Talk:Russians/Archive 4

Scythian origin of most of Russians
I do not know why whenever there is an article on russia or russians, you can feel that they simply stress on this shit slavic roots of all ethnic russians, this is totally false, they begin the history of russians ( Human beings living on the territory of european russia) from somewhere after 500AD, whereas it is fact like the existence of sun that territory of european russia was the land of scythians (sakas) as late as 100AD, and there are countless remains of indo-iranians within the territory of southern Russia and around the urals mountains, and there were finno-ugric people living in north of european russia, what do you think all these sakas, indo-iranians, finno-ugric populations burried themselves alive under the ground of european russia at the time of the arrival of the Slavs. Why it is all the time the Slavic identity that all the european russians are given. If all european russians are slavic then why do they have weird surnames that are most likely scythian, indo-iranian or finno-ugric origin. Why russians can be identified from all other people calling themselves slavs like chezks, slovaks or slovenián, why russians faces and body structures are different from the aforementioned people that are the core of slavs. My question is why russians deny to accept that they are racially a mix of scythian, indo-iranic, finno-ugric and off-course latter arriving Slavs who gave them their present language. Why russians are ashamed of their ancient scythian, indo-iranic, finno-ugric roots, why does there racial history begins with the arrival of Slavs.


 * Russians are pure Slovenins = Indo-Iranians = Indo-Aryans, you idiot.


 * I agree with you, it's rather politics to call Russians fully Slavic same any other nation called Slavic. But it's important to know what is the time of interaction of Iranians and Russians? Russians firstly populated these South East European Russia in 16-17 century, moreover mostly Turkic peoples leaved there at that time. But interconnection of Slavs and Scythians is known in case of Polians, that why possibly all East Slavs but exactly Ukrainians is the result of it. The level of Russians attitude to it is at least indefinite. --Riwnodennyk ✉ 20:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * how much hate. what's wrong with you, kid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.113.149.177 (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the Slavs mixed with native folks everywhere, from Balkans to Northern Russia. It is very difficult, where their "core" is, because the actual date and region of Slavic origin are still under the big question; at least, such general ethnonym is known only from VI a.c (the language group itself should be older, but we cannot surely distinguish its informants among the multiple East European tribes). After all, you must understand, that the nation is the phenomenon of consciousness in the first place, not genes or even language. Southern Russians are genetically (and even linguistically) much closer to Ukrainians than the Northern Russians, but nevertheless they surely consider themselves as Russians. As for history - as it was mentioned, there are 3 basic components in the Russian genotype: exactly Eastern Slavic (whatever it was by VI century), Baltic and Finno-Ugric ones. I must remind, however, that Finno-Ugres of Europe also haven't any general genotype, and we must admit the serious anthropological (and therefore genetical) difference between Finno-Ugres of Central European Russia (Merya, Muroma, Meshchyora, Mordovian folks) anf of Northern Russia (Karelians, Komi, Veps). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.37.211.55 (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is generally regarded that the Russian culture and language are a legacy of Eastern Slavs. There could be some ethnic mixing with the fins, turks, scythians etc, but those have contributed marginally (if at all) to the developmengt of the russian ethnos. Therefore, in my opinion they should not be regarded as the founders of the Russian race. besides being a slav is much cooler than a turk or a a syth.

actually the scythians were only partially on the land of current day russia and most of there territory was located near the black sea in ukraine were is a separate nation state then russian federation. but its also known that in the time of herodotus when this scythians lived in ukraine there were also early slavic cultures forming in eastern europe. but these early slavic cultures did not evolve into russians for several centuries later and the idea that russians could be decended mostly from the scythians is still not been proven but it is known that early slavic culture and scythians were two separate ethnic groups in roman times. 76.211.5.253 (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Russians and Slavs in the Levant
In the section regarding Russians outside of Russia, I would like to bring up an interesting topic which has been long forgotten, except among a few circles of historians.

(But first, i would like to mention and interesting tidbit: In modern times there are indeed many Russian Jews now residing in Israel.  But there is a significant population of Russians residing in Syria, particularly near the hydroelectric dam of Lake Assad along the Euphrates River.  During the Soviet era many engineers and scientists were sent to Syria to build the dam, and even after its completion, and after the fall of the USSR, many Russians decided to continue living in Syria.)

It turns out there is a small percentage of families in the Middle East (particularly Syria/Lebanon/Palestine) when tested for genetic origins, are actually East Slav in origin -- haplogroup R1a1 --, not Arab nor other Semitic origin. (There is also yet another group of families that test northwestern European -- haplogroup R1b -- suggesting descent from Crusaders.)  Apparently during the Mongol invasions of the 13th century tens of thousands of Slav boys from the Ukraine and the Russian steppe were kidnapped and sold into slavery in the Crimea, where Genoese merchants sold them to Arab buyers. From there these boys were shipped to Cairo and Damascus where they were turned into mamluks. (Mamluks from later centuries came from regions in the Caucasus Mts., but the early mamluks were mainly Slavs, Kipchak Turks, and Circassians.) Initially mamluk men only married daughters of other mamluks, and spoke their native tongues, as they were resistant to speaking Arabic and marrying outside of their race, but with time many of their descendants married into the local population. There is a small mountain town in the Galilee called Safed which was primarily settled by mamluks after the fall of the Templar Knights, and that group remained fairly homogenous well into the 20th century. This is evidenced not only by genetic testing but also by their phenotypical appearance... most of them look "Slavic" (very tall, with fair features). Also some vocabulary words used by older generations are not Arabic, but rather Kipchak, which was a major language of the steppe, even among Slavic people.

If such a "diaspora" as this one occurred in modern times, this would have made headlines as a major human rights violation in human trafficking. Imagine the scores of these East Slav boys that were sold into this "elite" slavery and yearning to return to their families left behind in the steppe.

Tanneen (talk) 12:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Tanneen


 * Just for the record, those you call "Russian Jews" dont belong to this article, because they are not Russians. They are ethnic Jews, while this article is about ethnic Russians. Their not Slavic, their semitic. 79.180.125.128 (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong. Not all ancestors of every single Russian Jew trace their ancestry to Israel (ancient Judea).  Lots of Jews in Russia married Russians, and many ethnic Russians converted to Judaism some time ago.  Evidence: there are Russian sections in Jewish cemeteries of deceased people with Russian given names and surnames.  And those in the United States whose surnames are not of Russian origin, were of Russian origin back in Russia.  For instance, my paternal grandfather's mother's maiden name was Rosenberg, but apparently it was Malenkov back in Russia. Marcus2 (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Then your simply 1/8 Russian. It's like a Muslim Tatar and a Christian Russian getting merried and their chile decides to be Muslim and consider himself a Tatar, he wont enter the category of Russian Muslims in the ethnic sense. And how much ethnics Russians got giyur? There are more Budhist and Hindoist Russians then that. And it is an article about ethnic Russians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.159.133 (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong. I'm ½ Russian, not ⅛ Russian.  And where did you hear it being suggested that more ethnic Russians converted to Buddhism and Hinduism than Judaism?  I'm really curious. Marcus2 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you didn't really check the statistics. God of Sins (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Slopiness revert
I have reverted some sloppy edits made by another user, in which another user had to add two fact tags each for Jews and Muslims. I think I know what he tried to do, but he made the page look disheveled. Marcus2 (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't seem to understand your position, have a look at Koreans, no Jews or Muslims there, though by simple probability you are bound to find a Jew and a Muslim of Korean ethnicity. So what makes Russians unique to this selection? There is no region in Russia which has a Russian-Muslim/Jewish concentration, unlike that of Bulgaria for example. There are no known diasporas of ethnic Russians that adhere to Islam or Judaism. Again, I am focusing only on ethnic Russians, not for example on many Jews that were born in Russia, or lots of Muslim groups, that nominally consider themselves Russian but neither are of Slavic origin. Of course that does not mean there are no ethnic Russians that changed their religion for the purpose of marriage or lifestyle, yet individual cases, referenced by google searches violate the WP:RS and in particular that wikipedia should be written from secondary sources, so individual examples in the media are as useful as toilet paper in a public lavatory. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 15:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Marcus2, that user was me. You're making unsubstantiated statements, that is why I put a fact template for it. Next time please follow the Wiki rules and do not delete unless you provide a reliable source. Taamu (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Russian peoples contribution in victory over the nazis
I find this piece of the article very controversial: "Russian people had a large part in the victory over Nazi Germany at World War II". The author paints a picture of galant and brave russians who fought against Nazis but doesn't mention russian involvement in building the strenght of 3rd reich. Thanks to russians Hitler built and trained - inside of soviet union - his armies. Look at Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact also. It was russians and germans who invaded Poland in 1939. And though red army liberated nazi concentration camps, they had nothing againts the idea of building them in the first place. Anyway why would they? They had their own Gulags that devoured millions also. If the author writes about their bravoury he should also mention their on going history of atrocities and abuses towards bordering nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.141.88 (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Enemtually those who have taken Berlin, those who have beaten Hittler, those who lost 20 Million were Russians. You forgot about the Munich pact which was the one that forced Stalin to do the Ribentropp-Molotov pact. Russians never abused bordering nations. The Polish-Lithuenian commenwealth should have thought before they attacked Russia. Ukraine? The east doesn't even have to do anything with Ukraine, see New Russia. And Gulag? Stalin, Trotsky, and Koganovich weren't exacly Russians.
 * Ask Ossetians, Abkhazians, Serbs, and many other nations about Russians and you will hear only good things. God of Sins (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How surprising, a Polish IP. You know that the first wars beetwen Russia and Poland were started by Poles right? Don't wine up for being beaten up and humiliated, you stated it. God of Sins (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The Soviet Union contributed to 80% of the German's casualties and there are links to prove it. If you have some sort of personal vendetta against Russians please don't bring on wikipedia.--Krotx (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is really no need to attack the anon and make accusations of a personal vendetta. This section has indeed some NPOV problem as it only shows one side of the picture, glossing over the points raised by the anon and also ignoring that it was the Soviet Union and the Russian people that took an important part in defeating Nazi Germany. Furthermore, the tone of this section is overly boasting and unfit for an encyclopedia. Hence a clear delete, at least until someone comes up with a better, more neutral version. We should mention the loss of life, as this direct relevance for the Russian people. A section about achievements though is inappropriate. Novidmarana (talk) 05:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you have to learn some rules. The discussion was alredy held so you didn't discover America in opening that topic. A huge majority decided and explanations were given why this section is nutral and why it will stay. You can't just come and start deciding what is right. God of Sins (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Learn it. The discussion was held, the language was nutralised. Do you really wan't to start all that again? Don't do edits you didn't learn their history first. God of Sins (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For the moment I will ignoring your hostile tone. This discussion was between two editors (four editors if you count User:VanTucky and User:JanderVK and the result of the discussion was inconclusive at best. In fact, three editor had expressed their concerns over the NPOV language of this section had that particular time, one editor opposed. How that is a huge majority is beyond me. Apart from that, the article failed the GA nomination, because of this section, see, quote: "separate section just to chronicle the positive contributions of ethnic russians is not acceptable", exactly what I said. If you have any reasons why we should have a section with the title "achievements" and why World War II should be included let me know, but please make sure that they comply with NPOV. Novidmarana (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, read the whole old discussion and then return. All you ask was answered there. For Russians the great patriotic war is an important topic. Now stop edit warring. You can't just come and do whatever you want. God of Sins (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And my tone wasn't hostile, but shure I couldn't be happy with a user who instead of learning the whole story comes to revert and do things which were already long discussed about. God of Sins (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

So I added a POV tag as my edits are reverted by a suspected sockuppet. For why the section Notable achievements is inapprorpirate see above, and also the old disucssion at Talk:Russians/Archive_2, a discussion that ended inconclusively, despite the counterfactual claim that a consensus has been reached. Also note that inappropriate canvassing is going on by God of Sins. Novidmarana (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that User:No Free Nickname Left, who was the only (but very vocal) opponent of the POV tagging in the discussion you mentioned is checkuser confirmed sockpuppet of the banned user User:M.V.E.i. and his opinions can therefore be safely disregarded. There is no consensus on the neutrality of this article, and there never has been.  Papa November (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have restored the stable version. I think removing the World War II from Russians is like removing the Holocaust from Jews. The notion of the great effort in the World War II is in national psiche no other nation has so visible demographic traces of the WWII, etc. The notion is true and it is not offensive to anybody I see no reasons to remove it. If the statements are somehow POVed lets discuss the way to NPOVing it but removing the notion straight away is simply unacceptable Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, however it needs better references, prefferably ones that not only confirm what is written in this article (which the current refs do not), but also actually use the word "Russians" since this is, after all, the "Russians" article, not "Soviets". Ostap 17:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this paragraph should be rewritten a bit more carefully, or labelled with a warning about balance. It mentions the Russian people once, then discusses the Soviet Union, the Eastern Front, and the Red Army as if they were synonyms of Russia and Russians.  It perpetuates the naïve equation of Russia and the Soviet Union which pervades WWII mil-fan literature.  Millions of Belarusians, Georgians, Kazakhs, Ukrainians, Uzbeks, and others also died in action, and many more as innocent civilians, so it should be acknowledged that this paragraph doesn't mention a single thing unique to Russians.  It would only take a few words to set this straight, which needn't take it over.


 * And less serious, but the tone is not quite right for an encyclopedia. Although it mentions the figure of wartime losses, it is mainly congratulatory and victorious.  It could also make an impression about what trials the Russian people overcame in the early 20th century, from the Civil War, through collectivization, the purges, and the war with Germany. —Michael Z. 2008-10-24 07:41 z 


 * I reorganized the article and created a history section. The article is still far from perfect, obviously the history section now needs an expansion. The culture section, which now contains the names of the most famous writers, scientists, musicians should also be more than just a list of famous names. Novidmarana (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I have entered the article and in the History saw the reverts done by Novidmarna, saying the revert she did was "per talk". The funny thing is what she did was against what was said by mose people in the Talk.

Bakharev said deleting WW2 from the Russians is like deleting the holocaust from the Jews. He is right

Ostap also said that the version including WW2 is better and simply needs more referencing.

Novidmarana, you can't change the article when there is no agreement. If you stated what you oppose to on the talk page to doesn't alow you that becuase there are many people deciding not just you. I&#39;m sexy, I&#39;m hot, I&#39;m everything your not (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Turns our she's a sock of User:BlueSalo. I&#39;m sexy, I&#39;m hot, I&#39;m everything your not (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Aren't you a sock of User:M.V.E.i.? Colchicum (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

well, despite the pact with germany, hitler did attack russia and "Russian people [did actually] had a large part in the victory over Nazi Germany". nobody said they were nice, they did however took over berlin and they did play a crucial role in bringing down the nazi regime.

http://statehistory.ru/650/poteri-v-vov/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.79.152.38 (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Culture
...Russian art is very important..., Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, and Tola Brennan. What is this "Tola Brennan" link to "The National (Band)" ???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.162.54 (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This article needs editing
And where are the Viking origins of the Russians? Where is the term Rus explained? What where the earlier tribes like? Migdejong (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

WHAT ABOUT JEWISH RUSSIANS?!!!!
There are plenty of Jews in Russia. Sure, some of them are Poles, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Moldovans Turkics, Tartars, and Mongols, (Khazars), (a lot, in fact), but there is a large amount of Jews in Russia who are ethnic Russians. In fact, my family is Jewish Russians. I am offended that it does not mention the fact that some Russians are Jewish. Yes, about half are Americans of Russian descent, like me, but we are still Russian, no? I am putting Jewish Russians in the "Religion" Category.--67.80.57.142 (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)GooglePedia12
 * Those are not ethnic Russians, they are not slavic but semitic, they are not ethnic Russians/ And if those are ethnic Russians who converted to Judism... there number is to small to mention, more convertet to Hinduism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.155.52 (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, that's why Jewish Russians all have olive skin.--C+C (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There were discussions on it:, . Only few of thosr jew who are in Russia are actualy ethnic Russians who converted to Judaism, to few to mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.155.52 (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "...Jewish Russians all have olive skin." Bullshit! Where did you get that silly notion?? Why do you think there are people in Jewish cemeteries with uniquely Russian names? Supposedly because there were Russian rabbis and Jewish missionaries seeking converts in Russia long ago. The numbers of ethnic-Russian Jews seem larger than you think. Marcus2 (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. That's your POV.
 * 2. Changing a name (like was did according to laws and rules) doesn't mean change of ethnicity.
 * 3. DNA researches showd that thanks to being closed until the last centuries in it's communities, the Jews kept an homogenic DNA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.124.43 (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? If there was a law saying that one must change his/her name, there could have been violent revolts and a possible overthrow of the government! Where's your proof? I'm dying to know. Marcus2 (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And where is your? Your POV on look? There were talks on it, you have no right to come in put in your POV while a big majority decided otherwise, and not for the first time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.144.188 (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Marcus, are you serious? "If there was a law saying that one must change his/her name, there could have been violent revolts and a possible overthrow of the government"? Marcus, there were so many antisemitic cases in hostory in pogroms, when exaclly did the Jews make a revolt and overthrow the goverment? Do you have any idea how few Jews there are and there was in those countries? If you would have any idea in Jewish history, you would know Catherine II made a law Jews must change theur surnames to German once (a law from August 28, 1787. The law became active in Janurary 1789). You would also know that even earlier the Polish king made a law Jews nust change their surnames to Polish once. In both cases there was no resistance. And here's an article with more information: . We Jews are a seperate ethnic group, live with that and stop being so self hating trying to show we are not. 132.66.180.154 (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Why do you think there are people in Jewish cemeteries with uniquely Russian names?" Surnames are not always an indicator of ethnic identity... Just look at how many people have surnames of English origin - Most African Americans, many Native Americans, and many Irish Americans, for starters. There's also the large number of Americans whose ancestors had their original surnames changed to English ones for a variety of reasons, both within or beyond their own consent - German names like "Schmidt" often became "Smith" or Chinese "Li" would change to "Lee", etc. The same phenomenon occurs elsewhere in the world - Many Haitians have French surnames, due to their country's history as a colony of France, even though they identify strongly with their predominant West African heritage. Many indigenous people in Latin America have Spanish surnames, etc. Many European Roma ("Gypsies") have surnames from the dominant culture they live in - The same is true for European Jews.
 * Ancestry is very complex, however, and the truth is that very few people are "pure" anything. In all of these cases, there probably is a bit of ancestry from the dominant society - Take all of the African Americans who are descendants of Thomas Jefferson, for example. Similarly, imagine a single non-Jewish, ethnic Russian marrying into a Jewish community hundreds of years ago - If most of his or her descendants continues to marry Jews, that would result in a lot of Jewish people with at least one non-Jewish ancestor by the modern day. The opposite probably happened a lot, too - A Jewish person in Russia leaving his or her community and marrying Slavic, Orthodox Christian Russians. This ancestry might not have anything to do with a living person's surname origin, however, and is probably so minuscule that the modern bearer does not identify with it or perhaps is not even aware of it. --74.103.150.125 (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard about anything like that. The closest you will come to an ethnic Russian who is Jewish is a person from the CIS who made Aliyah to Israel but has an Jewish Father, and henceforth isn't a Jew by rabbinical law and some of them convert to make things easier for themselves. I'm sorry but unless you bring reliable proof for your claims this is a load of bs, personal "research" has no place on Wikipedia and frankly this is freaking ridiculous. --Krotx (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree 100%! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.233.95 (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In this context Subbotniks (Russians who converted to Judaism) may be mentioned. Olegwiki (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No they can't. They are to few to be mentioned. There are more pagan Russians then subbotniks and converts to Judaism together (here comes's another case, that the Subbotniks only take some elements from Judaism, but they still belive in Jesus and stuff so they are nor Jews). 79.179.135.9 (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost all the Jews in Russia are Ashkenazi Jews, this is another ethnic group, it has nothing to do with the ethnic Russians, they have different origin, different history, different surnames, different traditional language (Yiddish), different fisical appearence etc. Is this so difficult to understand? 77.127.239.165 (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Translation into Chinese Wikipedia
The version 12:16, 25 March 2009 Spitfire of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia.--Wing (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Russians in Israel
This article is about ethnic Russians, not about Russian speaking people. There's more than a million people in Israel who speak Russian as a native language (those who immigrated from the former Soviet Union in the last 20 years), but most of them belong to the Jewish people, not to the Russian people. In Israel they are refferred as "Russians" in the daily speech, but only a minority of them are ethnic Russians. Btw, a large percentage of the Russian speaking Israelis are not even from Russia, but from Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan etc, so not even they are not ethnic Russian, they even never were Russian citizens. The number 1,100,000 is not correct, and the "source" doesn't even mention Israel, it's a page about demographic statistic in Kyrgyzstan!!! And don't start saying stuff like "the Russian speaking Jews are Russians with a different religion", cause by that "logic" Jewish people doesn't exist at all. 77.127.239.165 (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Zelenin's theory
How can a link to a wiki article about a liitle known Russian ethnographer can be considered a valid reference to proove a very contraversial theory about "southern and northern Russians being more different than Russians and Belorussians" ? This is nonesense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisenko (talk • contribs) 19:13, 7 September 2009‎ (UTC)

Religion
Do not write religion an Islam and Judaism. Russian Ethnic Group believes in Orthodox Christianity, she is main religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Shane (talk • contribs) 20:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's probably a leftover form the ethnicity/citizenship ambiguity - Islam is a notable minority religion in Russia, just not among ethnic Russians. --Illythr (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Russians
hi Im from Argentina, i found this page , (from the russian embassy in argentina and is in spanish)  that says that in argentina lives over 1000000 persons of russian ancesstry , i tried to change the data , but i found it was very difficult , so could somebody help change it ?, thanks  http://www.argentina.mid.ru/ESP/RusiaArgentina/RusosEnArgentinaS.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.3.217.177 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Russians mosaic
Hi, I came across this article and liked the mosaic image that was used in the infobox. I want to use a similar format for the Malayali article that I am working on. It was just posted as an image called Russians mosaic. Can someone show me how to make something similar mosaic. Thanks for the help. JNG71886 (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Lenin´s picture
How can you put Lenin´s picture in the box? First, it is very controversial and second he was not russian, he was a jew.--Mr nonono (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed about Lenin. Just a bad choice. I cannot imagine that of the hundreds and hundreds of millions of Russians that have ever lived, someone had to to go and choose a controversial figure such as Lenin. I realize Wikipedia isn't censored, and I realize we don't suppress history many (Russian or otherwise) would prefer to forget, but it isn't as if there aren't any other Russians who could have filled that spot. At this point, choosing someone like Lenin, when there are literally thousands of worthy men and women deserving enough to represent the Russian people, is nothing short of making a point. Also, as a side note, aren't there better pictures of Gagarin available in the public domain? The current picture is so contrasted and garish it doesn't do justice to either the man or the collage. --71.121.211.26 (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, what's the problem with Lenin? He's a major figure and one of the most important people of the XX century. If we follow the standards of "racial purity" in determining the "Russianness" of the people in the collage, we'll have to eliminate, say, Korolyov and Pushkin, because one was half-Ukrainian and the other... well, you know. Agree about Gagarin, the pitch black eyes are scary, suggest to replace with this one. As for possible expansion, I'd say, Peter I of Russia and Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (both "racially impure," btw) should be included into the mosaic at the very least. --Illythr (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's true that Lenin was one of the most important people of the 20th century, but so was Hitler. And so was Einstein. The difference between the latter is that he is admired the world over as great man, the other vilified as nearly the purest example of evil incarnate. Lenin wasn't a Hitler, or a saint, but he was the man who called for an introduction to "mass terror," directly culminating in one of Russia's darkest moments. The point is that Lenin is controversial to say the least, and we really could do better by choosing another historical figure, such as your suggestion of Peter the Great, one of the most important people of the 17th century. Tsiolkovsky is another excellent suggestion. I personally favor more the more intellectually-oriented type over politicians, and there are plenty to choose from: Kovalevskaya, Mechnikov, Lobachevsky, Pavlov, Rachmaninoff, etc. (For the record, I don't support any attempt at trying to determine the degree of "racial purity" of the aforementioned Russians, an impossible and ultimately misguided task.) As for your suggestion of a new Gagarin picture, that image is iconic and recognizable, and certainly better than the image now in use. I support the change unless something better comes up.--71.121.211.26 (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We have to eliminate Lenin now! first, Lenin was more a jew, kalmyk, chuvash, etc than russian, he had little russian blood, so it is not a good example of russian people. Second, lenin is seen by most people as an evil dictator which killed a lot of people, so it is very controversial to leave his picture in the box, it´s like to add a picture of Hitler in germans. We should change it.--Mr nonono (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should gather feedback from WikiProject Russia members. --Illythr (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Could someone explain me what is a photo of Lenin doing on front page while famous people like Lermontov and Kalashnikov (just an example) are absent? Read the first paragraph - "The Russian people are an ethnic group of the East Slavic peoples". First of all Lenin wasnt even Russian and I'm not even speaking of controversies surrounding this man. Remove him ASAP 213.148.166.210 (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I posted a note over at the Wikiproject Russia talk page several days ago, but there haven't been any responses yet. The Template:Russians_mosaic page states "Please do not change it without discussing the changes at Talk:Russians first," which is what we're doing. If my post doesn't attract any responses within a week or so, I'm going to be bold and edit the mosaic myself. I'm thinking of replacing the Gagarin photo with the one suggested above, as well as replacing Lenin with someone else, though I'm not sure who. So far there have been plenty of great suggestions, everything from Peter the Great to Lermontov. I don't think either is a bad choice, but considering there are already four writers represented in the mosaic, I would probably pick Peter over Lermontov.--71.121.211.26 (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Like Illythr above, I cannot understand what is controversial about Lenin. It's a recognizable, iconic image which represented Russia for decades. Revolutionary figures often become recognizable images: Cubans displays Fidel Castro in their mosaic, and Han Chinese has Sun Yat-Sen. --Cubbi (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Lenin is controversial because the Soviet Union no longer exists to whitewash the man's crimes. Many historians, both Russian and Western, don't exactly see him to be the "great father of a nation" that his personality cult painted him to be; many Russians think the guy was downright evil, and there are plenty of autobiographical books written to that effect. Lenin called for mass arrests, tortures, and extra-judicial killings on an enormous scale: over 200,000 were shot—the clergy, the "bourgeoisie" and sympathizers, and ordinary people. I don't feel comfortable having the man who initiated what is now known as the Red Terror represented on our mosaic. I find it disgusting, if you want to know my bias (keep in mind I'm Russian). I know that its currently very fashionable in Russia among the youth to trump up Lenin and his even more tyrannical successor, Stalin, as "great" people—Stain was voted the third greatest Russian, after all—but lets not let the vogue color our views here on Wikipedia. Clearly, Lenin is controversial, as the protests from other users here on this talk page attest. If you think Lenin was a kind-hearted, good man, fine, whatever, but if you want his picture up there can you please provide a better argument than "his picture is very recognizable," or something to that effect? Plenty of recognizable, famous and deserving Russians AREN'T on our mosaic, and I they should be in place of Lenin. You know my reasons.--71.121.211.26 (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The people in the mosaic don't have to be all kind-hearted or good (Peter I had his bloody moments, so did the canonised Vladimir I) - they only have to be important for the Russian culture and/or society. Lenin was quite probably the most important one in the XX century. Anyhow, I doubt anyone would really care if you changed the picture. The only problem is that it the template is somewhat esoteric - it seems you have to upload  a cut version of the image you wish to insert (I was unable to replace Gagarin just like that).  --Illythr (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The main reason Lenin have to go is not just because he is controversial figure but because he is not Russian, period. Pushkin who was 3/4 Russian or Korolyov who was 100% Slavic are comlectly different cases. Lenin had Jew, Kalmyk, Chuvash, German and God knows how much non-Russian, non-Slavic blood in him, thats the reason he have to go. 213.148.166.210 (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

As a citizen of the Russian empire Lenin is Russian. As a speaker of Russian he is Russian. What do they say -

Папа турок, маты грек А я русскый человек!

However, I do believe there are better more deserving people. Say Tchaikovsky. Everyone sings Tchaikovsky's music, or Rimsky Korsakov, or Prokofiev or Yul Bryner or Natalie Wood...

Maybe it may be worth adding a section on famous Russians outside of Russia? --Bandurist (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tchaikovsky's already in there. The Russian diaspora section is already the biggest one, but it might be worth adding a paragraph anyway. Be bold! :) --Illythr (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"As a citizen of the Russian empire Lenin is Russian. As a speaker of Russian he is Russian"

Citizenship of Russian Empire/Federation and/or Russophony has nothing to do with ethnicity, how about you read the very first paragraph of this article? "The Russian people (русские, russkiye) are an ethnic group of the East Slavic peoples" You dont have to be a genious to realize Lenin is not even Slavic, let alone Russian. This article is about Russians, not citizens of Russia.

As for "Папа турок, маты грек А я русскый человек!" What this joke has anything to do with our curret subject? (You *do* realize it's a joke, right?)

Anyway I'm curious why Lenin's photo is still there, it was quite clear that he is not Russian in first place and yet he's been hanging there for weeks. This whole discussion seem like a waste of time to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.148.166.210 (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to edit and upload the new Gagarin photo as well as any replacement for Lenin. The reason Lenin is still there, I guess, is because a lot of suggestions were thrown out by people, but it doesn't seem anyone has agreed upon a single person yet. I don't want add a photo and then have people complain about it. Also, "ethnic group" is pretty loosely defined. Since there is no such thing as a "pure" Russian--Korolyov is half Ukrainian, for example--then if being half Russian is good enough for the mosaic then we can certainly include the likes of Tsiolkovsky, Kovalevskaya, Mechnikov, etc. Lermontov, Prokofiev, Tchaikovsky, Natalie Wood, etc. are all excellent candidates. I don't have a preference either way--maybe just slightly favoring Natalie Wood since she's an actress, a profession not yet represented--but I wouldn't really care either way. What's everyone else's opinion? Maybe list the people in order if you have strong opinions.--71.121.211.26 (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The real reason, I think, is that no one cares enough to go through all the necessary motions. On inclusion candidates, while I'd favor a woman because they're currently underrepresented (1 of 12), I'm not sure Natalie Wood qualifies - as the article about her states, she was an American actress and thus is not associated with Russians, despite her descent. Maya Plisetskaya might be a better choice. Then again, she's not exactly pure-blood Russian, so our uh, racially aware friends here might complain about the size of her nose. Also, I think you need to register an account on Commons before you can upload images for the mosaic. --Illythr (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just sitting here and debating the removal of Lenin has been ten times the work of downloading, cropping and reuploading a new image to Commons, something that couldn't take more than 15 mins. It isn't particularly difficult to do, so I've volunteered. (I've also, conveniently, been a member of Commons for a while now.) I'm fine with Plisetskaya, or any other Russian woman. I don't think the candidates necessarily need to live in Russia to be Russians, since according to the article itself, "The Russian people (русские, russkiye) are an ethnic group...primarily living in Russia and neighboring countries." The word "primarily" implies Russians can and do live outside of Russia, which is why we have that really long elaborate list of "Regions with significant populations." (Natalie Wood is a "russkiy" who isn't necessarily a "rossiyanin," perhaps a good way of demonstrating the concept to confused Americans.) In any case, if you believe we should use a Russian national, like Plisetskaya, that's fine with me. I'm willing to accept that view if it means we can finally agree on someone and get something done. But first let's see if the other editor doesn't object that she's a non-Russian woman who happens to live in Russia--strictly a rossiyanin as it were.--71.121.211.26 (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel uncomfortable using pics of living persons here, but the copyright status of many of the older pictures (unless they are really old) is far from clear. Anyway, here are some free pics of celebrities; not all of them are purebred, though:

And there is a better picture of Anna Pavlova: this one. Thoughts? Colchicum (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest creating a separate row for "modern" Russians. Also it's probably a bad idea to use images with more than one person on them. Adding beauty queens seems unfair as well. ;-) --Illythr (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, tastes differ, to me the chess master looks the most appealing, I really couldn't resist this, Sharapova and Katina (not that I liked her "music" too much) are lagging far behind and neither of the queens is even close, as usual. Images are supposed to be cropped. Anyway, this is just the top of . Colchicum (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have a problem if we added a living person to the mosaic, beauty queen or not, as long as they've accomplished something in their life, the minimum requirements for notability. Of course, the more noteworthy their accomplishments the better, at least that's how I think we ought to go about it. Of the list above, I prefer Kollontai, Kosteniuk, Kovalevskaya, and Khorkina. Plisetskaya is another choice I would have no problem with. In any case, if we're adding just one living person, it would only make sense that we arrange the current mosaic by birthdate, like this: Donskoy, Lomonosov, Pushkin, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Mendeleyev, etc., at least that way there would some kind of logic to the arrangement. We could also expand the list and add another row and include the likes of the women above. Thoughts?--71.121.211.26 (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with Kosteniuk and Katina is that their PD photos suck (although cropping them might have a positive effect). I think the best way to replace Lenin is with Peter the Great, as there's no one from the XVII century there. Then sort the images by birth date and introduce a new line with 4 modern representatives. Pick Kosteniuk, another girl from the gallery and two males, so as not to contradict this vital piece of information. --Illythr (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and rearranged people by birthdate and added Peter the Great. I added the new image of Gagarin but it looks a little weird to me for some reason--I'm thinking zoom in on the face a little more? Thoughts on that? I'll add the new image of Pavlova and add a new row when for the contemporary Russians I have more time, but otherwise I sort of like the way the montage looks now. --71.121.211.26 (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! Yes, maybe zoom in a bit more on Gagarin. --Illythr (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I am not convinced that paintings are useful here. What about Ivan Pavlov, Sergei Prokofiev or Constantin Stanislavski instead of, say, Pushkin, Lomonosov, Peter the Great, or especially "D. Donskoy", as he is incorrectly captioned here, hehe? And File:DIMendeleevCab.jpg instead of File:Dmitry Mendeleev 140-190 for collage.jpg. There is no shortage of more widely known, more accurately portrayed and less controversial men. By the way, I am confused as to what this poster is supposed to show, great Russians or typical Russians. Colchicum (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * None of the Russians on the collage now are by any means "typical," they're all historically significant. Typical people would be for us to crop out a bunch of faces from this image. The crowded Germans collage has just about every famous face I can imagine, so I figure that's what the point of this thing is.


 * Anyway, are you completely against paintings, or just think we ought to use photographs when possible? Pushkin is pretty important, and so is Lomonosov, and I would really hate to see them go unless we can replace them with people of equal importance in their feilds, which seems unlikely. There are no pictures of very early Russians, so that means if we only use photographs we're essentially isolating ourselves to Russians who were born during the 19th century or afterward.


 * We can try to minimize the use of paintaings and replace Chekov and Tolstoy with these images of them L.N.Tolstoy Prokudin-Gorsky.jpg Anton Pavlovich Chekhov.jpg, along with the Mendeleyev image you suggested (their beards are still equally impressive!), and we can find photographs of Dostoyevsky. The guys you mentioned above are okay and we can add Korotkov if we should need someone sporting an eyepiece. But all of this calls for consideration of practicality and aesthetics: (a) it seems like a major drag replacing most of the images on the collage (do you have the time to do it?), and (b) the collage will almost completely be in B&W (other than a few very rare early color photographs and the modern folks). --71.121.211.26 (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I am not completely against paintings, neither would I like to have any veto power here, but I would prefer photographs in this mosaic. Well, Pushkin might be important for the development of the Russian literature, culture and language, but as to his fame and importance to the rest of the world, he is certainly very far behind Tolstoy (who I may personally dislike, but still), Dostoevsky, Chekhov, Nabokov and possibly even Solzhenitsyn. Lomonosov is likewise somewhat obscure. Ivan Pavlov and Dmitri Mendeleev are far more important and recognizable. Now, what this mosaic is about is certainly not educating our readers about the Russian culture and who played what role in its development. These are merely faces, after all. They have to be either typical or as recognizable as possible, just that simple. "D. Donskoy" is neither typical nor recognizable (and Donskoy is not a surname). Colchicum (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Lenin is back, I think its about time people realized putting Lenin's picture in mosaic was nothing but vandalism in first place.213.148.166.210 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Answer to some questions.
I've already read this article. It is good article, but I think it hasn't interesting facts enough. About culture There is only one part of culture here. Russian culture is more wide. It also consists of folk songs, village peasantry culture (the most interesting, I think). If you want to learn about Russian culture, I can advice you to learn Russian language and to read sites in Russian. About "Zelenin's theory", Scythian origin of most of Russians, Rurik, Vikings. It is about "Norman theory about formation of the Old State", written by German scientists Sclozer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Ludwig_von_Schlözer, Bayer and Muller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhardt_Friedrich_Müller in 18st century. They thought that Slavic people weren't developed enough to form a state and thought that the state was "exported" from Scandinavia to Rus. They thought that Russian ethnos was formed from German or Scandinavian ethoses. Modern historical science consider "Norman theory" to be wrong. Scandinavians took part in formation of Russian state in 960s-980s, but their role was exaggerate a lot by German scientists. A state can't be "exported". The definite level of social development is necessary to form state. Slavic folks were developed a lot (for example, they had special forms of democracy). Scandinavians didn't made large influence to social institutes of Slavic folks. There are little influence to Russian culture from Scandinavians (borrowings in language are "варежки", "сельдь"). Less than from Byzantine Empire, West Slavic folks, South Slavic folks, Arabians, Finno-Ugrs, Turks. Legends about formation of state by foreign guests are similar to Middle-Age history. It's like foundation of Rome by Rumon or Rumen, foundation of English state by Anglo-Saxons ect. Religion. The terms "russkiy" (Ruissians people by nationality, русские) and "rossiyanin" (people, who live in Russia, россияне) should be separated. Most of russkiys are Orthodox Christians. Other rossiyane are different: they can believe Islam (Tatars, for example), or Judaism, or Buddism (Altaytsy, for exaple). NB!I want to make sociological research about Russia and Rusians. And I want to gather frequently asked by foreign people questions. Futher more, I can explain your questions about Russia, Russian culture, Russian lenguage ect. You can ask questions to arkuchinov@yandex.ru. 95.27.5.184 (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Artemiy (russkiy)

What this article is about
This article is about ethnic Russians. It also makes mention that in English (and perhaps other languages) 'Russians' means anyone from the land of Russia, regardless of ethnic background. This can can include Jews, Ukrainians, etc. This can be found by looking at the WP articles that concern Russians in other countries--they are inclusive of both ethnic and non-ethnic Russians. There is nothing insulting about the statements in this article; it is just stating how words are used in another language. This is clarification to help people understand. The business of an Encyclopedia is understanding. Hmains (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The business of an Encyclopedia is the TRUTH. And the truth is that Russians (Russkie) are ethnic group, and "Rossiyane" is just a political word to describe all citizens of Russia regardless of their ethnicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.79.121.23 (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The business of Wikipedia is verifiability, not Truth. This is also the English Wikipedia. The Russian Wikipedia is the one that deals with the word "rossiyane"; this word doesn't exist in English dictionaries. And the English word "Russians" means what English dictionaries say it means. Not you, me, or any other anonymous editor. --illythr (talk) 08:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Illythr, you are from Moldova right? Then go to Moldova Wiki and do whatever you want there. This is an English article about Russians. I'm a Russian and I know what is the truth about Russians more than you. And the business of an Encyclopedia is the TRUTH... Or lie? The problem is, that the opening is wrong, regardless of any sources you can provide. The true opening must be: The English term Russians is used to refer to the ethnic Russians (russkiye (sg. русский, russkiy). While citizens of Russia, regardless of their ethnicity (see demographics of Russia for information on other ethnic groups inhabiting Russia); in Russian, are referred to as rossiyane (россиянин, plural rossiyane). That is the only truth. I'm a Russian (Russkiy) and a Christian, not a jew, not a half-jew or any other nationality or religion. The word "Russians" means only Russkiye, and not any other nationality. Why should someone call some immigrants from... let's say Africa, Russians? Would you call some immigrants from Africa to Moldova, Moldovans? Well... you must see/sense the truth. And the English word "Russians" (Russkiye) means what we, Russians, say it means. It must be that way. And I don't know why it must be otherwise. We also could write in Russian Wikipedia, that the English and some black peoples from the English African colonies are the same thing... LOL. I don't think that the real English would love this statement!
 * There is a Russian saying about this: В чужой монастырь со своим уставом не ходят. As long as you choose to ignore the core rules of Wikipedia (please, do read them), your edits to its articles will always be reverted and you will eventually get blocked. --illythr (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Definition correct?
The opening definition for the article states that: "The English term Russians is used to refer to the citizens of Russia, regardless of their ethnicity...". But is this really correct? Personally I would almost never use it in that way, I would never, for instance, refer to a Chechen as a "Russian", would anybody? I would contend that in English the term "Russian" does indeed refer to ethnic Russians, and not other nationalities living under Russian rule. I believe that the naming definition given is the wrong way round, the Russian term russkiye is what would be translated into English as "Russian", the other term rossiyanin has no direct English translation, except perhaps "Russian Citizen". --Hibernian (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, opening is wrong. Russkiy is the only word that can be translated as "Russian", only ignorant people call Chechens, Tatars and Jews "Russians". Russian term "Rossiyanin" a politically correct neologism that has no English translation at all. "Rossiyanin" is not even nationality, thats just a word to describe someone who lives in Russia/has Russian citizenship. Rossiyanin=/=Russian, Russkiy is Russian and in Russian language Enlgish word "Russian" virtually always translated as "Russkiy" not "Rossiyanin" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.148.166.210 (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

'''Russkiy is the only word that can be translated as Russian. And the ethnic Russians and Russians are the same.'''
 * See provided definition. --illythr (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

English/American definition of who or what is "Russian" is irrelevant as they dont have any right to define who is Russian and who isnt. Russians on the other hand do and its quite obvious Russian definition should be used. Instead of playing along with American stupidity/ignorance and reinforcing dumb stereotypes it should've been pointed out long ago that ethnic Russians and Russians are the same, there isnt such a thing as non-ethnic Russian because "Russian" itself is ethnicity. Just because Americans/English abuse word "Russian" and constantly try giving it some entirely different meaning does not mean Wikipedia should use fucked up definitions. Just check articles on who's "White" by American standards or articles like "Russian American" wich lists pretty much ANYONE but Russians (and yet these people are labelled as "Русские Американцы") and you'll realize why proper and correct RUSSIAN definition on who is Russian should be used at all times.


 * Absolutely correct. And everyone in the world must define correctly who is Russian and who is not. Ethnic Russians and Russians and Russkiy are the same, that is the only truth. And of course, Russian Jews and other non-Russian peoples from Russia are no Whites. Whites are Russians, Poles, Germans and other Indo-Aryan folks.


 * "Rights" are completely irrelevant in linguistics. Fact is, the word "Russian" is ambiguous in English with the meaning "citizen of Russia" being apparently dominant. Complaining about this fact is as pointless as complaining that the Russian word for "Germans" had the original meaning of "mute", or that the word "индейцы" means "Native Americans", perpetrating that centuries old error. Anyhow, it is a significant fact, that has to be reflected in the article. Note also that the article itself is about the ethnicity and thus helps set the issue straight. --illythr (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Illythr, i don't know how old are you, but i think you have some mind problems or something. the article itself IS about the ethnicity, so it must be pointed out that Russian ethnicity is a Russian ethnicity, because there isn't such a thing as non-ethnic Russian, because "Russian" itself is ethnicity and Russkiy and Russian are the same. got that?
 * Working yourself into a fit won't really help you to get your point across, you know. In any case, that's the way it is in English. Unless you can provide a native-language reliable source stating that "Russian" is now indeed used only for the ethnicity in English, there is nothing to be done here. --illythr (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

'''There will be done everything that must be done. We will fight for the truth. And we don't need to provide anything, because "Russian" is indeed means only ethnicity. it is a common sense! do you know what common sense is, my stupid friend? listen up! Russians are ethnic group and rossiyane (political word) are just citizens of Russia! Russian jew is rossiyanin, but he is not Russian! also black peoples from France and England are not French or English right? or you think they are? and if you do, lol, then go to England and France and tell to the real english and french about you opinion!!! lol, they'll kick your stupid ass right away!!! lol lol Word "Russian" is reserved only for White Russians, got that got that got that?'''

"Unless you can provide a native-language reliable source stating that "Russian" is now indeed used only for the ethnicity in English" I never meant to discuss fucked up American/English definitions. I just want a note in this article that points out that the way Americans and English use word "Russian" is WRONG and in Russia, word "Russian" is reserved for only Russians, not citizens of Russia regardless of their nationality(ethnicity) and that not every citizen of Russia is Russian. To a certain extent it was already done, but not enough since text is still confusing. Also claim that Rossiyanin=Russian is still wrong regardless of how Anglophones use word "Russian"
 * The lead already says that "the Russian people (Russian: русские, russkiye) are an ethnic group" and "the ethnic Russians are referred to as russkiye". That both "russkiy" and "rossiyanin" are translated with the same word is not really wrong (in English), just a historically established (if confusing) feature. Any improvement suggestions? --illythr (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

'''It is WRONG and it must be edited everywhere starting with your brains! "russkiy" = Russian, and "rossiyanin" = rossiyanin (political word to describe citizens of Russia). OMG! OMG! LOL! got that????????????????'''

"in Russian, the demonym Russian is translated as rossiyanin (россиянин, plural rossiyane)" Are you even listening to me? "Russian" in Russian language translated as Русский, not Россиянин. Россиянин is something very different and it DOES NOT have english translation AT ALL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.148.166.210 (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't bother to check what "demonym" means, did you? --illythr (talk) 08:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to troll/provoke me or something? English word "Russian" is Русский in Russian. Not Россиянин. Rossiyanin is politically correct bullshit and thats about it. Word (in its curret meaning) is like 20 years old, what kind of "historical misunderstanding" you're talking about? 20-30 years ago word Россиянин didnt even exist, yet word Russian did. And it did exist for centures and was always translated as Русский. Nothing changed now, Rossiayanin means something entirely different than Русский(Russian)
 * According to the provided source, the primary meaning of the English word "Russian", is a "a native or inhabitant of Russia". This reflects the historical habit of calling all the people of one country by the name of that country's dominant culture or nation. This (i.e. using demonyms in place of ethnonyms) is an intrinsic property of the English language that has very little correlation with how a given ethnic group calls itself. This article merely clarifies that, since Russia is a multiethnic country, a distinction between the "demos" and "ethnos" needs to be made when talking about the country's people. The rest of the article then uses "Russian" as an ethnonym. --illythr (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

'''lol Illythr, i don't care what you think or what the english dictionaries say. every normal human understands that Russians and ethnic Russians are the same. Russians are ethnic group of the White/Aryan race. And Rossiyane are citizens of Russia regardless of their ethnicity, because Russia is a multi ethnic country. got that or not? or is this too difficult concept for you to grasp?''' '''lol Illythr, Тебя в Гугле забанили? Набери ка там "R1a" и попадешь в чудесный мир ДНК генеалогии. Ну или хотя бы поищи слово "гаплогруппа". А лучше ищи на английском, если им﻿ владеешь. Узнаешь, что русские (не россияне) - самые настоящие арийцы (в отличии от тех же немцев). Вперед, к включению мозга! ты сам-то русский? или продался жидо-масонам?'''

'''We don't care about your stupid sources, dictionaries and other bullshit!!! We are Russkie (Russians, White, Aryan, Christian people from Russia) and We are telling to the world that our ethnic name is translated to/from english as RUSSIANS. Accept this or die. White Power!'''

Administrative warning
Please consider this as a warning to the arguing editors/ips to ensure that discussions are held extremely civilly. Civility is a pillar of Wikipedia and if editors continue to indulge in uncivil comments and assuming bad faith, they will be summarily blocked. Therefore, from hereon, respect the way in which discussions should take place. I'm watching this page indefinitely from this moment onwards. Please feel free to write to me on my talk page for any administrative assistance.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  18:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Once again about Lenin and Russian ethnicity.
I don't understand why Russians here are called 'an ethnic group'. How much east-slavic one should be to pass as a Russian? Some people in the mosaic had mixed or obscure ethnicities and it's unclear how far one should go into a pedigree chart to come up with a positive or negative conclusion. I understand that the mosaic's only purpose is 'to look nice', however it's only natural too see people such as Lenin in there, since he clearly identified himself as 'Russkiy' and was probably one of the most known Russians world-wide. The article further says that 'according to the 2002 census ethnic Russians make up about 80% of the population of Russia'. Well? How is that relevant then if Lenin was not Russian even considering himself as one. Census simply points out of how many people said they are such and such. Isn't that contradictory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.46.179.89 (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As you noticed, the mosaic's purpose is to look nice, so, as long as it does, very few care about its contents. Because of this, you are free to re-add Lenin in there as long as you make an unopposed point on the talk page. Also see above --illythr (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * lenin is a murderer, he destroyed Russia and millions of Russians. he killed Russian Imperial family. is that enough? or you want us to remind you all his crimes against Russia and humanity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.79.112.103 (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Correct. The Tsar was killed by the enemies of Europe and of Europe's CHRISTIAN heritage. Who are these killers? Read about history, look beyond propaganda, use your own brain to judge the facts, and you will find out the TRUTH.

The Jewish-Bolsheivks not only killed Nicholas II and his wife and children. But they also killed his brother Mikhail, and 7 of his cousins who were Grand Dukes and princes of Russia! Nicholas Constantine, Dimitri Constantinovich, Paul Alexandrovich, Vladimir Pavlovich, Constantine Constantinovich, Oleg Constantinovich, Igor Constantinovich. Tsarist Russia was much stronger and healthier than communist Russia. Tsarist Russia had positive birthrates and was a moral country. Tsarist Russia was a danger to Western imperialism and that is why the West sent Lenin to cause genocide against the Russians. Lenin and Stalin organized genocide against the Russian Orthodox population and annexed Russian territories to neighboring nations. Hitler followed Lenin and Stalin and murdered millions of Russians. That is the TRUTH you all must know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.79.121.23 (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Because he is not Russian. How fucking stupid you can be to ask same question again and again and again even though it's been answered long time ago. Being Russian is not about identification, its about bloodline. 213.148.166.210 (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 91.79.121.23 and 91.79.112.103, please read up on Verfiability to understand that without reliable sources, it's quite impossible to add details that can be challenged. Therefore, I should suggest that you find out reliable sources and point them out here on the talk page. I'm sure editors out here will be able to consider your request. Thanks.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  12:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Only warning left to 213.148.166.210. But beyond this point, if there is any ip/editor who leaves a personal attack note targeted at any user, the ip/editor will be summarily blocked.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  12:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but I don't see my question about census being answered anywhere on this page.89.218.185.103 (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"Nearing Siberia, the hair is mostly a dark brunette"?
I can't see this as true. Actually when I travel to Siberia I found a lot of russians with blonde hair and blue eyes. Siberian russians are mostly recent migrants, I can't see how they differ genetically with the Russians living in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.73.78.62 (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for drawing attention to that bit. That 3/5 blonde claim was rather suspicious, unsourced and the only edit from that account. Removed. --illythr (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Latest edit war
There seems to be an edit war here. The version of Lionenause/ Shanesterman is clearly not suitable for Wiki as it is poorly written: I am not sure what is wrong with the alternative that causes such rigorous edit warring. Can you explain your grievances on talk rather than revert to a poorily written version? Alex Bakharev (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * words Europe and Russia are not capitalized;
 * the source talks not of Serbs but of Sorbs (believe me, they are different people)
 * the phrase and speak the russian language which belongs to the East Slavic subgroup in europe does not make sense as there are multipe language families spoken in Europe.
 * I think "maria" is being naughty again. --illythr (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

New idea that is more neutral
how about dropping the whole "east slavic" thing and do the article more neutral, danes are not germanic (if you look on talk/history of the page) so lets just use the standard nation and ethic group thing Lionenause (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is fine with me. Although please avoid in future linking to disambiguation pages like Russian. Still what is POV with the Eastern Slavic thing anyway and how it is related to Danes being German or otherwise? Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how this kid has no interest in discussing his edits and probably lost interest anyway, I'm restoring your version, which is more informative and better English. If the socks return again, I'm going to WP:ANI this time. --illythr (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)