From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

Article policies
Russia was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 2007-03-01

Russia is within the scope of the Russian History WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian History. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Russia is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
This article is supported by the WikiProject on Countries, which collaborates on nations and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Russia, or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on its quality.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Russia as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Indonesian or Japanese language Wikipedias.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

An event mentioned in this article is a June 12 selected anniversary


[edit] "Independence" from USSR

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. -- 04:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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". 16:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Olympic Medal Counts for USSR/CIS/Russia?

Not sure whether this could be of interest to members of this forum, but I created a table with Olympic medal statistics that includes a total medal count for the USSR and its successor organization CIS (among many other things). There is no entry (yet?) for the combination USSR/CIS/Russia, which is often seen in published Olympic medal counts. I'd be glad if someone could find some time to comment on this: Olympic Medal Statistics: Medal Count Winners. Although time may be running out - recently someone nominated this table for deletion, which is being discussed here: this article's entry. Medalstats 14:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks great. Good job.


[edit] Russia owns territory deeper in Europe?

If you zoom in on the world map, you’ll see Russia highlighted green and some other tiny country deeper in Europe, not connected with Russia. What country is that?

You're probably talking about Kaliningradskaya Oblast'. It's a part of Russia, and yes, it is disconnected from the mainland (just as, say, Alaska or Hawaii is disconnected from US mainland). Azov 20:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, an exclave. It seems it has a bright future... just hope Russia doesn't lose it. Dont worry sooner sun stpos shining than russia let herself loose any part of its territory...

Kaliningrad was never a part of Russia before it was annexed by the USSR in 1947. For 1,000 years it had been part of German East Prussia. The reason that it became detached from Russia was because of the break up of the Soviet Union. It's billing as the future "Hong Kong on the Baltic" has never materialized and probably never will. Landau7 15:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Russia has to return some of its illegally stolen lands back to Japan, Finland, Estonia, etc., though.
AS a Finn, I can correct that Russia never have given back stolen land like Karelia isthmus, Salla, Petsamo, etc.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

It's not stolen land! Soviet Red Army soldiers like my grand-father "paid" for this land with their lives! Only stupid fascists like you would show such disrespect for Soviet troops great courage and heroism defeating Hitler and his Nazi horde! And Karellia was never "your land": before the Revolution, there wasn't even such a nation, Finland, there was Russian Empire and all of Finland was in it, including Karellia. We were just taking back what the traitors stole from us when they ran away during the Revolutsya!


The land in question was part of a democratic country which the USSR invaded in 1940 in the Winter War to grab land. The operation was not against a fascist regime. It was not until the 1941-4 Continuation War that Finland became allied with Nazi Germany, but only to regain its lost territories, and enjoyed a democratic government throughout this period. Landau7 15:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Maritime border"

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/tɔk tə mi 09:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

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)
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/tɔk tə mi 12:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
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)
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/tɔk tə mi 06:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
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. 19:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
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)

No this is not ridiculous, as both Canada and Russia have claimed their northern expanse (over sea and ice) all the way to the North Pole. So, geographically, they do touch (at least their territorial claims touch) at the North Pole. I don't think the United States has yet claimed the eastern half of the Pacific Ocean. :) --Ramdrake 18:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)

[edit] Unclear paragraph

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)

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)

[edit] Privyet, and...

To any Russians who may be editing this page, this caught my eye:

"Putin's presidency has brought stability, and won endorsement from Western governments by Putin's commitment to fighting Islamic terrorism."

I should mention to the person above that Putin has made a few communist endorsing statements. One statement he made was the the fall of the Soviet Union was a tragedy. 07:44 January 31 2006 (UTC)

Is this an exaggerated portrayal of modern Russia, or is it a propagandistic portrayal? It sounds like something they show on the public (ie Kremlin) channels all day, but I know it's not true - I've been visiting Russia over the past few years and lived there for a year very recently. Anyone care to discuss and change this statement? -- Simonides 01:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Privet, and thanks! what an embarrassment. It's this edit from 12:20, 15 October 2005; isn't that what they call "fell through the cracks"...
I gave it a try; and even though a mention about terrorism, as I think, would have been quite in place, but I removed the reference to "Islamic terrorism" altogether because that article just didn't seem like proper reference to me. Please edit me down (or out) further as you see fit. Please keep up good watch :) - Introvert talk 08:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you! Yes, the Putin govt does keep vowing to fight terrorism, but whether they've actually "brought stability" or "won endorsement" for basically tightening censorship and other so-called security measures is questionable. :) -- Simonides 03:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics Confusion

"Judaism is very uncommon among non-Jews" that really necessary?

[edit] Russian "Names"

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)

[edit] Objectivity

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)

[edit] Emphasis markers in transliterations

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)

[edit] Barbarossa

There is an error in this text. It says that Germany and it allies invaded Russia. Germany attacked Russia, but Finland was attacked by Russia. Yet it says Finland invades Russia. Finland must be removed from that or add something to make it more clear.

Russia invaded Finland in the Winter War in 1940. Later, when Germany invaded Russia in 1941, Finland participated (although it's not like they had a real choice). The text is correct. Toby Douglass 14:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No its not correct since Finland actually didnt invade what is considered as russian soil but what is considered as finnish soil. finland didnt invade what is considered to be russian, it was a counter-offensive to win back land that finland lost during the winter war. atleast thats what i have been taught, i may be wrong but i find it more likely that a scandinavian nows more about his peoples history then a american/english or whatever nation the name Toby Douglass derives from. /Oskar

Finland occupied East Karelia during GPW, including its capital Petrozavodsk (Petroskoi or Äänislinna in Finnish). It has never been a part of Finland (neither Duchy, nor Republic). 15:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

-- Finland did not really have a choise, they could either join the axis or be overrun by Russia. In my oppinion they did the right thing. Furthermore it's quite safe to say that whole Finland was occupied since it had not realy existed before 1917. It had been a province under Sweden and Russia since forever. The border covered the areas of the original province of Finland wich in turn covered the area in wich the finns live(d). So saying that East Karelia didn't belong to Finland is like saying Finland didn't belong to Finland.

And Finland originally was a province of Russia (and Sweden before that). So there... ;-)
Serously, though, it doesn't really matter who lives where. East Karelia was officially Soviet territory and thus, Finnish forces moving onto it were "invading". --Illythr 16:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The winter war began in 1939 with the Soviet attack on Finland, not in 1940. Finland indeed did not begin the offensive on Soviet Union during Barbarossa. When the German offensive on Soviet Union began, the Soviets also bombed Finland who had minor troop movement and presence of German troops in Finnish Lapland (military access). Not that the Finnish intention was NOT to regain those areas, it just gave them a better excuse for mobilization at that point (and joining the Axis)

Check out this link to clear things up: Continuation War --Illythr 20:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

"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 (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Trade with mars

I will add this info

Trade volume between China and Russia reached $29.1 billion in 2005, an on-year surge of 37.1 percent

China is now Russia’s fourth largest trade partner, and Russia is China’s eighth largest trade partner

In the first 11 months of 2005, China’s export of machinery and electronic goods to Russia grew 70 percent, accounting for 24 percent of China’s total export to Russia. During the 11 months, China’s export of high-tech products to Russia grew 58 percent, accounting for 7 percent of China’s total exports to Russia. Most of China’s exports to Russia remain apparel and footwear.

In the first nine months of 2005, China’s contracted investment in Russia totaled $368 million, twice that in 2004. China now has over 750 investment projects in Russia, involving $1.05 billion.

During the January-November period of 2005, border trade between the two countries reached $5.13 billion, growing 35 percent and accounting for nearly 20 percent of the total trade.

Russia’s exports to China are mainly those of energy sources, such as crude oil, which is mostly transported by rail, and electricity exports from neighboring Siberian and Far Eastern regions. In the near future, exports of both of these commodities are set to increase, as Russia is building a giant pipeline to Pacific Ocean with a branch to Chinese border, and Russian power grid monopoly UES is building some of its hydropower stations with a view of future exports to China.

Feel free to help me re write it so that it sounds difrently then the article

Which i got from here

-- This comment was not signed.

[edit] Cuba Crisis

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.
            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)

[edit] Tsar of Russia

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)

[edit] A few general issues

Alright, I made a grammar/syntax sweep of the page and noted a few odd things on the way. The changes I did were strictly non-political, so I'm posting the trickier stuff in hopes of advice from the regulars here:

  • "In October 1991, as Russia was on the verge of independence"
I’d rather say " the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse" – Great Britain doesn’t celebrate its “independence” from the US, after all...
Soviet Union was the multinational state. It is not necessary to represent its colonial empire only because the capital was in Moscow. Stalin as is known was the Georgian, and Khruschev was the Ukrainian. Imagine the hindu - the prime minister of the Great Britain? -- 06:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, an incorrect example. Still, I don't think the last remaining state in a union can really declare its independence from said union.
  • Russia has taken up the responsibility for settling the USSR's external debts, although its population is 50% of the population of the USSR.
But the decisions were made in Moscow at the time, weren't they?
  • In late 2005, Russia increased the price of gas to the Ukraine from $50 to $230 per 1,000 cubic meters of gas.
I think this needs a clarification, that $230 is, in fact, the market price for the gas, so that the sentence doesn’t make Russia look like an extortionist monster almost quintupling the price just like that.

Illythr 23:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed the finished stuff --Illythr 13:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Union successor

What does it mean that Russia is "usually" considered the successor state to the Soviet Union? Is this to suggest that anyone who doesn't think Russia is the successor state thinks that there is no successor? Or is there some crazy loon out there suggesting that Uzbekistan is the real heir to the Soviet Union's geopolitical prescence?

Some people might consider Russia as the same political entity as the USSR,they do not recognize the Russian Federation,or believe that The Russian Federation and the USSR are separate existing entities. Dudtz 2/22/06 9:00 PM EST

Huh? What do you reckon the difference between "Russia" and "Russian Federation" is?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 02:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no difference between the names "Russian Federation" and "Russia". It says in the Russian constitution, "The names Russia and Russian Federation shall be equal".

[edit] Motto

"Motto: None (Formerly "Пролетарии всех стран, соединяйтесь!" Russian: Workers of the world, unite!)"

This has never been a motto of Russian Federation - it's that of USSR.

[edit] Objectivity in Soviet Russia section

It starts out

"Russians are communist bastards who mooch off of everyone else when they need something. Go to Russia and you will hate all those damns shi*heads. they suck major di*k."

Then continues normally. It needs to go.

[edit] Population shrinkage

What do you suppose is the cause for the current population decrease trend in Russia? Immigration? Health care? MOD 22:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what I find more interesting is Russia's rather extreme male-to-female sex ratio, which stood at 87.16 males to every 100 females in the 2002 census. It is one of the lowest ratios in the world, its only really significant competition coming from a few other eastern European ex-members of the Soviet Union, notably Ukraine. Backspace 01:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Life in Russia is currently hard and many do not have the money for children. As a result, they do not have children they cannot support as many of them work three jobs just to get by on their own. Coupled with that, the ones that do attempt to have children have to deal with a healthcare system that is improving at a good rate, but is currently not . . . great. All of these factors contribute to Russia's negative population growth, but this is starting to turn around, and will most likely be done before the end of the century, if that makes you feel better.
I don't like to be pessimistic, but I don't see Russia's population coming back. Europe is facing the same problem. If it were not for birth control, things would be better. For the first time in history, women have a choice, and they are saying, "No".
It seems to me that unless things get better, a lot sooner, there could be problems -- the nature of which I'm unable define. The numbers, along with some measure of intuition (mine), are not very hopeful.
Does it really matter that the population is shrinking? Why is constant human population growth good? As for me, I would hope that the world population reaches a peak then shrinks at a slow rate, so that we're not overwhelmed with old people. Hopefully this population peak isn't accompanied with widespread destruction of the environment as our numbers reach the point when we can no longer feed ourselves, hopefully we can foresee the devestation before it occurs. Personally, I'd like to live in a world with fewer than 2 billion people. But that's just my two cents. BirdValiant 06:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gender language use

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 (talkcontribs) .

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)
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)
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)

Its probably because of high immigration into Russia, people migrate there already with families, and choose not to have any more children for whatever reasons, thus they contribute to death rate, but not so much to birth rate. Statistics of birth/death arent accurate in the portrayal of overall trends in the population, unless the country (or group of countries in question) has unpermiable borders.

[edit] Economy

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)

Substantially rephrased the wild and incorrect assertion that Russia had repaid all its debt. The most recent statement I've seen says that debt will be reduced to $40bn over the next 3 years Rmcubed 01:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Russia does not have the fifth largest economy in europe, nor the ninth in the world. Not according to the WB or the IMF, at any rate. Please quote your references or remove that parragraph. -- 21:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

My bad... purchasing power parity. Sure.-- 22:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economy prospects

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)

[edit] My edits

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)

[edit] Novaya Russia

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)

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)

[edit] Units

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)

[edit] Information on religion needed

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)

added link to the religion in russia. -- tasc talkdeeds 07:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
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)

[edit] Who fought USSR in WWII

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:


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)

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).

[edit] Government

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)

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)

[edit] Vandals!

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)

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)
May be "Ancient Rus (Древняя Русь, Drevnya Rus)"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
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)

[edit] Motto (Russia is not New Hampshire)

User, 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)

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)

[edit] Independence days

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)

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)
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)
you're wrong. -- tasc talkdeeds 17:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
explain please Elk Salmon 08:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There was, in fact, no long-time polish control. There was just an invasion. The Poles didn't really controled anything. See Times of Troubles. Russia never really depended on any country. So word 'independece' sounds ridiculously here.

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)
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).

[edit] Germans in Russia (Rußlanddeutsche)

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)

Map from 1974 on right. German areas are marked with X's. Hope this helps. (click on it to enlarge) EamonnPKeane 15:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that parts of New Land Islands (Новая Земля) seem to be settled. It used to be a nuke testing ground (first fusion bomb was tested there).

[edit] What continent is Russia in?

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)

Russia is part of the Council of Europe and 83% of its people are Slavs, who are considered a European race. EamonnPKeane 15:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC) ---

Russia never identified itself as a European country. In fact it is a Eurasian country. It has a different from Europe and Asia culture combining elements of both.


That's not true either - some Russians think of themselves as Europeans, and the country as European, try telling someone in Novgorod or Pskov that his culture has Asian elements. Geographically its partly in Europe, mostly in Asia. Population-wise its mostly in Europe, party in Asia. Ethnically, 83% of people are ethnic Russians, who are not really mongoloid, albeit I wouldnt say that they are slavs either. Dont think there are many pure Slavs left in the world, ethnic Russians are a mix of slavic, baltic, germanic, and finno-ugric peoples to varying degrees. 14:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Human Development Index

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 [1], 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)

Ok, nevermind. BirdValiant 05:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Scratch that, somebody changed it to even higher, at 0.810. Why? BirdValiant 18:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia

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: [2]. Thanks again. -- AJ24 23:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish society

In Russia there is a large community of Jewish people. The gouvernment had accepted them. But are Jews persecuted by the Russian population? I heard that in Russia there are a lot of friends of Anti-semitism and that´s why they came to Israel, but the most immigrated to Germany. Is that wrong? Will Yidish-culture in Birobidzhan be death soon? I heard that the local community had built an new synagogue. Simon MAYER.

Myself I haven't encountered any anti-semitism here in Moscow. I suppose our nationalists/skinheads have switched to the Caucasians (in narrow sense) and Middle Asians.Alaexis 13:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't beleive there are any significant ani-semitism in Russia, at least no more than in any other country. I suspect people who imigrated saying things about "antisemitism" only because that helping them to get aid, greeen cards and so on. I have a friend who imigrated to U.S. from Ukraine and he been awarded "refugee status" based on his story how suposely badly he been treated in the second grade of the elementary school. That's just an another fairy tale what people saying just to get benefits.
I don't have the link on me but I followed a site once that basically recorded every anti-semetic activity around the globe that was reported, Russia had a very significant number. However, when taking Jewish population, and overall population into account I do not know how it would compare then. Maybe someone has some more information, I will bring it back here if I find that link again. --JaymzRR 10:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist State

The following line: "Unrecognised by many countries, Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, regards Russia as a terrorist and non-democratic state." has been deleted. Why? Isn't the statement true?

The "Chechen Republik of Ichkeria" is unrecognised by ALL states. The only ones to recognise it are Taliban. I think it is pretty much self-explanatory.
The Chechen Republik of Ichakeria doesn't exist, if you don't exist you can't recognize another state as anything.

[edit] Russian Birthdays

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)

No. :) --ajvol 08:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
I think these explanations sound right. Thanks for helping me understand another culture! Chris53516 13:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Added it to ageing :) Nikola 20:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russia's opinion on Kosovo?

Is the Veto on Kosovo's status true? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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)
^+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)
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)
What about Russia's inner separatist factions? --HolyRomanEmperor 16:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
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)

Does the section title mean Russia's opinion on Kosovo during its conflict, or on Kosovo as it currently is or on what would in Russia's opinion become of Kosovo in the future? -Mardus 10:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Both. --PaxEquilibrium 14:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technology

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. 07:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism and locking page

Someone vandalized the area where the flag is supposed to be. This article should be locked. 01:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Nuclearmound

Should this page be locked because of all the vandalism going on lately? It seems like it never ends! At what point can we lock the page so these people don't keep screwing it up? —Chris53516 13:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I requested protection, but it was denied. Apparently it's not enough activity to warrant it. Chris53516 13:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politics: Chief of State/Head of Gov't

"The politics of Russia (the Russian Federation) take place in a framework of a federal presidential republic, whereby the President of Russia is both head of state and head of government, and of a pluriform multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the government. Legislative power is vested in both the government and the two chambers of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation."

This is incorrect. The Russian president is the Chief (Head) of State while the Russian premier, who is appointed by the President, serves as the Head of Government.

Proof: "chief of state: President Vladimir Vladimirovich PUTIN (acting president 31 December 1999-6 May 2000, president since 7 May 2000) head of government: Premier Mikhail Yefimovich FRADKOV (since 5 March 2004); First Deputy Premier Dmitriy Anatolyevich MEDVEDEV (since 14 November 2005), Deputy Premiers Aleksandr Dmitriyevich ZHUKOV (since 9 March 2004) and Sergey Borisovich IVANOV (since 14 November 2005)"

I was doing an assignment on Russia and thought I'd do my part and keep things straight. I didn't edit it, because I'm not sure how people would like it to be revised.

--Spenser September 19, 2006

[edit] Viktor Khristenko

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)

[edit] Revert

I've reverted to the version of this article at 14:24, 3 October 2006 by Ezhiki. The reason why is because РКП (talk contribs) 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)

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)

[edit] Italics in Cyrillics

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)

[edit] Section: Prospect

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.


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, [3] & [4]).
  • 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.
  • " 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)

[edit] Eastern Europe?

I keep hearing Americans describe Russia as an Eastern European country. How would Russians respond to this?

there is nothing wrong. russia is eastern european country. russia owns around one half of europe, russian is east slavic nation. Slavs is largest European ethnic group, populating nearly 2/3 of Europe. As of Russia - 80% of Russia's population is living on European part. Read East Slavs article and History of Russia. Elk Salmon 08:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The same way Americans would respond that they're living in North America, and are a North American Country. Eastern Europe isn't as bad as people make it out to be. It's actually a great place to go for tourism.

There is one europe, East and West but we are one Mark us street Nov 25th 2006.

[edit] Mention of Independce/Liberation Day

Earlier in the discussion you guys talk about the Polish invasion during the Times of Troubles; as one who did scholarly research on this stuff, here's my two cents:

- Between 1598-1613 Russia was in such turmoil that it was not at all obvious who ruled. Anyone who could gather an decent army could claim to rule; this is especially true of the years 1610-1613. From 1598-1605 Boris Gudunov officially ruled, but the power became more and more decentralized. From 1605-1606 the pretender (false Dmitri) ruled, and he was the one who brought the Poles into Moscow. However Muscovy (the state) had no Poles east of Moscow (the city). From 1606-1610 Basil Shuisky staged yet another coup, came to power and had his wife kill his brother, and anyone else who challendged him. However in terms of military leadership, he was umm, a dolt. So the Poles using the fact that their ruler, (false Dmitri) was killed, began to invade Russia. The Boyar Duma could elect one to be Tsar, but after 1605 had so little influence that their selections were ineffectual. At some point in time, they did select the Polish Prince to be the Tsar, provided he converted to Orthodoxy. So anyways, the Poles attack Basil Shuisky, who gloriously loses almost every battle to the Poles, and they reach Moscow, and occupy it. Basil Shuisky also loses power, due to political coups, not just the Poles. Meanwhile very few people are caring what's going on in the capital, revolts are going on all over the country, the fun stuff. At this point in time, the Polish King renounces his will to join the Orthodox Church, and decides to conquer Russia by force. Meanwhile, a merchant named Minin is having trouble with his commerce in a city called Nizhniy Novogord (aka Gorki) because the country is in chaos; so he talks to Prince Pozharsky, who was one of the best Russian generals at the time, to supply, organize and lead an army against the Poles in Moscow. Minin was also very patriotic, and spared no expense for himself and the city, to give Pozharski the army he said he needed. So Pozharski gets to Moscow, kicks the crap out of the Poles and the rebels, and liberates Moscow. (Ever since the Poles did not fare well against Russians.) The Boyar Duma is so discredited at this point that they have to let free peasants play a part in the choice of who is to be the new Tsar. Hence the assembly elects the Romanov. The day when Pozharski liberated Moscow, because it was being turned into a city of coups, counter-coups, theivery, and well, I'd rather not get specific, let's just say it was pretty disgraceful, until Pozharski re-eastablished order by force, so that day is when the Russians celebrate their independence from the troublemakers, the Poles and Basil Shuiski and Co. Also to note, the Rurikids were NOT wiped out! It was just the ruling branch that was, but if one goes back along the geneology, there were many other Rurikids, most notably the Dolgurikiis whose 'clan' is still alive today. So tell me if you guys want the whole story, and if you don't trust me, I highly recommend Nikolay Karamzin, who compiled all this stuff while the Russian Empire was at its height in 1790's - 1800's. So yeah, you have to be able to read Old Russian to understand him, but then again if you learn that you could also read Pushkin in the original, anyways I think I've gone off topic here, so tell me if you want clarifications, more info, etc. Times of Trouble is quite fascinating.

[edit] Kosovo/Serbia

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)

[edit] Schwarzenberg

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 -- 06:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Transnistria

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)

[edit] Map

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)

[edit] Images here are great!

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)

[edit] Abkhaz

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)

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)
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)
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)

is russia dangerous 01:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

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


Holdah-what'sah? We're talking about Russia's interests in Abkhazia over 'ere. --PaxEquilibrium 20:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

 Abkhazia is not Albania and will never be - Abkhazia is Georgia.

Ola, is it true that Sochi belonged to Georgia and communinsts gave it to Russian comrades as a gift? Nice present, I want it too :). These Georgians man, God bless them, how can you be so generous. You see, now you want more, I guess that land is delicious. Also what does Sochi mean? Some Russian guy told me it means a pine tree in Georgian, nice name. But if you hear a Georgian man mentioning word 'sochi' in your streets what do you do? - You know the answer- Yan Yan Haa


I've deleted the template "Countries in Asia" because Russia is a european country... Great Britain had colonies in Asia, Great Britain today as like Spain and France have colonies in Pacific Ocean and North Africa, which are the members of the European Union too. Where is a problem? ;) Uuu87 12:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that unlike other countries you mentioned Russia does not have "colonies" or "dependent territories" in Asia. Most of Russia's main territory is in Asia. Take it from a Russian like me—I come from the Russian Far East, and even though I have European mentality, I do not consider myself European. Indeed, for an ethnic Russian I spent very little time in Europe. Exact same is true for many other inhabitants of the Asian portion of Russia. Not to mention that Russia being a trans-continental country is a well-known, established, and undisputed academic fact. So, where is the problem?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
O, no... There are a lot people in Poland, Romania, Czech Republic and even Slovakia, who say something like this, but it's absolutely wrong, because we are ETHNICAL europeans: russian-slavic people came from Central Europe (East Germany), therefore we are ethnical europeans, and SIBERIA IS RUSSIAN COLONY, because natural Russia is Kiev-Rus Imperia.Some people like hungaries and finnish people are NOT ethnical europeans, but they would "europeanised".Our national (not modern)culture is a part of Roman-German-Slavic culture (for example, you can compare bavarian and russian national songs and house architecture).We are not finnish people or hungarians and we should not be "europeanised", because we are anyway ethnical and cultural europeans.2.Geografical barriers are not cultural barriers.We have "europeaned" Siberia and "Far East" and their cities were looking absolute same like german cities before the f..cking Bolshevics came and destroyed them... But they couldn't destroy all of them!Central Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Tomsk, Omsk, Krasnoyarsk, Nizhniy Novgorod (who was a city of hansa!) etc.. today are looking as in 19-th Century and are the part of historical heritage of Europe as like barocco churchies and buildings in all russian countries!Some people in Poland (up to 30%) for example tell, that Poland is a Westasian country, that Poland is not Europe... There are many people in Slovakia, Hungary and Romania, who think the same... There are some people in West-Germany, who tell, that so-called "East Germans" from formerly German Democratic Republic are NOT germans...There are a lot of people in Russia, who tell, that SIBERIA or MOSCOW are NOT RUSSIA... etc.Are you agree with all these idiots???Most of the people, who say something like that have very low standing of education and intellect... We should all understand, that this is a result of our low standing of intellect and soviets propaganda.WE ARE THE ONE NATION - EUROPEANS.(By the way, I'm russian too ;)) Uuu87 20:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
FYI a word colony has different definition, and Siberia is a russian region. Even russians are slavs, they also had been mixed with finn-ugors, tatars, skifs, varyags and many others. So for russians it's more suitable to be euroasians (russiasians, eurussiasians, lol). As Pushkin said: Поймите же, Россия никогда ничего не имела общего с остальною Европою Alexandre Koriakine 22:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'd suggest paying more attention to the phrases you quote. "Russia doesn't have anything to do with "the rest of Europe" simply means that it's a separate region within Europe. Namely Eastern Europe, the region that in times of Pushkin did belong to the the Russian Empire for the most part. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Humanophage (talkcontribs) 19:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
(It's not funny anymore!)1.SIBERIA is not NATIVE russian region as like Latine America is not NATIVE part of Spain/Portugal.SIBERIA would be conquered, allthough it is absolutely irrelevant: The Colonies of Greate Britain would be 179 times bigger than GB self.. By the France and Netherlands is the same. 2.THE GEOGRAFICAL BORDERS ARE NOT CULTURAL BORDERS.3.There over 20% of the citizens of Germany, France, Danmark, Greаte Britain, Switzerland etc... are foreigners.There are more people in these countries than in Russia, who married and have children with these people. And what?Are germans or french people not europeans anymore?No.On the contrary: the foreigners would be integrated in these societies and would be (most of them) a part of culture of these countries... To Pushkin: Вы знаете, недавно по немецкому телевидению показывали интервью с одним испанским крестьянином (Испания уже 20 лет в ЕС, для справки), так вот он прямо так и сказал, что они-де, испанские крестьяне, получают деньги "из Европы"... Я тихо хохотал...Я Вас прошу, перестаньте, это уже действительно не смешно...Вас надо обязательно познакомить с кем-нибудь из тех, кого Вы считаете европейцами: поляками, чехами, словаками, румынами...Вы будете весьма удивлены тем, что некоторые из них думают точно также как и Вы и даже готовы с пеной на губах доказывать Вам, что "Польска - край заходноазиатский" "lol".Среди них есть, к сожалению, и профессора...Кстати, подавляющее число русских интеллегентов в дореволюционной России считало нашу страну европейской...Uuu87 01:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I still don't see the problem. The template deals with geography, not culture. You called those who claim that Siberia is not part of Russia "idiots", so by that, you agree that Siberia *is* a part of Russia. Siberia is situated in Asia. Therefore, Russia is a country both in Europe and Asia. As for a generalizing criterion (Europeans, Asians), I can only quote the following:
Умом Россию не понять,
Аршином общим не измерить.
У ней особенная стать,
В Россию можно только верить
--Illythr 10:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Uuu87 - Flame started, anyhow - 1. Siberia is not native, say, then someone may say that every part of Russia is not native. Yesterday it wasn't native, today it is native. 2. Подавляющее число русских интеллигентов? Ха-ха. Этот спор между русофилами и западниками продолжается уже вторую сотню лет. Реальность показывает, что европейцы сами ничего общего не хотят иметь с русскими варварами. Так чего нам лезть в европейский огород? Germans are europeans, russians are not europeans but eurasians (because of the mix of many cultures from east and west, and probably south). Don't see any problems. Alexandre Koriakine 12:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Germany today is that same.There are 45% (18-64 years old-group) of citizens are people, which one of the parents or all parents are foreigners (immigrants from Аsia or other countries).Are Germans eurasians tоо? :)))).2.Native region of Russia is Central Ukraine, allthough we've came from Central Europe (today East Germany).К началу 20-го века ЭТОТ вопрос был в России решён.А сейчас этот вопрос снова разгорается.И притом не только у нас, но и как я уже говорил и в Польше и в Словакии, и в Румынии, Венгрии, и даже Чехии.Всё это происходит потому, что мы долгое время были в изоляции, а также поддвергались советской пропаганде.Тоже самое произошло и в Германии: 50 лет назад она делилась на Северную и Южную, а с момента воссоединения на Западную и Восточную... Людей очень трудно убедить в том, что Германия всего лишь 50 лет назад была едина...:)A насчёт самоидентификации скажу Вам следующее: я уже давно живу в Германии и могу Вам сказать, что единственные, кто нас не считают европейцами, это иммигранты из бывшего СССР (и то не все)...:).Кстати, Вам ещё не надоело?Я просто один раз убрал шаблон, его вернули, я оставил всё как есть.Так что флейм развожу не я (почитайте начало дискуссии):).This discuss is absurdely... Uuu87 14:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S: There are a lot polish people in Poland (up to 30%), who tell, that Poland is NOT european country (and some of them even say, that Poland WESTASIAN country!), there are a lot romanians in Romania, who say "Romania is not Europe" (The european identification rate there is like in Russia), there are a lot of people in Slovakia, Hungary and even Czech Rebuplic, who say "We are not europeans!".There are some such people even in SPAIN and Greece!Are you one of them?..."Polish, Romanian, Moldavian, Bulgarian even Austrian and Slovenian etc. people are NOT EUROPEAN BUT EURASIAN BECAUSE OF MIXING WITH TATARS AND MONGOLS IN MIDDLE AGE" - It's ABSURDELY!WE (AND THEY TOO) HAVE INTEGRATED THESE ELEMENTS, NOT on the contrary!...It would be better to stop this idiotical discussion... Uuu87 14:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand the definition of a continent. It doesn't matter what continent Russians think they are in, all that matters is that they are located in a country that extends from the Atlantic ocean to the Pacific, and from Europe to Asia. If you look at Russia on a map with continental boundaries, you will clearly see that it is located in both Europe and Asia. It doesn't matter what continent Russians identify themselves with, since that doesn't change the facts. BirdValiant 03:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The boundary between Europe and Asia is based entirely on culture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Humanophage (talkcontribs) 19:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] This line

"It is also close to the United States and Japan across relatively small stretches of water" As far as I'm concerned, the United States is across the Pacific Ocean from Russia, which I do not think qualifies as a "relatively small stretch of water." Since I cannot change this, I would just like to tell you this. Am I correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Ever seen a world map? Check this out: Bering strait. --Illythr 23:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No way, Russia is an Asian country as much as it is an European country. Russian Federation is located in Eastern Europe and Northern Asia.

[edit] OK

Than: "...Spain is a country in Europe and Africa..." - no comments... Uuu87 01:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it is. It has two exclaves on the african continent, thus making it a country in Africa. It's geography man, just let it drop. 14:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why isn't there any animal information here?

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)

Also why isn't there any information on rocks? I need to know about the rocks in Russia, someone add it! Oh and while you are at it, can you also add some information about Russian bunnies? Kthxbye.

[edit] Ancient Vishnu Idol Can Change View on Russian History

News Chanakyathegreat 16:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New stuff in Ancient Rus history section

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)

[user: Dmitry] I added that stuff and will remove it now. thank you

[edit] land border with the US

Just out of Curiosity, where is this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by say1988 (talkcontribs).

Just out of Curiosity, wWhere did you find this in the article? --Illythr 15:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)

[edit] Siberia equals 75% of Russia?

The figures I can find not using Wikipedia are 6.6 million square miles for Russia. Siberia is given as 5 million square miles. So the actual percentage for Siberia is closer to 75% than 50%. Is this acceptable to the Siberian tag team?Student7 04:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, you are trying to measure something that is not strictly defined. There are several definitions of Siberia, some including the Russian Far East, some excluding it, some accounting for the Sakha Republic, some ignoring it. The only percentage one can source and reference is the area of the Siberian Federal District, which accounts for 30% of the total area of the country. All other definitions will indeed give you a range of 30% to 75%, but none of the figures in that range can be cited as the only "true" percentage.
Another thing is that citing one Wikipedia article as a source of another is not acceptable. You might want to read this policy to see what kind of references are acceptable. Let me know if you have questions. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WTF?

nothing about military power?? Cliché Online 18:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Try Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that the article on Russia has been vandalized. I will not stand for this!

It is today (Jan. 26, 2007) at the beginning of the article as well but I couldn't seem to find the words in the edit window to delete them. :(

For the motherland!

[edit] Vandalized

I changed "russia is gone again" to the actual page on Russia.

[edit] Say What?

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)SwedishConqueror

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)

[edit] misconception of russia

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 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)

Read the constitution. It is the least you can do if you are going to proclaim your views about a country to the world community. Chapter 1, Article 1, Point 2 - Наименования Российская Федерация и Россия равнозначны. (The names Russian Federation and Russia refer to one and same entity). Also you might be confused by the fact that there are no two separate words in English for ethnic russians, and citizens of the Russian Federation. So Tatars _are_ Russians in the English sense, but they are not _ethnic_ Russians. You also erroneously compare Siberia to Tatarstan - Tatarstan is an autonomous republic, while "Siberia" exists only as the Siberian Federal District, which is itself subdivided into actual federal subjects, four of which are autonomous republics with their own parliaments and presidents, while the largest - Красноярский Край(Krasnoayrskiy Krai), is not a republic at all.

[edit] Sputnik & Gagarin

Under Khrushchev, the Soviet Union launched the world's first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1, and the Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first person to orbit the Earth. - this sentence incorrectly implies that Gagarin flew on the Sputnik. I'm re-phrasing it. -- 18:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The way you changed it makes it look like Gagarin was launched by a giant catapult or something... :-) I suggest the following:
Under Khrushchev, the Soviet Union launched the world's first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1, and the Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first person to orbit the Earth aboard the first manned spacecraft, Vostok 1.--Illythr 20:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments, objections, complaints, insults? :-) --Illythr 23:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just how many federal subjects does Russia have?

"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 ( 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 (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

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)

Thank you, this clarifies it...

[edit] Junk in Unregistered Version


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)

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)

[edit] "Independence"?

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

[edit] Wording

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 (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fratricide

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)

Consider working on this article instead, if you intend an expansion. --Illythr 23:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I think the influence of fratricide was significant enough it deserves mention even in a snipet. I merely mentioned a rewrite because it would be hard to work in fratricide the way it is written right now, I didn't really have any plans for expansion beyond the inclusion of fratricide.--JaymzRR 10:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound ignorant, but what is "fratricide"? Never heard this word before.

  • Killing brothers. If some prince wants to rule he has to kill the other candidates on the position. I think it was quite common for all the medieval world, but in Kievan Rus it was even more prominent due to the weird hereditary rules Alex Bakharev 05:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things: Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb 2007 00:18 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

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)

I'll try to add some verifiable references. Lakers 00:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sports Section

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

[edit] Rus

OK, I'll give - what's with calling the section "Ancient Rus" ZBrannigan 20:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly because its shorter, if its not a official name it should be removed my suggestion. Lakers 00:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Kievan and later on Muscovian Rus was the name of Ancient Russia. It came from the Slavic tribes of Ross people who are belived to be the ancestors of Russian and Ukrainian people.