seem to contradict each other, we need to base the article on secondary sources (which are preferable, anyway). Given that human genetic diversity normally corresponds to the distance between populations, the claim that Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Russians are genetically very close to each other and removed from their neighbours seems to be a WP:REDFLAG. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Telleroftruth2000 (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
It is not some sort of a "flag" that east slavs share genetic similarities with each other. They are people with geographic proximity with each other, and have similar origins as a people. Furthermore, even if it was a "flag", my source, and another source ALREADY within this wiki article back up the claim that east slavs are similar so the "extraordinary evidence" requirement is met.
Anyway you misunderstood my point. I was refuting the other guy's claim that Russians have detectable/ considerable asaitic influences. My source and a source also ALREADY within the article refute this claim.
I have a consensus of sources on my side, some which are already within the article. Telleroftruth2000 (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Telleroftruth2000 (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether you got my point about primary and secondary sources. Of course, e.g. Ukrainians are gentically close to Russians, but I'd bet they are also close to Poles and Russians from northern Russia are probably close to Finns. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0888754318307419
  2. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5204334/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russians/Archive_6&oldid=1231471461"