Talk:Russia/Archive 13

Human rights in lead
As Human rights in Russia are a matter of controversy, I believe it may be necessary to elaborate human rights in the lead section. Due to recent edits, a sentence mentioning that "[Vladimir Putin]'s government has been accused of numerous human rights abuses" was removed from the lead section. [] Currently, Human rights are only mentioned in the Foreign Relations subsection of the Politics section of the article, describing that:

"An important aspect of Russia's relations with the West is the criticism of Russia's political system and human rights management (including LGBT rights, media freedom, and reports about killed journalists) by Western governments, the mass media and the leading democracy and human rights watchdogs. In particular, such organisations as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch consider Russia to have not enough democratic attributes and to allow few political rights and civil liberties to its citizens.[139][140] Freedom House, an international organisation funded by the United States, ranks Russia as "not free", citing "carefully engineered elections" and "absence" of debate.[141] Russian authorities dismiss these claims and especially criticise Freedom House. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has called the 2006 Freedom in the World report "prefabricated", stating that the human rights issues have been turned into a political weapon in particular by the United States. The ministry also claims that such organisations as Freedom House and Human Rights Watch use the same scheme of voluntary extrapolation of "isolated facts that of course can be found in any country" into "dominant tendencies".[142] Putin has argued that Western-style liberalism is obsolete in Russia, while maintaining that the country is still a democratic nation.[143][144][145]"

As most other post-soviet countries with problematic human rights records such as Belarus, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan have separate sections on human rights in their bodies as well as descriptions of their human rights situations in their respective lead sections, I feel that it is appropriate to do the same with Russia. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can be used to justify that articles such as these which are also for post-soviet states with problematic human rights records are more appropriate models for this article rather than countries such as Canada and Australia. Earlier discussions on human rights in the lead section for this article can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mellk#Concerning_your_edit_here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russia/Archive_12#Changes_to_lead_section

Per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, it may be necessary to create a separate section on human rights first before adding human rights to the lead. DeathTrain (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the article has more important issues (lack of citations, some sections are too detailed/big, some parts are outdated, too many useless images etc), but I agree that a section on human rights is needed.--Renat (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that if anything, the current paragraph on human rights in the Foreign Relations section should be moved into the new Human Rights section, though probably with some edits made to it.

Do you have any ideas on what else should be put in the section?DeathTrain (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This text is not ideal for a section on human rights. Firstly, it is outdated (talks about 2006 report), and secondly, it is written as if Russia is being unfairly accused (I guess because it was taken from Foreign relations section), which is look like false balance for me. But ofc you can move it. It changes nothing for now. Be bold.--Renat (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The section has been moved to a new Human rights section, with some minor edits. Things that I am considering adding include how former Ombudsman for the Russian Federation Vladimir Lukin described Russia's human rights situation as "generally unsatisfactory" in 2007. Do you think it also appropriate to mention human rights in the Soviet Union in this section?

https://web.archive.org/web/20080528015507/http://ombudsman.gov.ru/doc/ezdoc/06text_eng.doc DeathTrain (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there is no need to add information about the USSR. It has its own article.--Renat (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

No. It is not a topic what goes in a lead. Also this is not a place for advocacy of any type.109.93.14.122 (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So what sources would you accept as appropriate to describe human rights in Russia? DeathTrain (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No to the main article fixation and lead fixation. 178.221.101.82 (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not? Most articles with poor or problematic human rights records tend to elaborate on human rights in the lead section, including for many post-soviet states such as Belarus, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan, and others such as Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea, Eritrea, Iran, Equatorial Guinea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, Central African Republic, Sudan and Zimbabwe. It can be seen as a metric of national performance. Other articles such as Denmark, Canada and the Republic of Ireland also elaborate upon such metrics of national performance in their lead sections. DeathTrain (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Here are some draft paragraphs I have been working on. Tell me what you think, or if you have any ideas on how to improve them. I also plan to write paragraphs on general restrictions on civil liberties as well as well authoritarianism and political repression, such as with Alexei Navalny.

DeathTrain (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's best to start with a historical perspective (from 1991 using summary style). Like here for example: https://www.du.edu/korbel/hrhw/researchdigest/russia/russia.pdf --Renat (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you believe it would be necessary to mention Putin in the human rights section, given how user:HiLo48 thought it would not be neutral? DeathTrain (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We now seem to be heading towards committing two Wikipedia crimes - recentism and non-neutral POV. HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So once again, what sources would you recommend as credible for a section on human rights in Russia? DeathTrain (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources that cover Russia's entire history, and that discuss human rights abuses by all leaders throughout that time, so that we avoid the problems of recentism and NPOV. HiLo48 (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have any specific sources? DeathTrain (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Not my job. I'm not an expert on human rights throughout Russia's history. Nor, do I suspect, are you. Hence my concern about your goals here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Again resorting to ad hominem by questioning my qualifications to make edits? Are you suggesting I should recuse myself from this topic? If yes, then how do you propose that this section be written? Do you know someone who is more qualified to write it? I honestly cannot comprehend why you doubt my intentions. I always make edits in good faith, and I believe that countries with problematic human rights records such as Russia should have such records be elaborated upon. What is wrong with that?DeathTrain (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I made no ad hominem comments. I expressed an evidence based concern about your goals here, primarily because I have not seen you show any concern whatsoever about human rights in any other country but Russia. Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am very concerned about human rights all over the world, regardless of national boundaries.

Here is a discussion I took part in earlier this year about human rights for the Mauritania article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mauritania#Human_Rights_in_lead

I have already elaborated or attempted to add or improve the presentation of human rights in the lead sections of many countries, including

Iran: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran&type=revision&diff=956163808&oldid=956148743

Afghanistan: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Afghanistan&type=revision&diff=965388713&oldid=964892601

Laos: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laos&type=revision&diff=956165769&oldid=954381090

South Sudan: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Sudan&type=revision&diff=959880691&oldid=959843750

Democratic Republic of the Congo: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo&type=revision&diff=959970075&oldid=959760288

Sudan: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sudan&type=revision&diff=962056064&oldid=961286914

Egypt: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Egypt&type=revision&diff=981354542&oldid=980713191

Yemen: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yemen&type=revision&diff=959970933&oldid=959606337

Saudi Arabia: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saudi_Arabia&diff=prev&oldid=961531240

Vietnam: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vietnam&type=revision&diff=956279162&oldid=955692276

Tajikistan: https:/en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tajikistan&type=revision&diff=956466921&oldid=956066554/

China: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China&type=revision&diff=955976919&oldid=955939585 DeathTrain (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * That would seem to be an obvious list of "others", i.e. people not like you. How about my country, Australia, and yours, whatever it is? HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've said this before, no country has a perfect human rights record, but some are significantly worse than others. Of course Australia has human rights problems over issues such as treatment of its indigenous peoples, but Australia still does relatively well per human rights watchdogs. Despite recent regression, Australia is still 26th in RSF's World Press Freedom Index Ranking, which is still far better than Russia's 149th. https://rsf.org/en/australia Other "western" countries such as the United States, Canada, and EU countries also have imperfect human rights records, but are still rated reasonably highly by human rights watchdogs.


 * If ever human rights and/or democracy were to erode in Australia or any other "western" country like Canada or the United States, as with the case of Hungary under the leadership of the Fidesz party, I would certainly be interested in discussing and elaborating a significantly deteriorated human rights record. DeathTrain (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * You have digressed into an interesting area. The press in Australia may be technically independent, but with one very close friend of the the government owning 70% of our newspapers, and a big chunk of the rest of our media controlled by a company chaired by a former Treasurer from that government, things are not all sweetness and light. And the human rights abuses today are much broader than Aboriginal issues in the past. Treatment of refugees is a huge problem. Do be careful with your assumptions. HiLo48 (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's get back on topic, now. As this discussion has now shifted to sources, it seems that the first step to elaborating upon human rights in the lead section of this article is to find sources we can all agree on (i.e. sources that cover the entirety of Post-Soviet Russia's history). Then, a human rights section can written using those sources, possibly supplemented by recently-published sources by human rights watchdogs.DeathTrain (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "As this discussion has now shifted to sources..." Not in my view. HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So what is your view?DeathTrain (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That your goal here is not in alignment with WP:RECENT and WP:NPOV. HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That is what I am trying to rectify. I am trying to write a human rights section based on premises we can all agree on. I am giving concessions to you by agreeing to use sources that you endorse, i.e. "Sources that cover Russia's entire history, and that discuss human rights abuses by all leaders throughout that time, so that we avoid the problems of recentism and NPOV." What will I need to do for you to stop being skeptical about my intentions or my qualifications to make this edit? I am starting to get the feeling that you just want to spite me. DeathTrain (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If a summary style is used, do you think that it would be WP:NPOV to mention individual Russian leaders by name? DeathTrain (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ideally, you should start with the article Human rights in Russia. Because the final version of the summary here should be based on it.--Renat (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, so what do you think of the Human rights in Russia article as is? Does it have any major issues? DeathTrain (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you think are the most important points from the Human rights in Russia article?DeathTrain (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's hard for me to say now, I have not yet analyzed that article. If you did it - add what you think is necessary. Others will correct (or revert) if they will be interested.--Renat (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Some points that I found prominent in the article were issues regarding Political freedoms and civil liberties (such as press freedom, freedom of assembly, suspicious killings of journalists, unfair elections and an unfair judiciary), society and ethnic-based issues (such as racism and xenophobia, LGBT issues, and the government's policies in Chechnya), and torture/abuse (such as in psychiatric institutions, prisons, police stations, and the military).

These are the verbatim first two paragraphs in the lead section of the Human rights in Russia article:

As a successor to the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation remains bound by such human rights instruments (adopted by the Soviet Union) as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (fully).[1] In the late 1990s, Russia also ratified the European Convention on Human Rights (with reservations) and from 1998 onwards the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg became a last court of appeal for Russian citizens from their national system of justice. According to Chapter 1, Article 15 of the Constitution adopted in Russia in December 1993, these embodiments of international law take precedence over national federal legislation.[note 1][2][3] However, from Vladimir Putin's second term as President (2004–2008) onward there were increasing reports of human rights violations.

Since the 2011 State Duma elections and Putin's resumption of the presidency in spring 2012, there has been a legislative onslaught on many international and constitutional rights, e.g. Article 20 (Freedom of Assembly and Association) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is embodied in Articles 30 and 31 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation (1993). A law was passed in December 2015 that gives the Constitutional Court of Russia the right to decide whether Russia can enforce, or ignore, resolutions from intergovernmental bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights.[4] DeathTrain (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I attempted to expand the section. I know it is not perfect, so I added a cleanup template. What do you think? DeathTrain (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The cleanup tag has now been removed. Do you think it is appropriate to elaborate upon human rights in the lead section now?DeathTrain (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD.--Renat (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's what I added to the lead, although I still think it is far from perfect. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve, or otherwise emphasize or elaborate it?DeathTrain (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the overly long sentence about one thing to include the normal wording used in other article with links to more information in a neutral manner....just the facts.-- Moxy 🍁 18:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see you have an overwhelming desire to elaborate human rights in the lead of Russia, you have already created a massive section about human rights in the country in the section of Governance. Seems like elaborating about state leaders, governments, and human rights on article leads of countries is all you do on Wikipedia, you do not anything helpful, or improve any article. It seems you just care about your opinion and have been trying push it since months. Have you ever seen the leads of Canada, Australia? That is how a lead should be. Please see WP:Recentism and WP:NPOV. Noelcubit (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with that.109.92.12.3 (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit break
Of course their ongoing Human Rights issues should be featured in the lead and prominently so, its one of the most important/notable things about the country. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have already argued at the beginning of this that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can be used to justify that articles of other post-soviet republics such as Belarus, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan are more appropriate models for the lead section of this article than countries such as Australia and Canada. I care about human rights. I don't know how you came to these conclusions about me, but I have made many edits on various topics, not just elaborating about state leaders, governments, and Human Rights on leads of countries. DeathTrain (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Best to use one sentence to say multiple things in these cases - as has been done here but blanked. This focus on one thing leads to bloated inflammatory wording well omitting others things.... build it like our FA articles. Need these two side to come to a middle ground.-- Moxy 🍁
 * If that is the case, how about something like DeathTrain (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Better not waste a sentence on just one point...say and link more.....that said to many new editors here with an agenda to get anywhere ...will have to weight for a long time .-- Moxy 🍁 08:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * On someone own personal blog or website, yes it can be that in a lead and editor of that blog or website can measure how something is important. We don't do any advocacy here or any personal cold war fights. Wikipedia is not for that. So NO.109.92.12.3 (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How is this advocacy? It is no different than elaborating upon human rights in the lead sections of other articles, such as China, Turkmenistan, North Korea, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, and Equatorial Guinea. Human rights can be WP:DUE if they are a notable aspect of the country, according to MOS:LEAD. DeathTrain (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How about writing an edit for the United States as a start to show it isn't about advocacy or otherness? 176.20.208.33 (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. As for "Human rights can be WP:DUE if they are a notable aspect of the country", who decides? HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I personally think that Russia is a much bigger fish to fry. What is more important is that there should be a WP:CONSENSUS to do so in the article for the United States or for any other country. If that is to happen, it should probably begin in the talk page as is being done here, so I created a discussion on that talk page. But a comparison to the United States is a red herring. I am not the only editor who wants to elaborate upon human rights in the lead section of this article and I acknowledge that there is opposition to it, so the purpose of this particular discussion on this talk page is to resolve this dispute.DeathTrain (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why just the USA? Human rights abuses are common in many countries. HiLo48 (talk) 01:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It all boils down to local WP:Consensus.DeathTrain (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * With its inevitable biases? Not good enough. I reckon pretty much every country should have a section on human rights abuses. HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Danloud (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you think of these accusations of WP:Advocacy? There seems to now be an effort to prevent me from describing human rights in the lead section of this article until I do the same to the United States article.DeathTrain (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no advocacy here. I am disturbed by the false equivalency in statements which go something along the lines of “if X doesnt have it in the lead then Y shouldn’t either!” Experienced editors should know better than to make meaningless arguments like that.  you know my position is that every single country main page lead should have a least a sentence about human rights, Russia is no exception especially with their notably bad record and current behavior on the issue. In this particular context more than a sentence is due, I think we’re looking at a quarter-half paragraph if we go by WP:DUE WEIGHT etc. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you call it WP:GASLIGHTING?DeathTrain (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would not as that would require me to have knowledge about the informed nature and intent of others which I do not possess. Lets focus on content. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So what suggestions do you have to improve the presentation of human rights in this article? DeathTrain (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Human rights in Russia have been ranked poorly by human rights watchdogs", the sentence does not even fit the rest of the para, but not only that, I still feel it is extremely unnecessary to mention a country's government, leader, or human rights etc. on its article's lead. As I have already mentioned before, this is the lead of a country that is thousand of ages old. Besides, there is an article for Human rights in Russia, which people can read. I still believe its completely unneeded to stack up the lead with "human rights", when it can be clean, and should mention just the history of the country. DeathTrain also tried mentioning Orbán on the lead of Hungary, and tried to expand it, by calling Orbán a dictator, authoritarian etc. But didn't gain consensus on Talk:Hungary, and failed. WP:Recentism is a thing you know? Noelcubit (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * These main pages are for the modern nation states not for the preceding states and cultures although those of course are discussed as background and history. Russia is barely 30 years old, we have main pages for the preceding states like Soviet Union and Russian Empire. Please explain what you mean by “clean” because WP:wikipedia is not censored. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

How is a past discussion on an article for a different country relevant? It seems to me like you are trying to discredit or belittle me by using personal attacks and misdirection. Let's focus on the content, not the contributor. MOS:LEAD mandates that "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." How does that exclude human rights? DeathTrain (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You may all be interested in knowing that a sentence detailing human rights has been added to the lead section of the United States article. DeathTrain (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I would support what the paragraph in the lede was like before (at least the last sentence) which states that the current government is considered authoritarian and states that the government has been criticised for human rights abuses and restrictions. I don't believe any more detail than that is necessary. I'm not sure how long the new lede will last in the United States article (I don't think long) but I don't support what was changed there; it goes into the same level of detail or even more detail than the China article for example, where the human rights situation is not the same. Even the North Korea article in some ways feels a bit more positive. Mellk (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - Silly, token stuff. You simply haven't understood my main point here. It's still clear to me that your primary goal is to change an article about a country with a thousand year history to place a much stronger emphasis on the past 20 years, and in particular, tell us how bad the current leader is. Until I can clearly see that you have understood the problem with your core position, I'm not really interested in cosmetic stuff like that. HiLo48 (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Been pinged a few times...but not much more can be said by me. I have made a proposal that cover human rights as well as civil rights. Think its unbalanced to just mention one over the others that are covred in the article. If there is to be an inclusion of this nature it should cover what the sources cover "political, media, personal rights etc . in a  just the facts style...not who said what and a rebuttal.-- Moxy 🍁 23:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have tried my best to be neutral. My additions to the Human rights section only mention Putin in ways that are attested by the Human rights in Russia article. Furthermore, my proposed additions to the lead section make absolutely no mention of Putin. When I first expanded the Human rights section, I openly acknowledged that my edits were not perfect by putting in a cleanup template, adding that issues in the section included WP:NPOV and WP:Recentism, the same "crimes" you have continually accused me of. It was removed by user:Noelcubit. I tried to assume good faith from you, and often invited you to help me improve it, but the main thing I noted from you is that you continuously accused me of bad faith, which I increasingly began to believe were personal attacks. If that is true and you only have personal spite for me and therefore nothing constructive to add, then I suggest that you drop the stick. DeathTrain (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You started wanting to write more about recent times in Russia, especially Putin, and still do. HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Because I agree with user:Horse Eye's Back, that: "These main pages are for the modern nation states not for the preceding states and cultures although those of course are discussed as background and history. Russia is barely 30 years old, we have main pages for the preceding states like Soviet Union and Russian Empire." What is wrong with that? I would also not object to adding Boris Yeltsin to the lead too. DeathTrain (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * : I cannot see a single sentence written about human rights in the lead of the United States? Danloud (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It has since been undone. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&type=revision&diff=998919684&oldid=998759481 DeathTrain (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you have anything to contribute to the Human rights discussion on the Talk:United States page?DeathTrain (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Details elaborating Human rights have again been added to the lead section of the United States article. I have also realized that the "Human rights" section in this article has now been removed. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&type=revision&diff=1000011561&oldid=999861448 Do you want to talk now? DeathTrain (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit break 2

 * A sentence about human rights was included in the lead of the article "United States." Yet "Russia" has nothing in any lead paragraph about that country's negative human rights record. (The lead did include a factoid about Russia as one of the world's top travel destinations, which I have corrected. Russia is actually ranked 10th in EUROPE, right after Portugal). Mason.Jones (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Russia article some time ago did have a paragraph devoted to mentioning every possible criticism in a way that blatantly broke WP:NOR/WP:NPOV/WP:V/WP:RS. There should be a mention of authoritarianism at the very least but those editors who voiced their opposition have decided to ignore this discussion. I'd suggest a new proposal and to see if those editors conveniently reappear. Mellk (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it is time to finalize this discussion. Should this article mention human rights in the lead section at all, now that the same has been done for the United States article? Why or why not? DeathTrain (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You can "finalize" as you like, but Russian editors will never allow it. I was quite surprised to see a passage about Russia's very poor male health, although it conveniently omits comparisons to other countries. Mason.Jones (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * An RfC would be needed at this point. Just like wp:usa is planning for the USA article. That said I think the focus has to be more then just human rights to pass.....as most will think political corruption is more of a problem in this case....-- Moxy 🍁 02:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think saying "among the lowest" would be accurate: 149/180 (Press Freedom Index); 137/179 (Corruption Perceptions Index) etc. Better to just state that the current government is considered authoritarian and that corruption is a widespread issue (reflecting human rights & corruption section). Mellk (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Being in the bottom 15 percent seems bad to me....perhaps better to say in the Western world..... to distinguish them from places like North Korea and  Saudi Arabia.-- Moxy 🍁 04:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The scores are low indeed (more like bottom 20–25%), however I would consider it exceptionally low and therefore among the worst if it was ranked in the very bottom tier in these rankings, for example "difficult situation" in the Press Freedom Index. I don't think Russia is usually considered as part of the Western world. I would say these scores are pretty average or above-average for an authoritarian regime. Lack of political liberties, low media freedom, significant corruption, not many civil liberties and so on is pretty much what makes an authoritarian regime, so I think it would be best to simply mention that the government is considered authoritarian and that corruption is a widespread issue (since it's a very deep problem). Mellk (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since America's issues got mentioned on its lead, I agree with the addition of it on Russia's lead too; since the rankings of Russia in these are very concerning indeed. How does this look?
 * Danloud (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I still do not agree to expand the lead. But, since this is getting finalized, either or 's version should be added. Noelcubit (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Only problem with that is that Russia is not typically considered to be part of the West. If we want that kind of sentence though, perhaps something like Mellk (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @Mellk: Now the comparison is just Europe? Russia is also far worse than North America and much of South America. One must always soften the tone about uncomfortable subjects in Russia. (Even regarding the poor health/longevity of Russian males—similar to that of Botswana—it's simply because "they like to smoke and drink".) A few editors have demanded an "honest" appraisal of human rights in the West, but they get upset if you do the same with Russia, with a worse record in many ways. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not softening it. The Ukraine article compares its GDP per capita to the rest of Europe (where it is bottom), the Belarus article states its the only country in Europe using the death penalty, the Moldova article compares its HDI to the rest of Europe (where it is bottom), and so on. Since Russia is a European nation, like those other nations, it only makes sense. What else do you suggest? Comparing it to other specific continents would just be silly. Mellk (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And you are talking to the wrong person about "One must always soften the tone about uncomfortable subjects in Russia". Mellk (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that Russia is usually not considered part of the West. I also believe that human rights encompasses more than just civil liberties. Perhaps something like the following could be added: Other examples of human rights abuses that could also be added include unfair elections, ethnic issues such as in Chechnya, and torture and abuse such as in the military and in psychiatric institutions, but I believe that those must first be included in the article itself. The details I added on those issues was removed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia&type=revision&diff=999926711&oldid=999893940 DeathTrain (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A lot of that is just a much longer way of saying "authoritarian regime". I don't see why we should omit mentioning authoritarianism. "Human rights organisations describe the current government as authoritarian and corruption remains a widespread issue". Simple, concise. Mellk (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess I would not object to mentioning the government as authoritarian in the lead, but I would at least like there to be a mention that human rights are a problem. DeathTrain (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Previously, there was that sentence I added some time ago that mentioned authoritarianism, corruption and human rights abuses, but it was removed by Danloud: "His government has been accused by non-governmental organisations of numerous human rights abuses, authoritarianism and corruption." Mellk (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How about this then? Danloud (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In Europe Russia ranks bottom in Corruption Perceptions Index, 2nd lowest in Press Freedom Index (3rd lowest is Bulgaria, which is ranked 111th in the world, which is 38 places higher) and 2nd lowest in "democraticness" or civil liberties ((3rd lowest would be a country like Kosovo*, Ukraine or Moldova, which rank a lot higher than Russia does). Perhaps "ranking among the lowest in Europe" might work though I feel it might be a bit misleading. Mellk (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I guess I could also get behind a comparison with the rest of Europe, but I think we should first agree on which metrics should be used. What do you think of mentioning corruption, human rights, press freedom and democracy/authoritarianism? DeathTrain (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Russia is a major power, a nation of 146 million, a leading economy with a muscular foreign policy, and its government is authoritarian. Comparisons of health, corruption, transparency, human rights are not with Ukraine, Belarus, or Georgia but with the world. This is a collaborative encyclopedia, so several editors will ultimately control the content and an article on Russia will never address anything close to reality. One Russian editor accused me of having "a grudge." No, it's just a feeling that this article is led by a paranoid nationalism that will tolerate zero criticism. That is too bad, but that is Russia today. Mason.Jones (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, so do you have any proposals for what it should say?--DeathTrain (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No thanks. Your softer line of criticism won't stay for long either. The fact that the "debate" here is already down to a comparison within Europe—when Russia is a large country with a fully international posture—is telling. Russian editors are very attuned to how their country is perceived in the West (i.e., poorly), so this article will always be "sweetened" for Western readers. Mason.Jones (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You haven't added anything useful to the discussion, so instead of complaining about other editors, move on. Mellk (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not necessary, Mellk, as you've already decided to compare Russia's health, human rights, and corruption to Belarus (rather than to western Europe, North America, and Latin America). That will make Russia look a lot better. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Except I compared the rankings with the whole of Europe, did you read what I said? And for some reason, you want to ignore Africa, Asia and Oceania? Mellk (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And please assume good faith. Mellk (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And? Russia is a great power, and is in the continent of Europe; so we'll compare it to the rest of the continent. Nobody's comparing it to Belarus, we're comparing to whole EUROPE (including Western Europe). You don't see anything written in front of you. North America and Latin America have nothing to do with Russia, absolutely nothing. What are you talking about? We'll compare a country to which continent it lies on, not to foreign continents, for example Africa. All this time, you did not contribute a single thing to the discussion, and just kept complaining. I'd suggest you to leave. Not a single thing sounds "sweet" in this sentence. Danloud (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are a nationalist and wish to tamp down criticism of Russia, as your country has a very bad reputation in the West (and Wikipedia is based in the West). I do understand that. Mason.Jones (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How did you successfully manage to bring the Western world in every argument about Russia? This discussion has turned into something else, and lost the track. It should be ended. Noelcubit (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems that in order to resolve this, we need a request for comment.DeathTrain (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Noelcubit: Russia has an important geopolitical profile, and problems with corruption, internal repression and foreign interventions on a grand scale. It is definitely not Finland. Your Talk page has more official WP warnings in two months than I've received in 15 years; hopefully, your words here are not your deeds. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A user have also been trying to remove the elaboration on the U.S. lead. Danloud (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nationalism is everywhere, but the passage will be restored. "United States" is a far more honest article than "Russia." As I said, U.S. health problems and life expectancy are detailed. The article "Russia" downplays the catastrophic health of Russian men, who live as long as Guatemalan males. The health section has a ridiculous sentence about "smoking, alcohol poisoning, and violent crime," problems throughout the world. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, you haven't added anything useful to this discussion, so I'm not sure why you're still here. You said you wouldn't. Moreover, you're still assuming bad faith and complaining about other editors. Are you just intentionally trying to be provocative? Mellk (talk) 12:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please can we just ignore him and move on, let him rant to himself if he wants to. Mellk (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is what I am proposing: DeathTrain (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would have it so it says the current government is considered authoritarian (this is widely considered to be the case, so there is no need to say it as an accusation) and that the it ranks lowest in Europe in terms of perceived corruption. As I've said, authoritarianism includes lack of press freedom, lack of political freedom and lack of freedom of assembly, so this seems redundant. It would also probably make some the other editors more likely to accept it. I'm not sure what rankings there are for human rights specifically though. Mellk (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So how about something like: DeathTrain (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Y'know what's amazing? The U.S. lead's elaboration has been removed since days; with not a single sentence added back to the lead by any user. Noelcubit (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How is that relevant? DeathTrain (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Its very relevant. We had a talk about adding criticism to the lead of United States, you even pinged me to add to the discussion on talk:United States. You did add a few sentences, which later got modified; and got removed at least 2 times within days without any explanation. This time, its not being added back again. That tells "American" editors do not want anything bad to be written about the United States on its lead, I also did not see anybody saying anything about the removal on the talk page. I understand that. You too do not have any interest in adding anything back to the lead of the United States. Yet, your interest to bloat the leads of Russia, China, and African countries are over the moon. You're American, right?


 * Its indeed very relevant, again, because that childish user with a grudge, who did not contribute a single sentence to the discussion, and kept whining; complaining about "Russian" users not letting anybody add any criticism the lead; and that it'll get removed. Noelcubit (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

If anything, at least the mentioning of human rights remained intact. I have since restored the examples of human rights issues I originally added in the lead section of that article, but I did not the ones that were added in subsequently as I felt that would be pushing a POV; no other country's article links the country's foreign policy as a human rights issue. I also added a note telling editors to discuss on the talk page if they want to modify the elaboration of human rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&action=history Now, do you have anything relevant or productive to add to the discussion on this article? DeathTrain (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What is the exact reason the lead is getting expanded? I do not get it. There is a section for "Human rights and corruption"—where I believe everything there is to explain is explained, and readers can read it perfectly. There is also two main articles for Human rights in Russia and Corruption in Russia. The lead looks heavy and bloated when it gets expanded. I do not support the lead's expansion—and can see many other users disagreed with the expansion in the past too. Clipasie (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit break 3

 * I believe this looks okay. Not over-exaggerated, and sticks to the point. I also believe its very important to mention that the government is authoritarian, which is pretty much worldwide known. What do you guys think? Noelcubit (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the best version ...links more and gives more information doing so with less text.-- Moxy 🍁 10:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess I can agree to that, but the only question I have is why should it say that the country ranks lowly in measurements of "government transparency" rather than "corruption" and "civil liberties" rather than "human rights"?DeathTrain (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It should be "perceived corruption" (based on the Corruption Perceptions Index), there isn't a measurement that measures the actual level of corruption, nor is that really possible. Civil liberties is fine if we base it on Freedom in the World report and Democracy Index, again there isn't really a measurement/index for specifically human rights I don't think. Mellk (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why can't it just say that human rights in Russia have been significantly criticized, rather than saying it ranks lowly in international measurements of civil liberties?DeathTrain (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * human rights are those fundamental rights considered to be universal to all people. ... Civil liberties are the rights and freedoms that protect an individual from the state and which are underpinned by a country's legal system. This is a country article about the state and its treatment of its people.-- Moxy 🍁 18:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose it is better than nothing. Does anyone object to this?

DeathTrain (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What is the exact reason the lead is getting expanded? I do not get it. There is a section for "Human rights and corruption"—where I believe everything there is to explain is explained, and readers can read it perfectly. There is also two main articles for Human rights in Russia and Corruption in Russia. The lead looks heavy and bloated when it gets expanded. I do not support the lead's expansion—and can see many other users disagreed with the expansion in the past too. Clipasie (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * your edit summary that barely two people participated in this discussion is untrue and you are aware of this. The addition was agreed to by consensus. You are borderline edit warring. You need to self revert and stop. If you wish to start an RfC you are free to, but this change was developed and agreed to by consensus. Now you are asking irrelevant questions. I would add the agreed to paragraph back into the article if it is not self reverted.  // Timothy :: talk  12:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been going on for months and months, for a reason. You just joined in yesterday, without discussing a single time on the talk page, and started pushing your opinion and reverting. And, obviously, you are from America too. What is with American users pushing a WP:POV here? There was an expansion about America's problems on its lead—but that got reverted, and never added back—when it had consensus too. I am noticing a pattern here. Clipasie (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right, you were dishonest when you claimed only two people had participated; this has been going on for a while and consensus has been reached. It doesn't matter if I participated in the past or not, and others did a great job developing consensus and I support that consensus.  // Timothy :: talk  13:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, right! Absolutely. This discussion is usually dead—mainly because nobody is interested. It only starts again when starts pinging users to bring them back to the discussion; or becomes WP:BOLD on the article, and expands the lead, only to get reverted. He has been the only person who wants to expand the lead since a long time—and introduced this idea. Now we see another American here, who's fingers are itching to revert and add criticism on the lead, and that, is you.
 * If you notice, I am not the only person who has objected the expansion, 3 users did, and they have been instrumental in this discussion. Clipasie (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And a consensus of editors did not agree with you. Yes, I am from the United States, which has nothing to do with this, so you can strike out your personal attacks above.  // Timothy :: talk  13:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you believe there is a consensus to add:

or should there be an RFC? DeathTrain (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe there is consensus. Mellk (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I oppose the addition and reverted DeathTrain (who marked his edit as a bold change, but started edit warring when I reverted him). I don't see the need for this sentence in the lead. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not? DeathTrain (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is something commonly mentioned when speaking about the country. Thus it doesn't belong in the lead. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

If something is notable about the country, then it can qualify for the lead section, according to MOS:LEAD. I think that authoritarianism, corruption and problematic human rights are all aspects that the Russian government is reputed for, therefore making these subjects notable enough for the lead section. DeathTrain (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There's lots of notable stuff about the country, the article is very lengthy. Are you saying any facts mentioned down below can qualify for the lead? Okay, use something from the "Culture" section. As for your proposal, I'm not the only one who disagree with you. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That is irrelevant; if you want to further elaborate about culture in the lead section, you can do it yourself. Why do you need me to do it for you? DeathTrain (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No reply? DeathTrain (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have other things to do. And, as I've said, I'm not the only one who disagree with you. So I think maybe it's better if we finish this conversation now and do something else. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So are you conceding?DeathTrain (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No. As I have already said, I am not the only one who disagreed with you. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And I do not know if you have noticed this yet, but many others have not disagreed with me. DeathTrain (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit break 4
It appears that due to further opposition to making the addition, it may now be necessary for an RFC. DeathTrain (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Support inclusion (and RfC if necessary to have the content added). Hopefully the other discussion partcipants confirm their positions below and a consensus will be obvious, but no objection to an RfC if this doesn't work.  // Timothy :: talk  21:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * An RFC has now been created. DeathTrain (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Remember that edit that I made that summarized the (recentist) human rights issue perfectly and everyone was okay with it? (11 August 2020) It's gone now. - 祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 01:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I previously removed Putin's claims since I don't think it was appropriate to include this as it doesn't really matter what he says in regards to this. After that, I thought it was good enough. Mellk (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As you are someone who has previously favored an RFC, do you have any comment now that an RFC has been created?DeathTrain (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything to add for the RFC? DeathTrain (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2021
Republic !Map of the Union Republics between 1956 and 1991 207.231.232.82 (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Renat  19:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Largest cities in Europe
The sentence "Moscow, the capital, is the largest city in Europe, while Saint Petersburg is the second-largest city" is directly contradicted by the list of largest European cities linked within it. I don't even see any possible measurement (metropolitan area, urbanized area, city proper, etc.) in which Saint Petersburg would be considered the second largest in Europe. Perhaps a rewrite of that sentence is in order? Jleon (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Clarified that SP is second-largest in Russia, not in Europe. --T*U (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Human rights in lead
Due to persistent dispute over this issue, should Russia's human rights situation and/or government corruption be elaborated upon in the lead section of this article? Suggestions below.--DeathTrain (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

A few suggestions of text (more suggestions welcome) A:

B:

C:


 * I don't understand what kind of an RFC question is this. I see above on this talk page that has been trying for months now (since November!) to add something bad to the lead section. He didn't get support, so he started proposing new and new wordings for more or less the same statement. Here's another attempt, now he is proposing to chose out of three choices. "Of three evils choose the least"? --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You are misunderstanding. This is not a closed list, but merely suggestions. If you read right underneath "A few suggestions of text", it clearly says More suggestions welcome. Also, you still do not seem to understand, but many editors, including, and even  have all not opposed me, and even made proposals as to what should be added in the lead section.DeathTrain (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Lead should definitely have something along these lines. Sourcing for any of the suggestions is simply overwhelming. I personally prefer option A, but both B and C would be preferable to nothing at all. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * D: But if only given these three choices: B. - 祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 01:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Option B - It is is definitely supported by text found in the main body and by an ample amount of reliable sources. As for the inclusion of the Putin by name, there is no single piece of information more relevant to Russia's current state of affairs than the tenure of Vladimir Putin. Many articles about countries where a single leader had long dominated politics mention them in the lead (Cameroon, Iran, Rwanda, Belarus etc.). Plenty of the countries who have been accused of human rights violations have leads that reflect that as well (too many to enumerate). I don't see why Russia's status as a superpower should make it exempt from this common practice. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Option B. I think it is best to mention Putin and how long he's been in power. Mellk (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * None. There is already a section for Human rights and corruption in the article. I think it explains itself very well. Do not think the lead needs to be bloated. Clipasie (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Per user "Of course their ongoing Human Rights issues should be featured in the lead and prominently so, its one of the most important/notable things about the country." Per MOS:LEAD: "[A lead section] should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Do you think that corruption and Human rights are not significant enough to be in the lead section? Articles for many other countries such as Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Belarus, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Chad, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Haiti do mention one or both of these topics in their respective lead sections. If you believe that detailing corruption and human rights is not appropriate in this article, could it ever be appropriate for any article? It can only be a sentence and not have to bloat the lead section.DeathTrain (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No reply?DeathTrain (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I also favor B, but many users in earlier discussions such as and  oppose mentioning Putin, believing it to be WP:Recentism. I have to play Devil's advocate. I am also considering that if Putin is mentioned, then Yeltsin may also need to be mentioned too. Here are more suggestions I have been considering based off B:

E: F: G: DeathTrain (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

— You think Putin is the Devil, don't you? Your nickname scares me. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I would still favour option B. Boris Yeltsin was only in power for about 8 years and the government was still somewhat democratic by the time he left. Putin has been in power for over 20 years now and will be in power for a minimum of 24 years (possibly he will continue to play a key role for many more years), with the government shifting to authoritarianism, so I don't think including Putin is imbalanced at all. That said, if others insist on including Yeltsin, then I would not oppose a brief mention of him (like how it is done in option E). Mellk (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "I have to play Devil's advocate."
 * No. It is just a figure of speech. Now, do you have anything substantive to contribute?DeathTrain (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, something along those lines per . 207.161.86.162 (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support C something about the current nature of government is called for, but I don't think we need to mention Putin. C seems the best. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Option A To answer the RfC question, yes; and I personally prefer option A over the others. Some1 (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Include any of the three options as there it is certainly WP:DUE content for the lead, with preference for B then A.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 18:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So as it stands, of all the nine people who have commented substantively on this RFC so far, one person opposes putting anything at all, one person favors C, two people favor A, one person favors D, and six people would not oppose B. Would you say that there is consensus for B?DeathTrain (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sufficiently well versed in assessing consensus to say that there is or is not. I will say that I personally am fine with B. Adoring nanny (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also fine with B., how about combining A and B somehow so the "country ranks among the lowest in Europe on international measurements of..." part will be included too? Some1 (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, how is

H: Does anyone have any suggestions for improvement?DeathTrain (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That looks fine to me. Some1 (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So is there consensus to make the edit? If I were to make the addition, would anyone revert it?DeathTrain (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert in consensus. It looks fine to me though. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely still on board with option B. PraiseVivec (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So would you undo or modify H if it were made?DeathTrain (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I added H.DeathTrain (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Support option B as the most neutral and most informative.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you think of H, then, which has now been added? DeathTrain (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I also still think option B is best. It would also show issues of corruption and human rights being from the highest levels of government. Mellk (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I prefer B to H. I think it's better not to include rankings.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Due to renewed support for B, could you accept rankings being excluded?DeathTrain (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. The article is about Russia as a country, which is why the rankings are pertinent, but if the other users want B over H, then I guess it is what it is. Some1 (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So I added B, but I also included a link to Russia under Vladimir Putin and retained the word "widely", as has been included in the Belarus article.DeathTrain (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree B is the best choice.
 * B; stop pinging me. - 祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 01:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Is my change suitable for the lead? Clipasie (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This was not an option and other editors made their choices, so not sure why this should be changed. Mellk (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I:
 * How does this look? I explained the whole issue in detail within the note, which is used to not stack the lead up, making it easier to read through it. Viewers can view the note without any issues. Clipasie (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hiding relevant information with a note is not an improvement. Some1 (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought the consensus was going for something like B or H, why would you introduce another option, particularly one that is bound to cause controversy, since it uses notes to make the relevant information discussed in the RfC less visible? PraiseVivec (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Can I please stop getting pings now, thanks.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 20:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Russia is partially located in Central Europe
*I have move this section down from where it was erroneously placed at the top of the page. --T*U (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC) Kaliningrad oblast (region) of Russia is located in Central Europe. I suggest wikipedia should mention that. It has to mention literally, that Russia is located in "Central Europe, Eastern Europe and Asia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.146.79 (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * done. Noelcubit (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The claim that Kaliningrad oblast is located in Central Europe is just an opinion. Central Europe is not a well-defined area, and there certainly may be definitions that include Kaliningrad, but most definitions do not. Using this as an argument for placing Russia in "Central and Eastern Europe", is at best undue, at worst ridiculous. Such addition will need a consensus here in the talk page. --T*U (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

If according to your personal opinion Poland is located wholly in Central Europe than how it could be, that Kaliningrad is not? Not even a square mile of its land is located more Eastern than Eastern border of Poland.

Superpower, great power
I think the definition of Russia as a "superpower/potential superpower" in the lead is misleading. Its status as such is debated and the country, by all its characteristics, fits the "great power" group of countries. I understand that "being considered a potential superpower" can be addressed separately, but it should be clear how "great power" it's Russia's status as of now. Lone Internaut (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

forming of the Soviet Union
I find it a bit weird how in the Soviet Union section of the article, the entirety of Central Asia and the three Baltic states joining the Soviet Union is not mentioned. Even though they were a part of the union for most of its history, they're not mentioned. Any particular reasons why it is so? They definitely should be mentioned.  Danloud  (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that this article is about Russia, while the Soviet Union section is kind of a summary of a summary, with the greater details being related in the articles linked in the hatnotes at the top of the section: Soviet Union and History of the Soviet Union. One could make the case that, after mentioning the entities with which Russia joined to form the Soviet Union, details about the further development of the Soviet Union might better be left to the Soviet Union articles. In any event, it's best not to carry the same information in too many different places, at least in my opinion. Largoplazo (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit: Infrastructure
"As of 2016, Russia had 1,452.2 km of roads;" should read "As of 2016, Russia had 1,452.2 thousand km of roads;", per the cited source. Holadaa (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Done.  Danloud  (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Crimea
Crimea could be considered a disputed territory. Because Russia's annexation of Crimea is not recognized by the United Nations or the European Union. Ukraine still has a legitimate claim on Crimea not Russia. Thanos2556 (talk) 03:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, it could be (and is) considered a disputed territory. But the map caption has to explain why do we highlight it. Highlighting all disputed territories of Russia (i.e. not only Crimea, but also Southern Kuriles) would be UNDUE: Crimea has UN-level non-recognition, whilst Southern Kuriles are purely a bilateral nuisance without much internationalisation of the dispute. Current description is fine, since it clearly shows why the map highlights only Crimea. Merley stating "with Crimea in light green" (as it was some time ago) might prompt wrong understanding that the map ought to show all disputed territories in special colors, which leads to these UNDUE edits. The fact that Crimea is labelled as an unrecognised territory here doesn't mean that it is not disputed, quite the opposite, since the former is a subtype of the latter - Russia has a few disputed areas (not one), but only one of them got international non-recognition of the Russian claim. Seryo93 (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2021
In the “economy” tab under “science and technology, “transformer” has been listed twice under “Russian discoveries and inventions. It’s listed a “transformer”, and again as “transformers” in the same paragraph. Both hyperlink to the same article about transformers. Please remove one of them. The paragraph containing the redundant transformer references had been pasted below:

Russian discoveries and inventions include the transformer, electric filament lamp, the aircraft, the safety parachute, sputnik, radio receiver, electrical microscope, colour photos,[252] caterpillar tracks, periodic table, track assembly, electrically powered railway wagons, videotape recorder, helicopter, solar cell, transformers, yogurt, television, petrol cracking, synthetic rubber and grain harvester.[253] 66.189.205.226 (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for spotting that. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

problem with Sergey Solovyov (historian) who died in 1879
he was very influential 150 years ago but not today. He's cited 7 times and we need a modern scholar instead. Rjensen (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Population
has taken the official population number for 1 Jan 2020 (146,748,590) and subtracted a number they have found for the Russian death toll in 2020 due to covid-19 (162,429), coming up with a population number of (146,586,161), which they are now presenting as the 2021 population of Russia both here and at the article Demographics of Russia. It should not be necessary to say that this is not a correct use of sources,. It is a cross between original research and synthesis, see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.

The official numbers are provided by the Russian Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat). On their main web site here they currently present the official number for 1 Jan 2020 as the "Population", which can be further sourced to the background data here:

It is also possible to find background data for 1 Jan 2021:

The key word here is "Preliminary", so this is not the final statistics. I have no idea how much the final numbers usually diverge from the preliminary numbers. I feel most comfortable using the 2020 number (146,748,590), especially since that is the number Rosstat use on their main page. If anyone have compelling arguments for using the preliminary 2021 number (146,238,185), I am open for that. However, any numbers produced by fancy calculations are completely unacceptable. --T*U (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I respect your decision however I need to assure you my intent is to contribute and to never sabotage under any circumstances. I hope things get sorted out better in the near future and please don't make me look like a bad guy, I'm only a contributor and have no intent or desire for vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCPdude629 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Update
For the record: Official estimate for 2021 is now to be found here:
 * --T*U (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Russia has 3.483.738 rank 1 active military soldiers Russia is the strongest country in the world szokol2003 (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Vashrushev szokol 2004 Russian military has the biggest strongest and educated military force rank 1st in the world Emanuelszokol2003 (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

GA run
.....User:Danloud has done some great work here and is thinking about a GA run. Chipmunkdavis what do you think.....looking good ? any glaring problems. User:Rjensen mention one as seen above.-- Moxy - 13:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The art and architecture section is in need of sources and copy-editing, as it is entirely unsourced. So does the literature and philosophy section, but I can fix that. Other than that, maybe the Education section needs some work.  Danloud  (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There has been some great work done. My notes from one run through are, in no particular order:
 * Potential overabundance superlatives and rankings
 * A bit of anachronism in referring to "Russia" in early history sections, although not a significant issue
 * The overall length is a bit too long at 69kB, something reflected in the large table of contents. Much of this excess is in the History section, which at 29kB on its own almost overwhelms the rest of the article.
 * There's one cn tag, and quite a few other areas that are clearly lacking sources. Suspect there may be more areas which aren't sourced despite perhaps appearing sourced, such as much of Sports.
 * The Culture section faces the usual challenges of country articles, in that it's more a list, and list within lists, than a coverage of the overall culture.
 * Little mention throughout of the eastern areas and peoples of the country. There's obvious historical and population related reasons to focus on the west of course, but it might be worth looking into whether other areas merit a bit more of a mention.
 * Best, CMD (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Human rights section
I would like to elaborate upon other issues in the "Human rights" section of this article, particularly over fairness of elections, freedom of assembly, political repression, and abuse in dedovshchina and psychiatric institutions. Are any of the following sources acceptable?

Elections

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2011/433688/EXPO-AFET_ET(2011)433688_EN.pdf

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/110/2/448.full.pdf

https://www.eesti.ca/as-the-kremlin-tightens-the-screws-it-invites-popular-revolt/article50082

https://web.archive.org/web/20100309043628/http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=b126be54-df1a-4a2c-908f-1158bd8ca7a4&k=34165

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/world/europe/russian-parliamentary-elections-criticized-by-west.html

Freedom of assembly

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/12/Russia-Peaceful-activist-sentenced-under-repressive-new-law-must-be-released/

https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/07/12/russia-attempts-stifle-dissent-summit

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur46/001/2014/en/

Dedovshchina

https://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/russia1004/6.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7425694.stm

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/8779624/Russian-family-alleges-suicide-conscript-tortured-to-death.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/world/europe/13hazing.html

Psychiatry/repression

Semple, David; Smyth, Roger. Oxford handbook of psychiatry. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. ISBN 0-19-969388-9. p. 6.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901592_pf.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560192/Labelled-mad-for-daring-to-criticise-the-Kremlin.html

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/02/04/no-repressions-against-pro-navalny-protesters-kremlin-says-a72834

https://www.lapresse.ca/international/europe/2021-02-04/affaire-navalny/colere-en-russie-apres-la-repression-l-emissaire-de-l-ue-attendu.php

DeathTrain (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I could see this done...but would be best to find academic publications. Media articles from years ago may not fly with the majority here. Let's get you to review some in-depth publications. Media junk is not needed when we have real publications on the topic. As of now the current section is being talked about to be cuddled because of its sourcing.. ..let's get some academic sourcing and a proposal and let's see. -- Moxy 🍁 17:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the sources in the Human rights in Russia article itself?DeathTrain (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the sources in the human rights sections of other countries such, as Belarus, China, Mauritania, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan or Laos. Most of those articles also use media articles like The Guardian, Amnesty International, The Washington Post, or Reporters Without Borders as sources rather than academic publications.--DeathTrain (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Culture section
The culture section is the main obstacle for a GA run... its mostly unsourced and needs copy-editing. Especially the literature and art and architecture section.  Danloud  (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

There are two reliable sources that could be used:
 * http://countrystudies.us/russia/43.htm
 * http://countrystudies.us/russia/46.htm
 * can you do a copy-edit on the two sections? Noelcubit (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I can try, but it won't be a top priority for me. - 祝好，Sinoam(聊天) 16:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Stalin-Lenin-Kalinin-1919.jpg

Education
The Health section got updated by User:Danloud it seems, but the Education section is very old, and hasn't been updated since a long time, pretty much a decade i think. Is a copy edit and an update possible on the section? 45.118.63.5 (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅.  Danloud  (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2021
What about the current Olympics? The drug problems. The fact that Russia wasn't allowed to compete in Tokyo. What happened to that entire section. Russian Censorship? 2601:81:8484:BA10:157B:FA12:BB8A:9E4D (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2021
Please remove the low-quality, spammy external link https://www.gairegaurav.com.np/2021/09/russia-geography-people-tourism-economy.html. 120.150.121.92 (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC) 120.150.121.92 (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Birth rate in Russia is actually high for European Standards
The Birth Rate in Russia is actually 1,82.--88.66.149.94 (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2021
103.218.133.243 (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC) {{Democrat Republic of Russia}]
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2021
In the part science and technology you can add how Yuri Kondratyuk was crucial to the US lunar landing since he developed LOR years before in around 1929 Sam.washington2124 (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK Talk 05:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

"First Europeans to Sail to North America"
In the history section it says "In 1648, Fedot Popov and Semyon Dezhnyov, two Russian explorers, discovered the Bering Strait, and became the first Europeans to sail to North America." I'm not sure if this is an error in wording but it is blatantly untrue as by 1648 there were already many well established European colonies in North America and they certainly didn't fly there. Also the first Europeans to Sail to North America were Vikings. 2607:F0B0:7:81E1:1C3E:C7E7:C87A:DF10 (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's blatantly false as written. Even if there are some arguments to put on doubt the Viking arrival to the mainland (although consensus has increased in the last decades), the Spanish explorers reached North America in the 1520s, well before the date given. I'd remove that, and let the Bering part for now. Also, someone with access should check the source. --Urbanoc (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed the full sentence. If someone wants to re-add the Bering discovery bit (the only one that sounds right...), he/she/they need to come with a book page of a reputable source, as it's not a minor claim. --Urbanoc (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding information to the article
Russian lands were generally referred to as Muscovy until PETER I officially declared the Russian Empire in 1721; the new name sought to invoke the patrimony of the medieval eastern European Rus state centered on Kyiv in present-day Ukraine; the Rus were a Varangian (eastern Viking) elite that imposed their rule and eventually their name on their Slavic subjects

[CIA - The World Fact Book, Russia, Government, Country name, etymology. https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/russia/#government] — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuasEditor (talk • contribs) 17:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Whitewashing
Whitewashing religious persecution is something which bullies do. I mean: Putin has revived the Inquisition and this would be pretty irrelevant when you think about the bigger matter? The message is loud and clear: Russians live in a tyranny and they do not have human rights, such as freedom of religion. And that's right: in a tyranny individual human rights are pretty irrelevant. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

If Russians behave like they would have religious freedom, they will land in jail. That's guaranteed by the Russian Justice. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

GA try
Sorry for the ping... but can Russia, in its current state, pass if nominated for GA? I have recently done a ton of work over the article. Although its pretty bloated in size, the entire article is well-sourced with reliable sources (most of them with quotes), no notable grammar issues and is neutral throughout, with no massive editor disputes. Its currently rated as a C-class article, which it definitely isn't at this point. Mspriz (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Mspriz, I’ve only had a quick look at the intro, but I don’t think it reflects WP:NPOV. It has a lot of celebratory superlatives, but ignores the long-lasting effect on Russia, the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and northern Asia, and the rest of the world of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution, and overlooks the fact that the Russian Federation is the first country in Europe to defy the post-war international order by aggressively enlarging itself through the use of force or threat of force. These seem to be facts of top significance.
 * More generally, the introduction reflects an ethnic Russo-centric national WP:BIAS, omitting even a mention of or reference to the hundred or so national groups who speak dozens of languages from five unrelated language families in this multicultural state and its predecessor empires.
 * The synthesis of Byzantine and Slavic cultures that defined Russian culture for the next millennium seems to equate Russian culture with East Slavic culture, taking for granted the nineteenth-century Russian imperial version of East Slavic historiography and ignoring current neutral views (along with the existence of historical Ruthenians, later self-identified Belarusians, Rusyns, and Ukrainians). Russia was not Kyivan Rus; it was one successor of it, in terms of nation, state, culture, and history.
 * Rus' ultimately disintegrated, until it was finally reunified by the Grand Duchy of Moscow in the 15th century. What, now? This would be quite a surprise for the people in the Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia, Red Rus, and Carpathian Rus. Muscovy was not Kyivan Rus nor did it “reunify” it in the 15th century in any sense. Neither Muscovy, the Russian tsardom, nor the Russian Empire ever held all of the lands of former Kyivan Rus.
 * If I have a chance, I’ll try to look over the rest of the article. —Michael Z. 15:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I never got this ping. Just checked and it's not on my list of pings either. No clue why.The page is as you mention quite long, something reflected in a very long table of contents. Much of this is a humongous history section (see section size template), with the Soviet Union subsection alone being larger than the entire Geography section. This is reflected in the lead, of which half the paragraphs are devoted to this single section of a seven-section article. The next longest section is Culture, and while it could use a bit of trimming it's actually not that bad. It goes listy in parts, but even these are often placed within context. However, all this length, and a mere single tangential mention in the lead. A quick glance at the article sources finds quite a few entire books with no page numbers, and a few citations to Britannica and TASS, but perhaps not enough problems to encumber GA.A more in depth look at the sources would take a lot of time (not least due to sheer number), and there's a few bits here and there where I find issues like Michael Z. above (eg. expanding beyond the Urals creating a transcontinental country is an anachronistic view; the definition of Europe and Asia has shifted over time, especially in Russia where it was associated with various philosophies regarding expansion, culture, and identity). I would say however that in part this is going to be a reflection of the article length. The more article, the more potential areas of disagreement. (Long size also makes it more intimidating for reviewers.) Definitely not a C-class article though! CMD (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestions. I removed the highly unneeded sentence about ethnic Russians on the first para of the lead. Although ethnic Russians compost about 80% of the population, Russia is multi-cultural, with a vast number of ethnic groups across the country. I also trimmed off the sentence about Muscovy "uniting" Rus, and the sentence about Russian culture. Now, the annexation of Crimea and the Ukrainian crisis is indeed very significant, its also currently very well-known globally. In my opinion, it belongs more to the Putin era section, more than the lead itself. Mspriz (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No issues. You are indeed right about the history section being a large part of the article. Its massive, and needs to be trimmed in some areas, although I can't find them myself. I also noticed that a few books are sourced, without any page numbers given. I can try and find alternative reliable sources. The Britannica sources seem to be important for the areas they have been sourced to, but the TASS sources can possibly be replaced. Mspriz (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've currently replaced a big portion of the blank book sources, mainly on the Imperial Russia section, which was almost entirely sourced with the latter. There are still a few left in the article, mainly across the culture section, I'll try to replace them as well. Mspriz (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The ancestors of modern Russians are the Slavic tribes: this statement in Russia is vague and inaccurate in almost every possible sense (in terms of ethnicity, national identity, citizenship, culture, state, or whatever). I don’t have access to the source to verify what it says. Certainly. these tribes weren’t the ancestors of all modern citizens of Russia, and the paragraph also discusses assimilation of Finnic peoples, implying others were ancestors of ethnic Russians too. —Michael Z. 21:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Changed the source. Mspriz (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty unsatisfying. The quoted passage introduces a paragraph whose whole point is the opposite of Slavic purity, leading to “today’s complex patchwork of human diversity in Russia.” This version puts the Slavs ca. 6th century BCE in a privileged place. If we’re setting the ethnic setting for a federation of 100 indigenous and native nations, let’s acknowledge the existence before 1991 of the ancestors of at least more than one of them.
 * I realize you’re signed up for cleaning up the article and not necessarily rewriting sections of it. But this is what strikes me as a serious WP:BIAS problem in an article about Russia the country of eleven time zones and 140M citizens, not just Russia the history of a state that revolved around a throne in Moscow in 1263. —Michael Z. 00:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I made a similar comment on the last GA run, regarding a lack of coverage of some of the minorities and peripheries. Haven't checked the current draft, but it's not a new issue with the article.Regarding History, it's always possible to cut down (most leads as I mentioned cut it down to a single paragraph!). At the moment it is, by itself, 30kB of prose, which is somewhere between 50-75% of the size we'd expect the entire article to be. CMD (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Excellent work on the article! I have a few suggestions: There are quite a few instances of MOS:SANDWICH (when text is sandwiched between two images); I suggest you either remove some images or use the multiple images template and put two images horizontally next to each other, such as in the "Literature and philosophy" section. The table in the "Political divisions" section only has two references. Perhaps mention the Belyayev circle in the "Music" section? Feel free to ask questions - Wretchskull (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestions. I've tried to use the multiple images template across some sections, and I added a sentence about the Belayev circle in the Music section. I've almost entirely sourced the table in the politics section. It was indeed mostly unsourced. Is there anything else that could be improved? Mspriz (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The first graf in Russia is misleading. It ought to make it clear that modern historiography doesn’t see Kyivan Rus as Russia, but a predecessor of three modern states (and of four nations, including the Rusyns). The “state centred on Novgorod” that lasted three years needs clarification. The mentioned Rus Land (rus’ska zemlia) was a region around Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Pereiaslavl in Kyivan Rus, sometimes interpreted as all of it, but only after the fragmentation of Kyivan Rus did Muscovy and Russia start using it to denote northeastern lands. Sorry I haven’t found time to chip in on improving this. Thanks for all the good work. —Michael Z. 18:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you please the fix the section? I do not exactly have a ton of knowledge about etymology. Mspriz (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Population estimate
Updated statistics from Rosstat puts the current population estimate as of 1 January 2022 at 145,478,097 (including Crimea) compared to 146,171,015 from 1 January 2021 (with a natural population decline of over 1 million – highest in post-Soviet Russian history). News articles: Interfax, TASS. Mellk (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you please update it? Mspriz (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have updated it. I was just waiting for the .xls file. Mellk (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Follow up on GA criteria
Unfortunately, when it passed GA the article continued to use unreliable sources. Currently there is one citation needed and 18 better source needed tags; the holidays section is also tagged as needing trimming per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. These cleanup tags are incompatible with GA so unless they're fixed a reassessment would be necessary. Courtesy ping (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, is there a particular reason why we are tagging Statista as needing a better source? I couldn't find any discussion (I looked here. I can't say I've seen the discussion regarding that one. I'm not exactly questioning it, but you've also tagged some clearly reliable sources (such as the Washington Post) as needing a better source. Is this because it doesn't contain the information? I usually suggest an inline note be left on bsn tags to say what is wrong with the source, or use failed verification. I don't think the tag is particularly damming, as even if you can't replace it, you can just cull the sentence. Happy for a GAR, just wanted to confirm what is happening with these sources. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 10:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Lee vilenski, op-eds are not considered reliable except for the author's opinion. (News sources would not be considered reliable for all info either, but that's not why I tagged them in this case). There are three RSN discussions about Statista and lack of evidence that it qualifies as WP:RS. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Of the three times Statisa is mentioned at RSN, only once is it actually discussed here, where there is one !vote of reliable and one of unreliable. That's not really much of an argument against it being unreliable. I'd rather we had a discussion that found something to be unreliable, or other consensus that it was an unreliable source (say a blog or tabloid), and then tag items. The Op-ed stuff is fair enough, but not really enough on its own for a demotion, as it's only a couple of refs, that can easily either be replaced or culled. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I know for a fact that Statista often uses outdated data but presents it as up to date. And they combine data from different sources, ignoring the fact that these sources use different methodology and/or different survey date. Sometimes they do not even provide information about the original/primary source. This is completely unacceptable. They have a good looking website and it looks professional, but I can not imaging someone using this source for some serious work. My point is that if there is no other reliable source that support their data - Statista can not be used. Renat  16:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I added a source for the WW2 death toll (untagged failed verification, source tagged as better source needed just gave 26 million, not the range) and added two sources for the worsening relationships with US/EU/NATO 2014-present. I am not an expert about Russia or the war, so I probably won't try and patch this up further, but I hope this slightly improved the article. RoseCherry64 (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

"The East Slavs, ancestors of Belarusians, Russians, and Ukrainians..."
Regarding this edit you made, I previously removed this because I thought it was misleading. I mentioned this in my edit summary before but to me this makes it sound like East Slavs do not exist any more. And Russians are categorised as an East Slavic ethnic group. I do not think we need some kind of list of the East Slavic ethnic groups (with potentially controversial exclusion or inclusion of Rusyns). Thanks. Mellk (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, okay, but the current text is poor. It says nothing about who were the eighth-century East Slavs, and nothing about their relationship to the subject of the following sentence or of the entire article. It is literally pointless as it stands (and the text must stand on its own, without relying on linked articles to make sense). The reader can easily infer the eighth-century East Slavs were the Russians and medieval Kyivan Rus was Russia, both of which are false.
 * Please don’t just remove the edit without ameliorating these problems (or at least use the revert function if you do, so I am alerted – by the time I came back the change was buried deep in the history so I just re-did it; sorry).
 * So how to fix, if not by at least defining East Slavs? —Michael Z. 16:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have been busy lately. In my opinion I do not think there would be such confusion, because "Russians" and "Russia" are not used there, while these are mentioned as they are relevant to Russian history. Perhaps it can be improved by being a bit more detailed, specifically mentioning the tribes in Eastern Europe at the time and their unification under one state by Varangians. Mellk (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Russian Military Strength
Several of the claims about Russian military strength are cited to a website called "Global Firepower". That site has no about page; I can't tell who's behind it, where they get their numbers, or who finances them.

Is it a WP:RS? If it is, then I don't think it should be, because I think any user should be able to verify for themselves whether a site meets the criteria for reliability.

In the absence of information, I presume they get their numbers from the CIA Factbook (or some other part of the DoD), which is common practice on Wikipedia, but seriously violates WP:NPOV.

Can we source these numbers from someone that is at least transparent about who they are and where they get their numbers? Like, the CIA or someone?

MrDemeanour (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

"Russian is the second-most used language on the Internet after English"
This can't possibly be right unless you completely ignore the Chinese internet. 2A0D:6FC0:E82:C300:C48C:743C:7C50:7925 (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Attribution of dictatorial country by the UK
Source: https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/russia-ukraine-war-uk-pm-boris-johnson-calls-putin-dictator-says-west-preparing-massive-sanctions-2787122
 * Someone being described as "a dictator" doesn't mean the country is a dictatorship. That's not a reliable source, either. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2022
Russia should be labeled as an "authoritarian" state, given the modern-day military campaign of Vladimir Putin, imprisonment of anti-war protesters, and other heinous war crimes. Russia is not a democratic country anymore. 69.65.247.227 (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It already is. Have you read the lead? It is not clear where you want this. Mellk (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also "modern-day military campaign", "imprisonment of anti-war protesters", "heinous war crimes" is not the criteria for authoritarian regime. Mellk (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

"a system of government by one person with absolute power." google definition of autocracy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constellation314 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thing is, we don't use Google to source our articles. We list things acording to how they are referred to in reliable sources. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Geography section
Hello. I read the geography section, and in my opinion it can have a little tweak. After the opening sentence, there is a sentence referring to how Russia spans the northernmost corner of Eurasia, and before that sentence can somebody put this sentence -- "It covers most of the landmass of Eurasia" - and then change the previous sentence to "and spans the northernmost corner of the latter" and put it after? Thanks. 45.118.63.5 (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Distances: how to measure
When we talk about the distance between two points on Earth, a significant portion of readers might visualize taking a piece of string and spanning it over a globe (model of the Earth) from one point to the other. The path along the string is the shortest distance between these points along the surface of the Earth (a straight line beneath the surface is not considered when measuring countries). Mathematically this is called the distance along a geodesic line, here the distance along an arc (section) of a great circle. Another significant portion of readers might visualize a straight line on a common type of world map. The difference between these points of view would be negligible if we talked about the extension of mainland Portugal, but they are significant when we talk about a country that is "wrapped" nearly halfway around the North Pole. For this reason, when we indicate the distance between two remote points of Russia, we should make clear to the reader along which path the distance has been taken.

One webtool for measuring distances is www.distance.to. It allows not only place names as an input, but also coordinates, which is useful for places which are not in the place name list, like the Vistula Spit or specific islands of Franz Josef Land, or whenever the quality of the places-coordinates list of the tool is not satisfactory. Direct coordinate input only works with non-negative values (northeast) below 90°. Distances across the dateline are not correctly displayed as a graph, but are numerically correct in the examples checked.

With this tool, a query for the distance from Smolensk to Ust-Kamchatsk gives a result of 6,881 km and shows a path between these two points that passes over mainland Russia, but also over a short streches of the Polar Sea, (near Novaya Zemlya). This looks unexpected if we are used to distorted images of Russia on flat maps.

The 55½°N circle of latitude passes closely between Smolensk (54.78°N) and Ust-Kamchatsk (56.23°N). The path along this circle of latitude from the Smolensk meridian (32.05°W) to the Uts-Kamchatsk meridian (162.47°W) is 8,216 km long (school maths). As the two places are not situated exactly on this meridian, a small correction can be added to the east-west extension between them: 8,320 km ±170 km ( that is ±2 %, from 1 - cos54.78°/cos55.5° = 1.018 = 102%).

So the statements "Smolensk, in the west, is about 6.900 km apart from Ust-Kamchatsk, in the east" and "Russia extends over more than 8.000 from west to east between Smolensk and Ust-Kamchatsk" are both true. (Similar to saying "The endpoints of this horseshoe are 10cm apart. The iron extends 20cm between them.".) The difference in wording between "Russia extends" and "the points are ... apart" is significant.

In spite of bad quality of the places-coordinates list, "distance.to" gives mathematically correct results. It shows a distance of 10.007½ km both from 0°N 0°E to 0°N 90°E and from 0°N 0°E to 89.999999°N 0°E, so it models Earth as a sphere with a circumference of 40.030 km. The results for the distance between two points A and B can be verified as follows: express in cartesian coordinates the vectors a and b on a unit sphere (r=1) that point from the Earth's center to A and B. That gives : a1=r·cos(long)·sin(lat), a2=... etc. From the dot product equation a•b=1·1·cosθ the distance between A and B can be calculated as 40.030km × acos(a1·b1+a2·b2+a3·b3).Tim2007viatge (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Distances between easternmost and westernmost points
Russia's westernmost point is at the Vistula Spit in Kaliningrad Oblast. Rounded to 1°/100, it is located at 54.46°N 19.64°E in OpenTopoMap (coordinates are shown in the URL) and also in GoogleMaps, just 200m away from the location in the List of extreme points of Russia. Russia's easternmost point is at Big Diomede Island in the Bering Strait. It is located at 65.78°N 169.01°W in OpenTopoMap and also in GoogleMaps, 2km away from the location in the List of extreme points of Russia.

The distance calculator tool "distance.to" returns a distance of 6,624.66km between Russia's westernmost point and "Diomedes-Islands" (Which it locates on the Big Diomede Island. Enter "Diomede-Islands" to "Nome, AK, USA" to see this). Another distance calculator tool "calcmaps" returns a distance of 6,614.83km for a startpoint drawn on the Vistula Spit near the border and an endpoint drawn on the Bering Street Island labelled "Little Diomede" (There is just 1 Diomede Island on that map. The 2 Diomede Islands are just about 5km apart). My own calculation, using the method sketched further above on this talk page, gives 6.622,79km. So these 3 computations all give about 6,600km. My edit of 05:52, 9 December 2021 shows with school maths that a route with a length of about 6,667km exists between these points and says that this is still a bit more than the most direct route. This was my first edit of the Russia article and it deleted the following statement, because I consider it false: "Kaliningrad Oblast, Russia's westernmost part along the Baltic Sea, is about 9,000km apart from its easternmost part, Big Diomede Island".

This statement in the Wikipedia was a bad reformulation of a 1996 book by Glenn E. Curtis which says "Russia extends about 9,000 kilometers from westernmost Kaliningrad Oblast, the now-isolated region cut off from the rest of Russia by the independence of Belarus, Latvia, and Lithuania, to Ratmanova Island (Big Diomede Island) in the Bering Strait.". To understand why I call this reformulation bad, please see further above in this talk page, where I use the Smolensk-to-Ust-Kamchatsk example to explain why the difference in wording between "Russia extends" and "the points are ... apart" is significant.

Even in the original wording of Curtis, I find it problematic to use a formulation that couples "9,000 kilometers" with "westernmost ... eastermost" points in Kaliningrad and Bering Strait. Given that these points are just about 6,600km apart, I think there needs to be a clear formulation which saves the reader from the fallacy of believing that a plane, missile or whatever, travelling from one point to the other, has to cover a distance of 9,000km. In my first edit of the article, I did an intent to "salvage" Curtis' 9,000km by interpreting them as a west-to-east distance along the 60°N circle of latitude. However, at that time I hadn't paid attention to how Curtis continues after the above quote. He writes "This distance is roughly equivalent to the distance from Edinburgh, Scotland, east to Nome, Alaska.". The interval beeing compared (Kaliningrad to middle of Bering Strait) lies within the interval chosen for comparison (Schotland to east coast of Bering Strait), if we interpret it as a distance along a west-to-east path. The increase is over 15%, from a 171° span to a 198° span. An east-to-west interpretation of this comparison is as unproductive as saying "The 171cm distance from this person's ankles to his eyes is similar to the 198cm distance from his feet to the top of his head".

After demonstrating that 9,000km is not the distance between these two points (which is 6,600km) and showing on this talk page that Curtis cannot be meaningfully referring to the length of a path in east-to-west direction, how else can we couple "9,000km" with the two endpoints - and make this relation clear to the reader? In my third edit of the article, I asked in the edit description <>.

If it is "distance on a route that goes over land as far as possible", than it is not "Russia", but "Russia together with Lithuania, ..." that extends from one extreme point to the other. (Plus, Big Diomede is an Island).

I suspect it is "distance on a route inside former national territory" and the 1996 book reused an older statement about the Soviet Union. Adapting this to the westernmost point of Russia's contiguos mainland would have required a burdensome re-estimation of the distance. The clumsy (in my opinion) parenthesis "the now-isolated region cut off from the rest of Russia by the independence of Belarus, Latvia, and Lithuania" is a clue that nurishes my suspicion.Tim2007viatge (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Distances: version history
After having participated in a series of alternating edits from 9 to 12 December 2021, I wondered if the discussion about 9,000km between eastern and westernmost points occured for the first time.

I jumped back in the version history in increasing time steps, as far as the version of 18:24, 16 February 2009. It says "The two widest separated points in Russia are about 8,000 km (5,000 mi) apart along a geodesic line. These points are: the boundary with Poland on a 60 km long (40-mi long) spit of land separating the Gulf of Gdańsk from the Vistula Lagoon; and the farthest southeast of the Kuril Islands, a few miles off Hokkaidō Island, Japan. The points which are furthest separated in longitude are 6,600 km (4,100 mi) apart along a geodesic. These points are: in the West, the same spit; in the East, the Big Diomede Island (Ostrov Ratmanova)." The distances are mathematically correct, but no reference is given. A reference would be especially important for "widest seperated", which cannot be demonstrated mathematicaly so easily.

Over 12 years later, the subject of distances consisted still of the same 8,000km and 6,660km between these two pairs of points.

This was eliminted with the edit of 15:58, 8 July 2021. It puts the "9,000km", "westernmost", "easternmost" instead, with reference to the 1996 book by Glenn E. Curtis.

On 8 December 2021, I bent this back to a more mathematical point of view, without knowing about the version history listed here above. This triggered alternating changes between Tim2007viatge and Mspriz, whose latest change deleted the subject of distances completely. In the intermediate versions, Mspriz helped by presentning the Britannica source.

The Encyclopedia Britannica includes a distance of "9,000km" that is free of the problematic association with westernmost and easternmost Kalingrad spit and Bering Strait island.

I will publish right now a version where distances are discribed with two sentences in the main text, plus details in footnotes. The first sentence presents the extensions of area from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, including the "9,000km". The second sentence presents the 8,000km distance between Kaliningrad and an island of the Kuril, but avoids claiming that this is the maximum geodesic distance (no source for this) and moves the endpoint of this distance from an island disputed by Japan to the farthest undisputed island of the Kuril. I hope the juxtaposition of "9,000km" and "8,000km" raises awareness that measuring distances is not trivial in the case of Russia. As references, the first sentence points to Britannica and the second sentence points to "distance.to". For over 12 years the distances in the geography section were presented in a way that appeals to mathematically minded people. Such kind of people could be tempted to challenge the Britannica data as unprecise. To prevent this, I put two footnotes at the end of the first sentence. The first footnote explains a way to interpret the Britannica distances as approximations. This explanation only refers to grid lines and geographical features which can be seen in the physical map of this article section. The second footnote confirms with two examples that the Britannica numbers are not maximum distances.Tim2007viatge (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Now we have Britannica's misleading "9000km east to west", without any contextualization, again, from an edit by MSpritz on 2 February 2022. For comparison: 9000km is the total flight distance from Russia's easternmost point (near Alaska) via Kyiv to Paris. I suggest to erase the north-south and east-west distances and use the following wording again, matured over 12 years from 17 February 2009 (overexpanded) to 7 July 2021:

“The two most widely separated points in Russia are about 8000 km apart along a geodesic line." Tim2007viatge (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * User Mspriz (misspelled MSpritz in my previous comment) is permanently blocked as a user (since 3 February 2022) because of being a sockpuppet. Mspriz' change of 2 February 2022, critized in my previous comment, was one of the very last of the about 600 changes done by this user on the Russia page, starting mid of November 2021.

I cannot undo that change, because the Russia page has a stricter protection now, at the same time that Russia has militarily attacked Ukraine.

Regarding my suggestion to erase the north-south and east-west distances and replace them with the version (not by me nor by Mspitz) of 7July 2021: Automatic km-to-mile conversion should be applied, with the same magnitude of rounding for miles as for km. Footnotes on the Talk page can display badly (at least on the Android smartphone I am using). So, for more clarity, here is the suggested text “ The two most widely separated points in Russia are about 8000 km apart along a geodesic line." And here is the footnote: " These points are: from the Vistula Spit and the southeasternmost point of the Kuril Islands. The points which are farthest separated in longitude are 6600 km apart along a geodesic line. These points are: In the west, the same spit, and in the east, the Big Diomede Island." Tim2007viatge (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Crimea
Under Political Divisions, the map shows Crimea as a part of Russia. It seems to me it should appear as a disputed region. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Crimea is a de facto part of Russia since 2014, and is politically administered by the Russian Federation. So, I do not see what's wrong with the map. Globally, its status, however, is disputed. Something that is highlighted by a note in the prose. You highlighted the topic yourself, the section is about Russia's political divisions, not about global politics, or your stance, or anybody's stance. The main map of Russia in the infobox highlights Crimea as disputed. Thesickreservoir (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)