This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

@Flemmish Nietzsche, what the source [1] says, exactly? Can't find it. Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not really about what the source says, more so, as I said in the edit summary, that the wording of "where most of the inhabitants wanted to stay in Ukraine" is quite misleading — this source (1) shows a referendum, and using the wording from the 2014 Donbas status referendums article, A poll released by the Kyiv Institute of Sociology, with data gathered from 8–16 April, 41.1% of people in Donetsk were for decentralisation of Ukraine with powers transferred to regions, while letting it remain a unified state, 38.4% for changing Ukraine into federation, 27.5% were in favour of secession from Ukraine to join the Russian Federation, and only 10.6% supported current unitary structure without changes. We say that "most of the inhabitants wanted to stay in Ukraine", yet in reality this can be misleading to imply that those who wanted to stay in some form of Ukrainian state were happy with the current government, which is in fact not true, according to the poll. That 10.6% who supported the current government structure is not exactly "most of the inhabitants". I think it would be better to leave that clause out altogether and just leave it how I changed it to, "to start a war in the Donbas region in the east of Ukraine where there had been past pro-Russian protests." Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not really about what the source says
We are relying what the source says. Your poll actually confirms Plokhy. If your source doesn't say "past pro-Russian protests" then it should be removed. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Well we have a whole article about the "pro-Russian protests" — are you saying we need a source to verify that the protests happened, or that they were pro-Russian? Either way, I changed the source to a Reuters article. (1) When I said "It's not really about what the source says", I meant that my edit that you partially reverted on this article was to change the poor wording of that clause, "where most of the inhabitants wanted to stay in Ukraine". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Poor wording can be improved but removal is not an improvement. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it definitely is, as we don't have to follow the exact wording of the source or even include every detail it includes. The goal is to write in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and not to closely WP:PARAPHRASE. If the article would be more neutral (WP:NPOV) without using that wording at all, it certainly would be an improvement to remove it.

If source A (the source we have already and the one that wording is being copied from) and source B (the Kyiv Institute of Sociology poll and the pro-Russian separatism) say different things, then we should go with the one that is more objective — a poll from the actual people living there is much more objective than some wording in a journal or book. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

we don't have to follow the exact wording
But you can't conclude that the content should be deleted from this. WP:NPOV tells us to relay all the important POVs, not to delete these. The Kyiv Institute of Sociology poll actually confirms Plokhy thesis. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Could you explain how you came to that conclusion that it confirms his thesis? My point is that to the uninformed reader, the wording may seem to imply that the inhabitants of the Donbas wanted the status quo in terms of autonomy and governance, when in reality most wanted neither that nor to be annexed into Russia. Either way we word it, it is going to have some undue weight issues, so for that I think it should be excluded altogether.

I changed the wording to "in the east of Ukraine where there had been previous pro-Russian protests but where many inhabitants still did not want to be annexed into Russia", which should be slightly better if you are stubborn on not deleting that wording altogether. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Could you explain how you came to that conclusion that it confirms his thesis?
It says 27.5% were in favour of secession from Ukraine so it confirms Plokhy

My point is that to the uninformed reader, the wording may seem to imply that the inhabitants of the Donbas wanted the status quo in terms of autonomy and governance
No, it just says that most wanted to stay in Ukraine.

it is going to have some undue weight issues, so for that I think it should be excluded altogether
No, it's not Undue since you provided the poll confirming it.

I changed the wording to "in the east of Ukraine where there had been previous pro-Russian protests but where many inhabitants still did not want to be annexed into Russia", which should be slightly better if you are stubborn on not deleting that wording altogether.
This is wrong as "not to be annexed into Russia" is different to "stay with Ukraine". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree in that 72.5% does constitute "most of the inhabitants" — however, there is still implications from the statement which would be better off kept out of the article. We don't have to follow every source we cite to the exact letter. Of course "not be annexed into Russia" is different than "stay with Ukraine" but both are simultaneously true even if they are different. The latter is more neutral and is supported by the poll as well.

No, it just says that most wanted to stay in Ukraine. Yes, it does "just say that" but it is with the placement of the wording that brings about the implications from it. Less is definitely more here. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

If there are disagreements then we should prefer to be as close to what the source says as possible. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Now, protests happened, and also Americans went to the Moon, but we aren't adding all of this to imply the context we want, until there are such a sources. And that context should be described correctly. And your new source doesn't describe the war in Donbas to be able to describe the context you added. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Greetings @Flemmish Nietzsche, regarding your "We didn't have consensus" undo [2] . Yes, you initiated the change [3] , and there is no consensus for it. Per WP:EDITCONSENSUS we should get back to the previous version of the article. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Well you seem to have objected to my wording of "but did not want to be annexed into Russia", even though it was supported by the poll source, so I changed, in that same revision you mentioned above, the wording back to something closer to what you seem to have wanted. What do you not like, as you have called the revision on another talk page in which I was involved in as "unsourced and distorted text", about that edit that makes it so problematic? Have we not achieved consensus? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

"there had been previous pro-Russian protests" is unsourced, no source provided giving such context.

"but where many inhabitants still wanted to be part of Ukraine" is vague as we have the source clearly stating "most".

We are not distorting and misrepresenting the sources in favor of NPOV as we see it. No, NPOV does not matters more then representing the sources correctly. And it's not "NPOV" to change "most" to "many". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

My main point wasn't about changing "most" to "many", rather the inclusion of the mention of the pro-Russian protests in that same sentence. I'll add a source to the claim^[1] of the protests that does in fact give context of the past protests when discussing the war.

References

Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Russia has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

From the lead:

"Russia is a highly urbanized country"

No doubt this is true in the same way as Belgium or Japan - urbanised isn't the same thing as densely-populated, of course - but there is no mention of Russia being the most sparsely-populated country in continental Europe in the lead, which I think is fairly important for the lead even if it's mentioned in Demographics later. People are free to disagree though. I therefore propose to change the above sentence to some variation of:

"Russia is a highly urbanised country, but it is the least densely-populated (or "most scarcely-populated") country in continental Europe (or "second after Iceland", or "177th (or whatever the number is) in the world"

Or at least a brief mention of Russia's population density elsewhere in the lead, other than the infobox

Thank you 2A02:C7E:3188:4C00:B4EC:75D:5052:6976 (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, I guess it's irrelevant but shouldn't the first sentence be "Russia, officially the Russian Federation" rather than "Russia, or the Russian Federation"? Other articles follow this e.g.

"France, officially the French Republic" or

"China, officially the People's Republic of China" 2A02:C7E:3188:4C00:B4EC:75D:5052:6976 (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The invisible note in the lead says "Both names are equally official - see: Talk:Russia/Archive 12#Equality of the names." '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Charliehdb (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It would be great if the Chair of the State Duma, the Chair of the Federation Council and the Chief Justice were also added. 78.177.160.99 (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It would be great if you could explain why they need to be included in the infobox. TylerBurden (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Why is Taliban’s flag used for Afghanistan when it’s not internationally recognized? The area of annexed territories should also be included as it’s quite clear they’ll never be handed back to Ukraine. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

A recent RfC for China overwhelmingly opposed the inclusion of "Authoritarian" in the infobox. The main argument was that "authoritatian" isn't a government system. I believe the same should apply to Russia (and other articles with similar infoboxes). Any thoughts? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

What are government types?

Quick find: "Totalitarianism is a form of government in which the state holds total control over society and seeks to regulate every aspect of public and private life (Gregor, 2012; Gregor, 2008; Siegel, 1998; Guilhot, 2005)." 10 Real-Life Totalitarianism Examples (2024) (helpfulprofessor.com) ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

But the word is "authoritarian" not "totalitarian". My initial reaction is that "totalitarianism" is a government system whereas "authoritarian" is more of descriptive style of whatever the system is. Maybe that's too pedantic. Don't know. DeCausa (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no rule that we should be constrained by the template field name. The goal is to represent what reliable sources say the best we can. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

No, we should follow the template documentation. DeCausa (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The doc is also not a solid stone and is a subject of an agreement and change. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

If the template doesn't conform to the common use of terms, then the template is wrong. GMG^talk 11:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

That's an issue for the template talk page. Not here. DeCausa (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The template doc can or can't be a fit for all the pages. It's not a rule and and it's imperfection should not hinder us from improving this page - WP:NOTBURO. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the template. I've never seen anyone else say there is a problem. Sounds like an artificial way of shoe-horning a particular point of view. DeCausa (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I...honestly don't really care, other than to say that the template documentation is a technical guide, and not a rationale for deciding a content dispute. GMG^talk 15:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to add to my earlier comment. I took a look at the China RfC. Pincrete while supporting the China change distinguished it from the Russia infobox as follows: Russia actually has "under an authoritarian dictatorship", not simply the adjective 'authoritarian'. Dictatorship is a system of government, not simply a disapproving adjective like 'authoritarian'. That seems a valid point. DeCausa (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The infobox currently calls Russia an "authoritarian dictatorship", but that specific wording is only backed by the first source. The others call Russia authoritarian, but don't use that specific term. Unless more rouses back "authoritarian dictatorship", I'd say we should just go with "authoritarian government". Cortador (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

In Russia, political opposition and dissent is heavily suppressed, and power is heavily concentrated in the executive branch, so "authoritarian dictatorship" is correct. If Russia operated under a more collective leadership system like Vietnam, then "authoritarian government" would be more appropriate.

China and Vietnam do not use either label because their de jure political systems do not have presidential/PM elections, but there is an argument to apply the former label for China because it had previously been under collective leadership, but is now essentially one-man rule. 2603:8001:8F40:5C:FC9F:6846:B32E:BBCC (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

As seen over at RfC for China it was filled with people that lack basic knowledge of the sources. Even claming there were no sources at all dispite it being the example used in most publications. Somtimes RFCs lead us down a road that is less informative for our readers espesiacly when they are closed fast and by someone that was involved in the debate. The debate that is taking place for Russia is "Authoritarianism to totalitarianism?" .Moxy🍁 10:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any knowledge or opinion about the use of 'authoritarian' iro Russia. but just point out that 'authoritarian' and 'dictatorship' are nearly tautologous (benign dictatorship being largely theoretical and democratic dictatorship being a contradiction in terms). Dictatorship is a form of govt, but authoritarian is an adjective describing a character rather than a form, that can be applied to most forms of govt, including the nominally democratic, monarchist etc. Last night I happened to watch a PBS documentary in which Woodrow Wilson's administration was described as 'authoritarian' towards the end of WWI.Pincrete (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

But what we should be doing is regurgitating the sources...... and with those sources leading our readers to more informative academic opinion. If there's are sources out there that say this is a rainbow democracy we should also use those....... however this is simply not the case. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Moxy🍁 22:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with CanonNi, at RfC for China, the overwhelming majority opposed the inclusion of these words in the information field. As mentioned by Remsense, it is a higher-level characterization of the political culture, it could be detailed in the article's body, but it's not data for the infobox. As Cortador wrote, that specific wording is only backed by the first source, unless there is broad scientific agreement from multiple sources, we should not use this. Overall, this is far too simplistic to put in an infobox, it violates WP:NPOV, such characteristics could be further in the text, but do not belong in the infobox. I will also tag some people from the discussion that has already taken place-Simonm223, Ships&Space, Jetsettokaiba, Alexanderkowal, HenryMP02. Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Some basic reading for you Moxy🍁 11:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't see that specific wording there even once, anyway, we're talking about the infobox.Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Officially, Russia is a republic, similarish to the United States. It's only in practice that it's an authoritarian dictatorship. While WP:NPOV does mean that there needs to be a mention of multiple sides (without falling afoul of WP:UNDUE), it also means refraining from making potentially slanderous claims without a significant body of evidence to justify its inclusion. Not only is "authoritarian" not only an imprecise label, it's also a negative one; it doesn't belong in the infobox, and the text should use more precise terms/expand significantly on the concept. "Dictatorship" is a similarly loaded term. I'd suggest labeling it as a "semi-presidential republic" and add a note explaining the de facto situation. Ships & Space_(Edits) 15:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

That's exactly the Russian position.... "We are not an authoritarian regime....we are a democracy with an elected president" Echols, William (2023-03-22). "Russia's False Arguments Against Being Called Authoritarian". Voice of America.Moxy🍁 18:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems the concept of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which is an established guideline, has gone out of the window here for some editors, in the "government and politics" section the article reads: "Under the administrations of Vladimir Putin, Russia has experienced democratic backsliding, and has become an authoritarian state under a dictatorship, with Putin's policies being referred to as Putinism."

The infobox thus effectively sums up this part of the article as it should. TylerBurden (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Tagging involved editors TylerBurden, Ybsone, Jirka.h23. The dispute at hand in the recent sequence of reverts is the sentence "Russia ranks very low in measurements of democracy, human rights and freedom of the press". I object to the inclusion of the word "very".

The adverb "very" is not used by any cited source in reference to Russia's ranking. It is used in reference to the situation, (where sources describe the human rights situation as "very serious"), as pointed out by Ybsone, but not in reference to the ranking. I asked for a source using this terminology in reference to the ranking but it was not provided by those reverting.

The main article says "Freedom House gave Russia a global freedom score of 20 out of 100, Reporters Without Borders’ Press Freedom Index ranked Russia 150 of 180 countries, and the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index gave Russia a score of 3.31 and a rank of 124 of 167 countries." These numbers suggest Russia is ranked lowly, but not "very" lowly. Normally, something at the ~20-25th percentile is considered "low" but not "very low." I would associate a "very low" ranking with those countries at the absolute bottom of the list, say the bottom 5 (including Syria and North Korea, say). Although this is a subjective judgement, as a rule we should be partial towards avoiding dramatic language unless clearly necessary, to keep the tone encyclopedic and neutral. JDiala (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

"Normally, something at the ~20-25th percentile " well they are not at 20-25, they rank at 17-20-26%. It is very low. Source mentioned the lowest bottom end of the scale "Russia, with its score dropping in five of the seven different indicators, remains at the lowest end of the range". Lets change it from 'very low' to 'lowest end of the scale' shall we, as per RS? Please stop soapboxing at every corner possible. But hey, I'm sure when they hit rock bottom You'll say they are in the top 100%... YBSOne (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea let's see what others think. Moxy🍁 21:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

"Very low" for democracy, human rights and freedom of the press is an accurate summary of the rankings IMO. The lead should summarize what is said in the body, we do not need to give specific ranking details there. Mellk (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Also for Democracy Index, it is currently at 2.24. It is fair to say that this is a "very low" score. Mellk (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

"the Grand Duchy of Moscow led the unification of Russian lands", "becoming the leading force in the "gathering of the Russian lands"" - those are not in source. What the source provided says is the grand princes of Muscovy began gathering Russian lands to increase the population and wealth under their rule. And it's only part of the picture, as Kyivan lands were split. Modern sources should be used and this should be rewritten. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that more recent, academic sources are needed, but the provided source does indeed say what the article says; if you had read further in the source, you would see that it says "The most successful practitioner of this process was Ivan III (the Great; r. 1462-1505), who conquered Novgorod in 1478 and Tver' in 1485. Muscovy gained full sovereignty over the ethnically Russian lands in 1480 when Mongol overlordship ended officially, and by the beginning of the sixteenth century virtually all those lands were united." — which clearly supports both "the Grand Duchy of Moscow led the unification of Russian lands" and "becoming the leading force in the "gathering of the Russian lands". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there a good way to indicate in Footnote C (lead sentence), or maybe somewhere else, that the abbreviation for Russia in the Russian language is РФ? JDiala (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)