Talk:Federal subjects of Russia/Archive 1

Merge Proposal
It seems that List of federal subjects of Russia by population is redundent, and should be deleted or merged. I'll admit I am no expert on the subject matter, but this is my observation. Comments? Cheezerman 05:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am strongly against. The list is referenced from every article on Russian federal subjects, and it's the only logical place for the rankings reference.  Besides, the list can be expanded to accomodate more detailed Census data such as nationalities ratios and trends.  Furthermore, the list of subjects proper is already quite long and unwieldy to overwhelm it with population details.&mdash;Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 05:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also, I'm an idiot, I didn't realise that lists such as this were an integral part of wikipedia. I'm removing my proposal.  Sorry Cheezerman 05:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. The list could definitely do with being expanded&mdash;considering how long it stayed in its present condition I am surprised no one suggested a merge before.  Thanks for your interest in this anyway!&mdash;Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 06:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ingushetia
Re: Ingushetia: is Magas or Nazran the capital city? It was apparently moved in the 1990s, according to the Magas article and. olivier 09:48, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Magas is currently the administrative center of Ingushetia. It was started to be built in 1995, and became the administrative center in 2002 (the article incorrectly states that it happened in 1995 &mdash; I will fix that).--Ezhiki 13:40, 25 June 2004 (UTC)

Krasnoyarsk Krai merger
Note: recently in referendum Taymyr and Evenk autonomous districts were incorporated into the Krasnoyarsk Krai. Change accordingly. DeirYassin 15:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "Were incorporated"? Not quite. The change will only be effective from January 1 2007 onwards, and the necessary comments have been added to the three federal subjects in question. Nightstallion 15:32, 20 April 2005 (UTC)

Federal subjects&mdash;not a good name?
Just because subject is a cognate does not mean it is a proper translation. Referring to subdivisions of a country as "subjects" doesn't make any sense in English. john k 19:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe "units" would be better?..

Or "subdivisions," maybe? john k 20:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * "Federal subjects" is a literal translation of the Russian term "&#1092;&#1077;&#1076;&#1077;&#1088;&#1072;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1099;&#1077; &#1089;&#1091;&#1073;&#1098;&#1077;&#1082;&#1090;&#1099;". They are referred to as "federal subjects" in both Russian and English media.  You could call them "administrative regions", I guess, which is pretty much what they are, but that would not be an accurate definition.  Calling them "subdivisions" is also not accurate, as Russian subdivisions include not only federal subjects per se, but also other unit types (see Subdivisions of Russia, which is a separate article for that very same reason).  "Units" is not going to work as it is way too ambiguous; plus, it is not really a proper definition in this context.
 * Perhaps it would help if you put "federal subjects" in the same row as "oblasts", "krais", and "okrugs". All of these can be translated to clarify what the meaning of the term is, but they are still used as is to describe administrative entities properly.
 * &mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:38, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well, doing a lexis-nexis search, I do find reference to federal subjects, sadly. Mostly in the form of translations of quotes from Russian officials, but whatever. A bunch of federal subjects in Siberia have apparently decided to merge, BTW. At any rate, I withdraw my objection, despite the horridness of having to use the phrase "federal subject." john k 21:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, you see, I do not really like it myself, how it sounds. Before separating this article from the "Subdivisions of Russia", I honestly spent two days researching if another usable, accurate translation could be used, and came up with nothing better.  I guess one has to remember that horridness of "federal subjects" in English directly corresponds with horridness of "&#1092;&#1077;&#1076;&#1077;&#1088;&#1072;&#1083;&#1100;&#1085;&#1099;&#1077; &#1089;&#1091;&#1073;&#1098;&#1077;&#1082;&#1090;&#1099;" in Russian.  Russians eventually got used to this newly invented term, but that does not make it sound any less artificial.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 23:39, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

"Constituents"? Deipnosophista 19:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion thread ended almost two years ago. It was decided that "federal subjects" is an appropriate term in English.  "Constituents" is an acceptable synonym, though.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Numbered map
I see no reason for the table and map to be out of date. I'll edit the numbered map accordingly, but am not sure as to what sign to assign to Perm Kray - one of the old numbers? Or rather a letter? My personal preference would be to label it "A"... ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The constitutional law that takes two federal subjects off the Constitution and adds Perm Krai says nothing about the numbering. I think there will eventually be something amending the Land Code, that will assign a new number (probably 90) to Perm Krai.  We can, of course, go with our own numbering system, but I would wait until at least OKATO is amended&mdash;so far its latest update is only through November.
 * A question about Image:Rus subjects.png. What did you change there? Can you change the rest of the maps?  I updated all location maps, but no longer have time to do the big ones.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 13:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I merged the two regions and changed the colour of the new region to match the one of the other Krais, but I did it for this map, which is actually linked to in the article. ;) The other one should probably be deleted. Which other large maps? Image:Russia-Subdivisions.png should be updated, but if I do it, the font will look horrible... [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|20px]] ナイトスタリオン ✉ 14:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I still do not see them merged on this map. Are you sure you changed the right ones? :)  Anyway, it's probably just a cache issue, but please re-check just to make sure.
 * I'm positive; just reload the page, it's updated all right.


 * As for the other maps, here's the list (I could have missed some, but these are the most important): Image:Russia-Subdivisions.png (which is also in need of the legend to be changed, so it matches Wikipedia articles' titles), Image:Rus fed dist.png, Image:RussiaVolgaNumbered.png, Image:Rus eco reg.jpg. The second, the fourth, and the Image:Rus Subjects.png could probably use a total makeover, as they are a bit on the ugly side.  Ultimately, having maps that look like this one would be the best.  I would also rename them all so they have more descriptive names and upload them to Commons, but it can certainly wait.
 * I'll just update them for now, we can do the renaming-and-commonizing-thing later. And I agree, the last one is really quite beautiful. Apparently, some Morwen made it, according to Cantus' uploading comment... We could ask her/him, I guess?


 * As for the Image:Russia-Subdivisions.png, perhaps if the legend is completely redone, it wouldn't look all that bad. The actual numbers in the map can be replaced pretty easily, too; it's just the matter of matching the font, which looks like it's standard Times New Roman anyway.
 * I think the colours are pretty ugly and the pastel tones from the Republic image are better, but generally, I can live with it for now.


 * Let me know what you think.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Another note: I wasn't aware that the numbers were official, that's why I proposed "A". ;) [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|20px]] ナイトスタリオン ✉ 15:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. My original map is this one -> 50px. This is of a suitable resolution you can modify it and then scale it downwards for antialising. What exactly needs changing? From what I read above, borders are being removed? Morwen - Talk 15:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Purr-fect! I just modified it to reflect today's change.
 * Regarding what we need: Maps similar to the one for the Republic of Russia for Krays, Oblasts, the single Autonomous Oblast, the two Federal Cities, and the Autonomous Okrugs. If you're busy with something else, I think we can manage on the basis of that image, but you're welcome to participate, naturally. ^_^ [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|20px]] ナイトスタリオン ✉ 15:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Darn, I wish I knew of this map before! Thanks, Morwen.  Please join in if you have time.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and this might be a good time to clean up another bit of possible confusion. When I did the original locator maps for the Russian subjects, my sources were indicating that for example, Koryakia was part of Kamchatka Oblast. The article still says that, even, and so did my Kamchatka map, by including both territories in red on the latter map. It appears this is wrong, though. Are there any more things like this we need to clean up, and also what is the real situation here and why do sources say that it is an autonomous district of an Oblast? Morwen - Talk 15:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I already fixed it. It used to be a part of the Oblast, but no longer is (until the 2007 merger at least).  The rest are still considered to be parts of the corresponding oblasts, even though they also have a status of federal subjects.  Confusing and illogical, but very Russian. :)&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Mh. The maps I created up to now (all but the oblast maps) are incorrect, then, since Tyumen Krai is depicted as only consisting of the non-autonomous part... Is that a problem that should be corrected? [[Image:European-Austrian flag hybrid.svg|20px]] ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Nah, it is fine. The whole point of these maps is to show where krais/oblasts proper are.  I don't think that for this particular purpose it matters either way&mdash;should you have included the autonomous portions, it would have been fine, too.  The autonomous districts are federal subjects of their own, even when they are a part of another subject, so I guess this is good enough justification for not including them.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was my reasoning, as well; somehow, it failed to register that some autonomous districts are part of the adjacent krai/oblast and separate at the same time. Alright, I'll start creating the oblast map later today using the same kind of reasoning (once I'm home from work, should be in about an hour), then we've got ourselves a full set of shiny sparkling new maps. ;) [[Image:European-Austrian flag hybrid.svg|20px]] ナイトスタリオン ✉ 14:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I changed the first map in the article to a commons image made by me, based on Morwen's blank map, with a sensible name. I think it's better, overall. ;) I'll have to go riding now, but if noone has created the other maps we need until then, I'll gladly do it. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 16:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yay, great job! Thanks, man!  Looks so much better now.  I doubt I'll have time for the other maps, so, unless someone else wants to do them, you'll probably get stuck with updating them all.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Gladly. Now, off to the stable with me. ;) [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|20px]] ナイトスタリオン ✉ 16:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion its worth to have at least one map in this article which shows as well the old (mainly autonomous republics) subjects in its former borders. Russia is such a big country and its not easy to understand which regions merged and where they where located. Thats why I had edited the map of numbers, showing in one colour now uniified subjects with doted lines as borders of old parts. I think, it would be more understandable. And actually I doubt that Perm Region got a new subject number (shown as 90). My girlfriend is from over there, she said, it stayed 59. May be somebody can validate the informations? Thanks guys! --Fremantleboy 21:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The "59" you are referring to is probably the number used on license plates. They are definitely not going to change all license plates just because Perm Oblast and Permyakia merged.  However, this number is used not only on car license plates, but also in many other places.  Once a new federal subject is formed, it should be assigned a new number which, in this case, is 90 (I'll try to find some Russian sources next week; I'm sure I saw this somewhere).  How the old numbers are handled, depends on the situation.  As for the map, showing defunct federal subjects with dotted borders does actually sound like a good idea.  There are not that many of them anyway.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My proposal would be to have the two maps at the top show the current situation, but to have a map highlighting the mergers that have taken place or will take place at the bottom -- preferably, we would have a map which really concentrated on highlighting mergers and didn't duplicate information already present in the two maps at the top. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand the numbers don't only present the license plates, but as well is an administrative numbering system, so possibly you are right, Ezhiki. And I agree to Nighstallion to let the upper maps as they are and produce another map for the "Mergers" chapter. For the time I would add the already existing map with the numbers over there and start to produce a new one next days which really shows the proposed and executed mergings. But tell me, what to do with the map which right now is shown in mergers chapter? it absolutly has nothing to do with merging. For right now I let it over there, if you like just move or delete it. --Fremantleboy 12:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Request
I've mostly retired from mapmaking now, and was mainly setting off things by drawing maps for countries with no maps at the time. Luckily now there are a lot more map-makers. Morwen - Talk 16:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've only got three requests: Could you create the three missing subdivision maps for the Southern, Northwestern, and Urals federal districts? I tried a few times, but just couldn't get them to look like yours in the other four articles... Thanks a lot! [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|20px]] ナイトスタリオン ✉ 20:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

New maps created
Image:Russia-Subdivisions.png (which is also in need of the legend to be changed, so it matches Wikipedia articles' titles), Image:Rus fed dist.png, Image:RussiaVolgaNumbered.png, Image:Rus eco reg.jpg. The second, the fourth, and the Image:Rus Subjects.png could probably use a total makeover, as they are a bit on the ugly side.

Well, let's see. I copied the shiny, colourful numbered map to the commons and gave it a sensible name. (Image:Federal subjects of Russia (by number).png) Then I created replacements for the federal districts map (Image:Federal districts of Russia.png), for the economic regions map (Image:Economic regions of Russia.png), and for the map with the different colours for different entities (Image:Federal subjects of Russia (by type).png). And now I'll try to make maps for the other four types of entities look as good as Cantus' modification of Morwen's map... Wish me luck. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 20:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Good luck wishes you got. By the way, if you can't match Cantus' republics map exactly, it would probably be OK if you do your own version of it as well, so all six maps (for republics, krais, oblasts, autonomous oblast, autonomous districts, and federal cities) look similar.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. Now we've got:


 * Image:Republics of Russia.png
 * Image:Krais of Russia.png
 * Image:Oblasts of Russia.png
 * Image:Autonomous oblast of Russia.png
 * Image:Federal cities of Russia.png
 * Image:Autonomous districts of Russia.png
 * I had to make the Oblasts image double-size so that I could fit the numbers in without hurting myself, but I think it should work that way (included in the article at the same width as the other images, is magnified to readable size when you click on it). What do you think? [[Image:European-Austrian flag hybrid.svg|20px]] ナイトスタリオン ✉ 16:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it looks great! Do you think you are going to be around in future to update these maps after the mergers take place?  It's always a problem with good maps&mdash;no one can update them quite right if the original author is no longer available.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure I'll be around, yeah. It was no big deal, actually, so just in case: I took Morwen's original (for the borders) and Cantus' map with the republics (for the pastel colours), then erased the borders of the entities I didn't need for the map, filled the entities with appropriate colours, then resized the map to 600px width, then entered the numbers (Tahoma, size 17). That's it, pretty much. But yeah, I think I'll be around. ;) [[Image:European-Austrian flag hybrid.svg|20px]] ナイトスタリオン ✉ 19:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the April referendum
To whom it may concern – I s'pose mainly Ezhiki ;) – in two news reports on the merger referendum, the question is given as

"Do you agree that the Irkutsk Region and the Ust-Ordynsky Buryatia Autonomous Area will unite into a new subject of the Russian Federation – an Irkutsk Region, in the composition of which the Ust-Ordynsky Buryatia Autonomous Area will be an administrative and territorial entity with a special status, defined by the Charter of a new subject of the Russian Federation in compliance with legislation of the Russian Federation?"

Does this mean that the UOBAO will simply be merged into Irkutsk Oblast, instead of creating a new Irkutsk Krai? &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 12:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, you are really on top of these news! Btw, itar-tass link you provided no longer works, so here's a link to the Irkutsk news site; and another one with the question spelled out (both in Russian).
 * I try to (be on top of the news), yeah. ;) Sadly, I don't know Russian (yet), but still thanks for the links.


 * The merger itself will be conducted the exact same way as it was suggested before, but yes, you are correct, according to how the question is now worded, the united federal subject will be called "Irkutsk Oblast" if referendum is successful, not "Irkutsk Krai". The arrangement will most likely be similar to one with Perm Krai;that is, UOBAO will continue to exist as a separate entity with a separate budget (and, perhaps, legislature) within Irkutsk Oblast for a while before being absorbed completely.  The only difference is that there is going to be no name change.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * nods I assumed so, yes. Thanks for the confirmation! &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 18:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous edits
An anonymous editor insists on inserting the following passage (underlined) to the overview table in the Subjects of the Russian Federation section of this article:
 * 1 autonomous oblast (province) (автономная область; avtonomnaya oblast) &mdash;the so-called Jewish Autonomous Province

I have three issues with this addition:
 * 1) autonomous oblast, called autonomous province&mdash;linking should be done directly to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, not through a redirect. Using a redirect in this case is confusing to readers.
 * 2) so-called&mdash;it is not "so-called", it is "called" that name. Cmp. with: "the biggest country in the world is so-called Russia".  Sounds just as ridiculous.
 * 3) Why even mention JAO on this line? In the same summary table, none of the republics, krais, oblasts are listed, what's the point of listing an autonomous oblast?  It simply breaks the logic of the summary table.  Apart from dubious convenience of saving the reader time to scroll down the list below or to click on the the autonomous oblasts of Russia link, I see no benefits.

Considering this, I replaced the addition with a simple direct link to Jewish Autonomous Oblast as a compromise. It addresses issues one and two, but not three. I hope the anonymous editor sees my points and eventually removes the link (him/her)self.&mdash;Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 16:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll do that for you/him, I see no reason to give it special treatment. Hope that's okay. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 00:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Order
As someone who has been looking for a systematic description of the admin structure of Russia for a while, I found these pages fascinating and thanks to all who have made it possible - especially the maps. My question is about the order of the different classes of Federal subject. Is there any significance in the order they are presented? As an outsider I would have thought the autonomous okrugs should have followed the republics if the list was orderd by degree of autonomy. Perhaps there is some other historic basis? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Normanthehat (talk • contribs).
 * I am glad you found the article useful. Now, to answer your question&mdash;the federal subjects are listed in the order they were listed in the 1993 Constitution of Russia.  There've been a few changes since then, but in general the order is still the same.  Please let me know if you have any further questions.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha! Thank you. What about subordinate levels of government?  Are there the equivalents of British or American counties; German Landkreis? If so are they the same or similar for each category of Federal Subject?
 * Normthehat
 * Yup, it's all available in Wikipedia. For a general overview, see subdivisions of Russia.  For the administrative divisions of each federal subject, start with Template:Administrative divisions of the Russian federal subjects (each federal subject regulates its administrative and territorial structure on its own, so they are all different).  You may also find types of settlements in Russia to be of interest.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Merging of Archangelsk oblast and Nenets AO
Hi Ëzhiki, as far as I understand informations of Online New Agencys like Regnum.ru at least there are negotiations already going on since some month, even years. Up to know they mainly discuss how to allot money between both subjects after unification. Sometime ago in those online sources (unfortunately I cannot find it anymore, but I think it was as well on Regnum) I read about the preparations of the planed referendum for Dec.07. As well you can find this information on the Russian side of the WP-article. So in my opinion its not to wrong to write, that negotiations started and referendum is planed to be hold in Dec.07. Here a link to recent russian articles of Regnum about Nenets AO and Archangelsk obl. -> http://www.regnum.ru/dossier/721.html --Fremantleboy 21:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, Fremantleboy! From what I read in the news (including the compilation you linked to), the referendum is not planned for December 2007, but merely proposed to be held then.  If the referendum gets a go-ahead (officially), then it will most likely be held in December of 2007, but so far NAO did not even allocate the money for a referendum in their 2007 budget.  The bottom line is that having this listed in the "planned mergers" section would not be right, but moving it down to "further proposals" (as opposed to deleting it altogether) would probably be a reasonable choice.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As you wish. Do you think, I should as well update the mergers map? - I mean, right now I dont have so much time for doing those things... Would need to wait a month or so. --Fremantleboy 15:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure! If it's not updated by someone else by then, and if you will still want to do it in a month or so, why not?  Thanks!&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Mergers: Update flag
I can't see which new developements happend recently and why this part of the article needs to be updated. But may be I only didn't find the relevant informations. May be User:Stlemur could give us a clue I would then take care of it...--Fremantleboy 08:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "It just reads to me as though everything is still in the future; there's no information on the results of the referenda and the statement "plans exist" seems to indicate that the mergers haven't taken place (although some already have). I'd have edited it myself but I don't know the intricacies of Russian federal politics at all, and I don't want to create mistaken information. --Stlemur 14:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)"

Abbreviations. Original Research?
What is the source for abbreviations? Looks a WP:OR to me. Elk Salmon 12:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are ISO 3166-2:RU codes. I'll make a note on that in the text.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A Question
I have a question and I didn't know where else to turn to. Does anybody know any statistics about the economies of Russian Federal Subjects, such as GDP and maybe even GDP per capita? H2ppyme 20:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * , . Colchicum 21:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

the extra table
There's a second table visible left of the main table, which looks like it's behind the main table, and out of step with the main one because the row heights are different.

I deleted it because I thought it was completely unnecessary. User Ezhiki then reverted the change, with the comment "rv--the "pointless table" is in fact necessary to get the ranks when the inner table is sorted. If you know a more efficient way to achieve the same result, feel free to implement it."

I don't quite understand what "rank" means here. The numbers on the left remain unchanged, presumably each referring to one of the rows on the main table, though the difference in row heights makes this unclear. (Perhaps it looks better in the browser used by whoever added it?)

But for what reason would a running enumeration of the table rows be necessary? If the number of rows is needed, the text could just give the number of rows. If the user changes the sorting order by clicking on the sort icon in one of the column headers, the numbers of the outer table no longer reference the same items -- but the "code" column does uniquely identify each item. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teemu Leisti (talk • contribs) 06:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Teemu! We used to have separate articles listing Russian federal subjects in terms of their populations and areas, but that information was merged into the table in this article.  Infoboxes in the articles on separate federal subjects contain rows regarding the federal subjects' ranks (in terms of populations and areas), and the links in those rows lead to the table in this article.  The table in this article is sortable, but without an extra table it is not easy to tell the rank of a federal subject once the table is sorted; i.e., there is no easy way to tell which federal subject is, for example, third largest or 25th most populous.  The rows align quite well in three major browsers I checked, but I can imagine a situation when they would not, so a better solution can definitely be used, although I have no clue as to what that better solution would be.  I trust this addresses your question?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Very well then. (The browser I'm using is Firefox 2.0.0.16 on Ubuntu Linux 7.10.) Teemu Leisti (talk) 10:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not checking the talk page before I, too, boldly removed the column, but I still don't like this solution. I wanted to find the name of the subject on the Kola Peninsula, so I checked the map. Ah, number 51. Number 51 in the table is... Magadan Oblast. Huh. I actually don't think I'm too easily confused, I think the format is inherently confusing. There's no reason for anyone to think the "#" column would not be numbered in the same way as the map. Now that I know what it's for, I see how it can be useful, but it must be possible to do this in another way; perhaps we should ask at Help:Table? And by the way, why were the list-by articles merged to begin with? I notice we still have them for the U.S., some of them (by population, by elevation and by date of statehood) are even featured lists. Wouldn't that be the easiest solution here too? -- Jao (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you took my "easily confused" note too close to heart; it was meant only as a light-hearted joke. I myself do not like the current solution all that much, but so far no one has been able to come up with anything better (so whatever ideas, no matter how wild, you might have, they are all fair game at this point).  The other two lists were merged because of the maintenance issues.  With the U.S., we have hundreds of people maintaining the geography articles, while with Russia we only have a handful, so whenever maintenance can be cut, it is cut (maintaining one list is, of course, much easier than maintaining three).  Seeing how people do not understand what the extra column is for (unless their intent was to have the table sorted in the first place, which is when one can observe the "ahhh!" moment), I am getting inclined to restore the other two lists, maintenance be damned.  That is not to say some other solution, in which all hares can be killed in one shot, would not be preferrable :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry (this is really turning into a apologetic feast, isn't it?) if I sounded offended; I really wasn't, just concerned. As you can tell from the above, I would be very happy if the by-area and by-population lists were restored. And of course, I'm willing to back this up by gladly helping out with the maintenance. -- Jao (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How about restoring them right away (it's just a simple matter of reverting the redirects; I'll make necessary adjustments later this week) and leaving this table as is for a little longer? I am still kind of hoping someone might want to offer a better solution.  Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 01:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

update template?
why is the update template still there? hasn't that section been updated yet? --SquallLeonhart_ITA (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

National Anthems
The republics seem to be the only federal subjects that have national anthems. Is this correct? If so, should it be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerxes b (talk • contribs) 11:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Some of the other regions have anthems/official songs as well, but it's unlikely that they would be called "national anthems" of course. I don't think trivial things like that are worth of being mentioned. Hellerick (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I did notice, however, that some of the 'national anthems' had their own Wikipedia pages; e.g. National Anthem of the Altai Republic, National Anthem of Bashkiria. Xerxes (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And why not? They most certainly qualify for their own articles.  However, I tend to agree with Hellerick that listing them in this article is not very helpful.  Most of the anthem articles for other federal subjects are still red links, and I don't really see the purpose of listing them here in the first place anyway (on that note, I don't really see the purpose of listing the flag and the coat of arms either).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:10, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Number 75 is Number 92...?
The table below the map List of Federal Subjects is missing no.75 (Zabaykalsky Krai - the most recent, formed in March 2008). The outline of the area 75 on the map is correct Zabaykalska but for some reason its listing has been entered into the table, out of sequence, as number 92 (which does not in any case correspond to anywhere on the map). I can't seem to access the table to correct this so would someone who can please do so.

Perm (90) corresponds to that number on the map but is out of sequence on the table and Kamchatsky (41 on the map) is listed (likewise out of sequence) as 91.

Plutonium27 (talk) 05:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No. 75 is actually Chita Oblast&mdash;the predecessor of Zabaykalsky Krai. Perm and Kamchatka Krais are out of sequence for the same reason&mdash;their predecessors were Perm Oblast and Kamchatka Oblast.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 6, 2010; 14:50 (UTC)

Map
On the second map there are two seperate regions number 29. One is Arkangelsk, as stated in the list, the other I can't identify (it lies in the far east, next to Mongolia). Can someone knowledgeable correct this?siafu 00:35, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Should be 79 (Jewish Autonomous Oblast). I will let the creator of the image know.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 00:56, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Although I'm just the uploader, not the creator :) – Kpalion (talk) 09:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't know that. I assumed that since you already worked on this map, you already have some templates and could make a cleaner change than me, who would have to do it surgically :)  Anyway, thanks for taking care of it.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:05, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Also, the large island of Novaya Zemlya and Franz Josef land are incorrectly labelled as in the wrong province on the coloured and numbered map, being part of Arkhangelsk Oblast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.223.19 (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * They are a part of Arkhangelsk Oblast, so what's wrong? Hellerick (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the anon is referring to this map, where the territories in question are incorrectly marked as belonging to Nenets AO.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 15, 2011; 14:13 (UTC)

Label 41 should be 91. Label 75 should be 92. Labels 44, 37 should swap places. Subject 20 should not touch 8; 5 should touch 8 and 26. Subjects 72 and 70 should touch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.27.200.21 (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"Subject"
In Engish, the word "subject" has no meanings related to a geographic unit of administration. In the case of the Kaliningrad Oblast, the usual English translation is "District," which would make much more sense here.

Sca (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Federal subject" is an established English term to refer to Russia's constituent members (which, by the way, are not "geographic units of administration")&mdash;just do a random check against google books/scholar. "Oblast" is a type of federal subject, and, while an English loanword itself, may occasionally be translated as "district" (although "province" is a lot more common).  The term "district" itself is most often used in reference to raions, into which federal subjects are divided (so, as you see, "district" is a poor choice of translation of "oblast" because it may lead to such awkward constructs as "Kaliningrad District is divided into thirteen districts").  Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Speaking of "federal subject" having no meaning in English: official website of the US Consulate in St. Petersburg. Seems mighty formal to me, and that's just a random link I snatched from the first page of search results.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, I'm a native English speaker and a former newspaper editor. "Subject" is the wrong word for this meaning. Trust me, Tovarish. Sca (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your being a native English speaker and my English being second language are the facts which are quite beyond the point here, because your inquiry is not about your/my ability to command English words, but about making an observation regarding which term is actively used in the specialized works dealing with the (pardon the pun) subject matter. And those observations clearly show that "federal subject" is exactly the term used in English to refer to what is known in Russian as "субъекты Федерации".  If the Consulate link I supplied above is too random of an example for you (not to mention that the bureaucrats' command of the language, even if it's their native language, often leaves much to be desired), consider what comes up when you search for "federal subjects" in google books or scholar.  Granted, quite a few of these academic works were written by Russian and other European authors, but, nevertheless, there are many written by native English speakers, such as yourself, who, unlike yourself, are specialists in this area.  Consider, specifically, this or this&mdash;is Yale University Press good enough of a source for you?
 * I respect the fact that you used to be a newspaper editor, but there are several things that need to be considered. First of all, the Russian term subyekt Federatsii is only as old as the Constitution of Russia, which means the term has been in use only for about fifteen years.  If you were an editor prior to that time (which I kind of figure out is the case, judging by the fact that you used an ill-suited word "tovarishch" to address me), then of course you would have never seen this particular term used.  Secondly, considering that the topic of the political divisions of Russia is hardly a very popular one (I'm gonna try avoiding labeling it "plain boring") in the Western press, then, naturally, the translation of the term ("federal subjects") would not occur in print all that often.  Finally, newspapers are not academic works; they target general population and tend to replace academic terms ("federal subjects") with terms Joe Six-pack can understand ("provinces", "districts", "like US states").  That usage does not make the terms correct; it merely allows avoiding unnecessary explanations which may not even be relevant to the subject of the newspaper article.  After all, if you are reporting on a plane crash in Kemerovo Oblast, do your readers care that "oblast" is like a "province" or a "district" and that it is a type of "federal subject" of Russia?  No, it's so much easier, and to the point, to report on a "plane crash in Siberia"!  There is no problem with that whatsoever.  However, if you are writing an academic  article about political divisions of Russia, saying that "Kemerovo is a district in Siberia" only shows your ignorance about the topic.  Encyclopedias (Wikipedia included) are academic sources, so we are using the terms used in the academic circles, not their common-speach substitutes.  Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to beat a dead horse, but I think we may have different views of the role or function of encyclopedias. My understanding is that an encyclopedia should be, of course, factually correct, but not written for an academic (or legal) audience, which will know specialized terms. Rather, it should should be written for the general, reasonably literate, public.


 * I restate my view that in general English usage, "subject" doesn't mean what it means in this context.


 * FYI, I was a newspaper editor until early '06. I remain an avid reader of news, and history. Of course I'm well aware of the changes that have occurred in Russia in the last 17 years. I apologize for trying to jokingly call you "comrade." I don't speak Russian. So I will just call you friend.


 * Sca (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't really offended, it's just that no one called me "comrade" for, well fifteen years now at least, so it felt kind of... strange. To answer your concern about the role of encyclopedia, my take on that is the encyclopedia must use the exact same terminology used in the field the encyclopedia's articles cover, with good explanations of that terminology available for the laymen.  Unlike with paper encyclopedias, we have an excellent linking mechanism in Wikipedia, so a reader wondering what the heck "federal subject" or "oblast" mean is always just one click away from an article explaining just that.  Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The article should be renamed using idiomatic English. The term is sourced to a ref in Russian in the article, and ghits are virtually all from WP or mirrors. The Brooking Institution holds its nose at the phrase: "The focus is on the 89 so-called 'federal subjects' of Russia ..." in one of only 9 Googlebook hits. There are NO news hits. This won't go away. . Johnbod (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How did you end up with just nine googlebooks hits? I got no fewer than 150; most from rather reputable sources (including Brookings itself—and it seems to me they are holding their noses at the concept, not at the term).  Some news is also there; not much, admittedly, but the topic is hardly newsworthy and of much interest to the Western readers.  Like it or not, the term exists, is in use in the area which matters the most (academia), and no other viable (yet alone established) alternative to it exists.  Show me at least one "idiomatic" term to refer to the "federal subjects" that is well-established in English and enjoys at least the same level of usage as "federal subjects", and I'll be the first in line to seriously consider it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:21, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * 9 hits. You are misreading Brookings if you think it is the concept rather than the term they are holding their noses at. One of these days I may bother to look for alternative terms; you are seriously kidding yourself if you think this bad translation would survive the WP:COMMON test. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, 9 hits that way. We are, however, researching the term "federal subject" (which can be a part of "federal subjects of Russia", "Russian federal subjects", "federal subjects of the Russian Federation", as well as a multitude of other variations), so my 150 hits are more indicative of usage.  Also, here's 400 more, which you get if you use the plural form ("federal subjects").  At least admit that the term does get its share of use; it's not like I, an oppressive Russian peasant who barely speaks any English, made it up to impose upon the great Anglophone community of Wikipedians...
 * Anyway, please, by all means do the said research. If I need to taunt you to encourage you to do it, I will :), because it is in my very own interests to find and use a term that is the best fit in this situation.  Just please don't kid yourself that you are going to be the first to engage in  such an endeavor... or be able to actually find something that is not completely contrived and artificial and extensively used.  Five and a half years later, we are still using "federal subjects"... with nothing to replace it with.  Surely during all these years there must have been an Anglophone or two who re-checked the validity of the term?  After all, on average, four hundred people view this article every day...
 * And, by the way, it's you who are misreading Brookings&mdash;have you clicked on the link I supplied above? If they hold their noses at the term, then why the heck do they continue using and re-using it in that very same work over and over again (making fun of the concept at the same time)?  I don't see them introducing any "idiomatic expressions" you claim exist.
 * In reality, the thing is that the term "federal subjects" is indeed not very common in English. It is, however, the only viable term to refer to the concept, and that's exactly what is used when the concept is being discussed (I refer you back to the Brookings link).  When one needs to talk about one of those federal subjects, however, it is much easier to call it what it is&mdash;a republic, an oblast (province), a krai (territory), an autonomous okrug/oblast, or a federal city.  There is just no reason to use "federal subject" in the news, where the narrative usually goes something like "a plane crash was reported in Tyumen province of Russia" or "tensions rise in the Republic of Adygea in Russia".  I don't know where you are from, but here in the US I am yet to hear a newscast about the composition of the Russian Federation below the federal level...
 * Anyhoo, off you go with the research. Please bring us back something useful.  Anybody can babble about how they don't like this term or that; please suggest a constructive viable alternative for us to use (as you can see, I'm already well on my way with teasing you into doing useful things).  The concept, after all, does very much exist.  I can honestly say that I've done my research; you go now do yours.  Hopefully we'll meet somewhere in the middle...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:53, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile you can research English dictionaries which contain any definitions of "subject" which would cover this usage. It is not that it is "not very common in English", it doesn't exist, or didn't until some guy in the Russian Foreign Ministry whose English is not as good as he thinks decided to use it this way. Johnbod (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to my beloved OED at the moment, so how about we take a look at Merriam-Webster as an inferior starting point? The very first definition in the list is "one that is placed under authority or control".  In other words, a "federal subject" would be something "under authority or control of the Federation".  True, it refers primarily to people (citizens), but I see nothing preventing this term, under this definition, to be used in reference to whatever else that could be "under authority or control" of something.
 * Best of luck with your research. I will be eagerly awaiting the results.  I hope you'll be able to come up with something more convincing than "it's just a bunch of BS Russian bureaucrats made up and Western idiots mindlessly borrowed".  That would definitely need more backup than just your opinion.  Just out of curiosity, if you had to explain what the federal subjects are, what term would you use?  Is anyone else using that same term?  Like I said, I am as interested as the next guy to find out what the best term would be; however, in five plus years of research I was unable to find a better one.  At best, the term is circumvented (the CIA handbook, for example, skips this top group altogether and starts directly with oblasts/krais/etc; but then they also refer to them as "administrative divisions", which is just wrong), and at worst... we are stuck with "federal subjects" (and sometimes "subjects of the Federation"&mdash;hey, 600+ gbhits!&mdash;please don't forget to add that to your tally).  So, once again, best of luck in your research; and I am quite sincere saying that.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:11, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * The OED definition is very similar. "One" unequivocally means a person. If it did not they would say "a person or thing". I am in no rush to do the research you have so kindly tasked me with, as I have no interest whatsoever in the subject, and clearly a long Kiev-style lame argument lies ahead, but as this page shows, the phrase is clearly and obviously wrong to any native speaker, & no doubt another champion will emerge at some point (please contact me when you do appear). If you don't think the Russian Foreign Ministry invented this sense of the word, please find any earlier usage by anyone. Meanwhile you continue to own the page. Enjoy! Johnbod (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, decided to quit gracefully? A shame...  I really hoped you'd be tickled enough to find something useful (I apologize for trying to shamelessly manipulate you into doing good deeds, by the way; I myself can't really do more than I've already done in the past years, plus we really need a native speaker, hopefully knowledgeable about the subject, to do a double take).  Believe it or not, I am very much interested in getting to the bottom of this.  Unlike Kiev/Kyiv folks, I have no reason to insist on keeping to use "federal subjects" if someone convincingly demonstrates that the term is easily replaceable with a better one and that we've been wrong all along.  The sheer amount of cleanup we'll have to do scares me a great deal, but I hold the truth/correct terminology in much higher regard than that.  I am sorry that you had to put it into me continuing to "own" or "enjoying" this page; you have to understand that you need to at least suggest an alternative; perhaps a lousy one, but one that could at least serve as a starting point and be marginally competitive with existing usage.  You never did even that little.  I suspect this is in part because most of the gbhits show that no viable alternative exists, which makes it quite hard to go anywhere further.  "Federal subjects" may sound lame to you, but the reality is that this is the term that is predominantly used when one needs to describe the subject matter (pardon the pun).  As for the earlier usage, how can one find it if the concept itself did not exist until 1993 (you knew that, right?)?  Sixteen years of publications is all we have to work with.  And where in the world did you get your "Russian Foreign Ministry invented the term" bit from?  "Federal subjects" is a literal translation of the Russian term, and as a native speaker of Russian I can assure you that it does not sound much better in Russian than it does in English (although since Russians hear it a lot more often than Anglophones, they got more or less used to it over the last sixteen years).  All we can do is to diligently copy this idiotic usage, because we, as an encyclopedia, are not in business of inventing "better" or "more idiomatic" terms to replace it with; we need to work with what's out there (and that "federal subjects" are "out there" is something I think I have demonstrated in spades).
 * All in all, if you ever get in the mood of doing the above-mentioned research, I'll be more than happy to make myself available to discuss the findings (and help implement the changes if the said findings are indeed convincing). Same goes for any other "champion" that may emerge in the future.  Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:53, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose the Russian government has the right, and certainly it has the ability, to make up new meanings of words in Russian. But not in English. Johnbod (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. That right, however, seems to be exercised the folks who wrote these and these books...  Which brings us back to square one, I guess.  If you deny the usage that is definitely out there because you don't like how it sounds, and cannot offer anything to replace it with, then how do you suggest we fix the problem?  Is there even a problem?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 01:22, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * They are clearly following, even while holding their nose, the official Russian translation. It might be better to keep whatever the Russian is, as with oblast. Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How is using "federalnye subyekty" (which is what Russian is) instead of "federal subjects" (which is not an officially endorsed translation, by the way; it's just the most intuitive and obvious and, as such, most used, including by the government) is going to be of any improvement here? Not to mention that this brute romanization is hardly ever used in any English sources...  "Oblast", at least, is considered to be a loanword; it's been included in dictionaries for quite some while now.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:05, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

If I were inventing terminology for federal Russia, I would call these units федеральное образование/federal enitity (even though it can be somewhat confusing in English, because it can be perceived as a "government corporation"). But we are not supposed to invent new terminology here, we are supposed to use already existing one, even if it hardly makes any sense both in Russian and English. If we can't find any other terms in use, then there is nothing to discuss here. Hellerick (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you, my point exactly. I also finally got to the OED, and its definitions of "subject" include "of a specified country or state; also, subject of the realm", "a person (rarely, a thing) that is in the control or under the dominion of another..." (emphasis mine), and "a thing over which a right is exercised" (my house, horse, or watch is the subject of my right of property).  Thus, while the usage of "subjects" in "federal subjects" is not exactly mainstream, it's still grammatically possible under these definitions.  That, and a pattern of real-life usage demonstrated more than once above, should address John's concern, I believe?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:18, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example from the CIA World Factbook article for Cuba: "the east coast is subject to hurricanes from August to November". If I'm not mistaken, the use of the word "subject" here does not fit any of the definitions listed in the OED. Either the CIA men's English is not very good, or the OED is not quite complete. I believe the use of "federal subject" is similar to "hurricane subject". I.e. "federal subject" means something like "subject to federal relations". Hellerick (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hellerick, no, your Cuban example is not the same usage; it means "the area suffers from hurricanes", whereas we are talking about subdivisions of the Russian Federation. "Subjects" is not a good translation of the Russian term, even though it sounds similar; it is a "false friend".  The word has not been accepted in general English with this meaning, even though some academics might use it that way.  My suggestion would be to write "Subject" in quotes, explaining the first time it is used that it means a subdivision of the Russian Federation.


 * William MacDougall 18:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * While I concur with William's assessment with regards to Hellerick's Cuban example, I can't agree with the rest of the post. Wikipedia follows real-life usage, and none of the hundreds of sources I linked to above uses the term in quotes when referring to the constituent members of the Russian Federation. Neither should we. Besides, this kind of usage is perfectly OK per the OED, so would you say that it "has not been accepted in general English"? Just because the usage is relatively rare does not mean it has not been accepted.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 18, 2010; 20:57 (UTC)

Dear Igels,

I looked at your OED quote above, and I think you misinterpret what they write. "Subject" is something ruled by a government such as a person or a house, it is not a member of a federation. Unless you have some other OED quote, they are decidedly not using it in the way you suggest. To translate the Russian word, though it sounds similar, as "subject" in English is at best academic jargon that we should not use. It is a bad translation, a usage not accepted (yet anyway) in standard English. Therefore we should not use it on its own. There is are perfectly meaningful short English translations that are available. I suggest "constituent members of the Russian Federation" or "constituent members ('субъектов') of the Russian Federation".

William (William MacDougall 15:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC))
 * A member of the Federation is ruled by the federal government (i.e, it is subject to the federal laws), so there is no misinterpretation. As for the usage, once again, we are supposed to use what the sources use, not to invent our own "better" translations.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 19, 2010; 16:00 (UTC)

No, that is not how the word is used in English. Listen to most of the native English speakers who have commented in this discussion. We should not be blindly copying bad translations in sources any more than we would blindly copy things from one source when they have been shown to be false in other sources. I think the sources for your usage are either native Russian speakers who don't understand Standard English or academics using jargon (which also should be avoided when possible). William MacDougall 16:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but between your command of the English language and the OED's authority, I'll pick the latter any day. Being a native speaker does not make one an expert in that language, I'm afraid. As for "blindly copying", this is exactly what our guidelines advocate (albeit in different terms)&mdash;we are supposed to use the terminology which is used by the academic sources, not to invent our own "because we, the native speakers, know better". A shocker, eh? Regarding the sources themselves, you obviously haven't even looked at them. There are literally hundreds, and while some are undoubtedly written by native Russian speakers and some probably do use jargon, a good number of them is by folks who know both Standard English and the topic itself in and out. There are books, news articles, scholarly works, you name it, it's there. You seem to be equating rare usage with incorrect usage; that's simply not a valid approach.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 19, 2010; 16:59 (UTC)

You have misread the OED; it does not support your interpretation. William MacDougall 17:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And you, of course, haven't. Great discussion.
 * So, what is it exactly that makes your interpretation right and mine wrong? That part of your argument keeps escaping me...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 19, 2010; 18:40 (UTC)

You said the OED defines a "subject" as being "of a specified country or state; also, subject of the realm", "a person (rarely, a thing) that is in the control or under the dominion of another...". So it can be a person or a thing, but it can not be a geographical area such as a province or state or republic and other subdivisions of a country. Moreover, "Federation" implies a degree of autonomy, so it is even more inappropriate to suggest that its members are ruled by it, are "subjects" of it. The OED does not support your interpretation and nearly all the native English speakers in this discussion agree that to use "subject" in this way is simply bad English.

William MacDougall 18:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And why exactly a geographical area is not a thing? A "thing" can be any spatial entity; it is a rather vague word. Even if you were right on this, OED's very first definition ("of a specified country or state") does not even mention a "thing", which means it can be pretty bloody much anything.
 * As for your statement that is in "inappropriate to suggest that its members are ruled by it", it simply leaves me flabbergasted. Do you honestly believe all federations to be the same? In Russia, federal law is applied to all of the constituent members of the Russian Federation equally, which is what makes them the "subjects of the Federation". The degree of autonomy they possess is simply irrelevant&mdash;no federal subject can override the provisions of the federal law.
 * And as for the native speakers here, for the umpteenth time I would like to point out that it is not up to them (or non-native speakers, for that matter) to define what terminology is to be used in a specialized context. "Federal subjects" is an established term in the academic literature on this very topic. How it sounds to you or me is irrelevant; we should not be making up our own terms, we should be using what's already out there.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 19, 2010; 19:08 (UTC)

OK Let me try one more time. An English speaker would never never say that Wales is a subject of the Queen, or California a subject of the Federal Government, he just would not. But he would say that the Welsh are subjects of the Queen, and grammatically could say that Californians are subjects of the US Government. The OED only supports the latter usage. William MacDougall 20:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course they wouldn't, because the concept of "federal subjects" is specific only to Russia and no other country. An English speaker specializing in the political structure of Russia, however, would use this term without thinking twice. We have plenty of sources to support that.
 * I once again refer you to my example of "color charge". No English speaker would normally use the word "color" in a sense in which it is used in the context of quantum physics. In this regard, the term "federal subjects" is not that different.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 19, 2010; 21:02 (UTC)

No - "color charge" is not a good example. It is a technical term in physics, where there is no good substitute. There are lots of better ways of translating the far from unique concept here, such as "constituent members". Can you site any or very many, non-academic examples of "subject" in this context? Can you site very many examples of native English speakers using it, again preferably in a non-academic context to avoid jargon?

William MacDougall 01:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I said above this wouldn't go away, and it hasn't. Naturally I still hold the same view - the name should be changed. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Why we should avoid academic examples, if they are the ones we should stick to? Naturally I still believe that Wikipedia is not authorized to invent new terminology in any field. If you dislike the term "federal subject" you should address to the people who use it, not to Wikipedia, which only states what's being used. Hellerick (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If the English Government or native English speakers published materials in Russian few would accept those as proof about how words are used in Russian.


 * I do not believe that "subject" with this meaning has been accepted as standard English and therefore it should not be used when there are good substitutes. If you think otherwise, then site some good examples in this discussion and in the article.  I do not exclude academic sources, but would find them less convincing, in order to avoid jargon.


 * And at the very least, especially while this discussion is ongoing, readers require strong signals that the word is being used in an odd way and one that lacks agreement here.


 * William (William MacDougall 10:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC))
 * William, please do not invent "facts" to support your personal opinion. Your analogy is false because the materials published in English are not by the Russian government or native Russian speakers; there are plenty of sources written by native English speakers who chose to use this specific term.
 * The academic sources are the most important sources we should be working with. That's where we should turn first to determine which terminology to use. As per WP:SOURCES, where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources.
 * Furthermore, please stop your reverts. While the discussion is ongoing, the version being challenged should remain until a consensus is reached. Additionally, the articles text is not supposed to record someone else's (=yours) personal observations and hesitations. Tagging the article with is sufficient. Thank you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 22, 2010; 16:05 (UTC)

Dear Igels,

We can disagree about how much of the dispute need be indicated in the article, but at the very least we need quotation marks around the disputed translation.

For content yes academic articles are the best source, but for uncovering standard English they are not. Reputable newspaper articles would be a much better source. Anyway present your "plenty of sources" and we can discuss the matter further.

Best, William (William MacDougall 16:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC))
 * The terms need to be used the way they are used by the academic sources, and I don't see any which would use this term in quotation marks. Nor would we use the quotation marks in the article's title. Still smells like a personal opinion to me. This, however, is a rather minor issue.
 * Additionally, no, reputable newspaper articles would not be a much better source; not according to our guidelines anyway. They are acceptable sources, they are supplemental sources, but academic sources are always given a priority when they can be found. Only when academic sources are unavailable for certain topics (such as, for example, current events) should we be giving priority to the news. Am I the only one who thinks it's preposterous to assume that the journalists would know any topic better than the academicians? What kind of encyclopedia do you think we would have here if we relied solely on the news?
 * As for my "plenty of sources", they are presented and easily accessible at the top of this section. Look for links to google books and such.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 22, 2010; 18:16 (UTC)

Igels,

The relevant guidance here is Use_plain_English, that we should write in plain English, not jargon. I assert that "Subject" used in the proposed way is at best jargon. But I'm not sure it is even that; it looks more like a bad translation, a false friend. But in either case good plain English words are available, such as "constituent members", and therefore those should be used. And a better source for checking that they are plain English, not jargon, is newspapers.

William (William MacDougall 18:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC))
 * William, what you linked to is an essay; i.e. someone's opinion about how things should be done. It makes sense, but it is not an official policy or a guideline. WP:SOURCES, on the other hand, is a policy, i.e. something that all editors should be following, regardless of whether or not they agree with it. If you disagree with a policy, you should question it in the appropriate place, not ignore it at your leisure.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 22, 2010; 18:45 (UTC)

All right, how about Manual of Style? That is an official guideline isn't it? William MacDougall 18:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a guideline alright; however, a policy ranks higher than a guideline: the latter is very much recommended but is still optional; the former is never optional under any but highly unusual circumstances. Not to mention the fact that when one directly deals with very specialized concepts, the use of proper terminology hardly constitutes "unnecessarily complex wording". You cannot ignore how the scholars refer to the concept in the article about that concept!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 22, 2010; 19:27 (UTC)

Igels, there are at least 25 federations in the world, including 8 of the 10 largest countries. There is nothing unusual or specialized about the concept, and there are good well established English words such as "constituent members". The issue here is: is "subject" used for the members plain English? Most or even all of the native English speakers who have been involved in this discussion say "no, it's jargon to be avoided, or a bad translation". The OED says "no". The Brookings Institute says "no". Who says "yes"? William (William MacDougall 07:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC))
 * William, have you even read the discussion above? The OED does not say "no"; it's you who thinks it does. The Brookings Institute definitely does not say "no"&mdash;what even gave you that idea? Did you see |%22federal%20subject%22&f=false this? It's linked to at least twice on this very page. Did you check hundreds of other perfectly good academic sources to which I linked above? Why are you twisting the facts to suit your personal opinion?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 23, 2010; 16:41 (UTC)

Igels, The first time the Brookings report uses the term they put it in quotes and add "so-called" (page 21); I take that as an objection - it certainly is far short of support; at best, if we were using them as the source we would also have to say "so called 'federal subjects'". The OED does not include a definition that would fit, so again I take that as "no". Perhaps you could point us to the good sources you think do support this usage? William MacDougall 17:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * William, would you care to explain how the very first definition in the OED ("of a specified country or state") does not fit? As for the Brookings Institute, so what they call it "so-called"? Returning to my "color charge" example, it is also preceded by "so-called" in quite a few academic sources which use the term. Should we dumb down that term to suit your tastes as well? Putting Brookings aside, is |%22federal%20subject%22&f=false this Yale University Press book by Thomas F. Remington (who I very much doubt is a Russian) good enough for you? No quotes, no "so-called"; he just uses the term. And I can keep finding you high-quality sources like that one all day long.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 23, 2010; 17:27 (UTC)

Igels, I am surprised you still do not understand the OED definition. It is speaking of people who are subjects of a country, not regions which are "subjects"; it does not support your usage at all. If there were good plain English substitutes for "color change" then of course I would want to use them, but I don't think there are. Please provide the quote from Remington if you want to site him, and others, if you want to claim the usage is English... William MacDougall 17:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If it had been speaking about people, it would have said "people of a specified country or state", wouldn't it? Please don't fill the gaps with your own conjectures.
 * Here's a quote from Remington (not sure why you can't look it up yourself by just following the link?): "Moscow and St. Petersburg gained the status of federal subjects with the 1992 Federation Treaty". Mind you, it's not the only time the term is used in that particular book.
 * You can find plenty more sources by following |%22federal+subject%22+%2BRussia&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=%22federal+subjects%22|%22federal+subject%22+%2BRussia&hl=en&safe=active&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbs=bks:1&ei=aP7rTJOCIcH78AaSr71X&start=20&sa=N&fp=12222e274e2b1ccf this link.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 23, 2010; 18:07 (UTC)

Thanks, I will consider these and comment later. William (William MacDougall 03:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC))


 * I am not a native English or Russian speaker, but I have studied Russian politics at an English university. I feel it should be pointed out that "federal subjects" is indeed in use in the English language to describe these, well, things, in the literature on the subject. Surely, that has to carry some weight. The example I have in my bookshelf at the moment is: Cameron Ross, "Federalism and regional politics", in Mike Bowker and Cameron Ross (eds.), Russia after the Cold War, p. 85: "The 89 subjects of the federation vary greatly in size, population, power and wealth.".


 * Also, those who want to replace the term here, would have to come up with some other term which is more widely used in English, wouldn't they? Otherwise it would be OR.--Barend (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Barend, Thank you for your contribution. The older term would be "members", but having seen more of the literature I am tempted to change my mind. One striking fact about the list Igels presented in his last post is that some relate to countries other than Russia, such as Spain. In your studies did you see any English usage pre-dating the Russian Constitutional change of 1993? That would help clarify things... Thanks, William (William MacDougall 17:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC))

Well, actually I suppose, if the name of the article seems confusing, it could be renamed into something simple like "Subdivisions of Russia" or "Administrative divisions of Russia". It's a bit weird that the term "federal subject" is used in the title of the English article, but not in the title of the Russian article (the Russian article is titled "Федеративное устройство России" = "Federal structure of Russia"). Whatever the translation of term "Федеральный субъект" is, it does not have to be used in the article name. Hellerick (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the first two suggestions are workable. We already have a different article about the subdivisions of Russia, which covers all kinds of divisions, not just the political entities. And "administrative divisions" is a bad choice because unlike the oblasts, krais, republics, etc. of the RSFSR, the federal subjects of the Russian Federation are not administrative divisions. Administrative divisions of modern Russia start on the city/raion level. On the other hand, the idea of using "federal structure of Russia" or some such as a title has merit. Thoughts?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 29, 2010; 20:44 (UTC)

Yes I rather like the title "federal structure of Russia". Returning to the discussion, it is clear to me that some academics do use the term "federal subject" in the theory of federalism. Has anyone seen an example pre-dating the Russian Constitutional change of 1993?

William MacDougall 06:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as Russia-related materials go, I was able to find a reference in the Daily Report: Soviet Union (issues 15–18), published by the US Foreign Broadcast Information Service in 1991. On page 182, it says that ...the autonomous okrug is an independent subject of the Federation.... There's also a handful of references from 1992 which use either "federal subject" or "the subject of the Federation" in the same sense this article does, but those deal mainly with the draft of the Constitution, so that's not much different from the sources dated 1993 and later. Next time I visit the library, I'll check whether I can find any examples unrelated to Russia (although I doubt there'll be any).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 14, 2010; 14:33 (UTC)

I think it's right time to make some conclusion from this discussion and remove the tag from the page. There are 341,000 Google hits for "Federal subjects of Russia", and though Wikipedia and its mirrors are at the top, most of these are unrelated to wiki, I believe. The term "federal subject" is consistently used throughout multiple articles on Wikipedia and multiple pages on the web, and there is no good replacement for the term. Also, I'm not sure that a tag on factual accuracy is appropriate here; the factual accuracy of the contents of the article is in good order. The appropriate tag would be about moving the article to a new name; if there are some suggestions, put them forth, though I believe the present title is the best, and we can't reject the term "federal subject" anyway. If no move proposals are made, I think the tag should be removed as quickly as possible so that the readers are not confused about the quality of contents of the article. Grey Hood  Talk  15:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My tentative conclusion is that "subject" meaning a part of a federation is not standard English, and its use for Russia, though a common error, is a mistranslation of the Russian word, a false friend with misleading implications in English that are not in the Russian. This would mean that we should change the name of the article to say "Structure of the Russian Federation" or "Members of the Russian Federation" and that "Federal Subjects" should be used in quotation marks at least the first time in any article, with a parenthetical addition "(constituent members of the Russian Federation)".  Repeated misuse might lead it to be standard English in 20 or 30 years, but we aren't there yet, and I hope it doesn't happen. I had hoped to find some more evidence before presenting this case here...  William MacDougall 22:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've mentioned before on multiple occasions, your classification of this usage as a "common error", a "mistranslation", a "false friend", and so on is nothing more than your personal opinion. To this day you have failed to produce a single source that describes the term "federal subject" the same way you do. Wikipedia is not a place to voice personal opinions. It is a place where existing academic usage is followed, and to the effect that the term "federal subject" is used by the academia we have already seen ample evidence. Plus, I agree that "factual accuracy" tag is hardly representative of the argument we are having. I will remove it once again. Please do not reinstate it until you have something tangible at hand, something that can be productively discussed. We can't tag articles as "inaccurate" just because you think so even as you are unable to find anything to support your point of view and when plenty of counter-evidence exists, nor can we wait forever until you are able to produce such evidence. At any rate, the choice of a term to refer to the content does not make the content itself "factually inaccurate".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 28, 2011; 14:31 (UTC)

There are no deadlines on Wikipedia. But I will try to produce a better evidenced argument in the not too distant future. You could I'm sure find 100 articles on the web with "becuase" misspelled; does that make it an acceptable usage? No, but how do you prove it? That's my difficulty... William MacDougall 15:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed there are no deadlines, but that doesn't mean we should plaster an ugly tag every time there's a minor disagreement over something. Please find something to prove your point first, and we will continue the discussion then. We should not be misleading thousands of readers who see this article every month, leading them to believe that the content is factually incorrect when in fact it is just you trying to impose your personal opinion on the use of terminology. And seriously hope you are going to try better than to equate the use of this well-establish term with a common typo...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 28, 2011; 16:25 (UTC)
 * I concur with this opinion. When I saw this page with this tag recently, I spent quite a time reviewing the article and checking if it is properly updated. The tag is misleading, and should be removed. Grey Hood   Talk  16:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to remove the tag if we change the title to something neutral, such as "Structure of the Russian Federation" or "Federal Structure of Russia". I believe that most native English speakers understand the "subjects" of a federation to be people, not areas, so the title is liable to misunderstanding. William MacDougall 21:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Until you are able to come up with some tangible evidence showing that the current title is indeed incorrect, there is no reason to change it (except to pander to a handful of people who seem to dislike it personally). As shown before on multiple occasions, the term enjoys quite a bit of usage in reliable, academic sources on the subject of the political structure of Russia, and the dictionary definitions in no way confirm your theory that the term is ungrammatical. On the other hand, you are most welcome to request a move request and see how it goes. That would be a proper procedure anyway.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 28, 2011; 21:43 (UTC)

Then the dispute continues and should be so indicated. William MacDougall 02:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * William, please stop adding this tag. This is becoming disruptive. Since it is you who perceives there is a problem, it is up to you to find a suitable tag. Adding the first random tag you find, one which confuses thousands of readers into believing that the content is inaccurate is not the way to go. Better yet, follow the procedure. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 1, 2011; 20:20 (UTC)

Dear Igels, I think we would have an argument as to who is the more disruptive editor. Anyway, how about the mention in the body of the text I just added? Though, my preference would still be to change the misleading title. William MacDougall 21:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We do not incorporate dispute notices into what is supposed to be encyclopedic text&mdash;most readers could care less about what's going on behind the scenes. Please kindly find an appropriate tag, although I don't see why we can't just continue a discussion here without one.
 * As for changing the title which you find misleading, I have already suggested a proper cause of action above. Is there a reason why you are not willing to follow it?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 1, 2011; 21:29 (UTC)
 * William, one more edit like this, and I will report you for disruption. By all means continue the discussion here, find and show some evidence, but please stop mangling the article by adding inappropriate content or irrelevant tags to it. Discussions go on on the talk pages, not in the bodies of the articles.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 2, 2011; 14:44 (UTC)
 * The word subject sticks out like dogs' balls as being foreign. The closest English usage of the word is the subjects of a monarchy, but this is not the case here. The entities in question seem analogous to the states of the USA or Australia. Could that word be used? Qemist (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)