This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Russia was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
Wikipedia is mistaken in some of the concepts about Russia: "Federal semi-presidential republic under an authoritarian dictatorship"
Russia is a democracy, and it is misleading the general population knowledge about its system... 2603:8001:E700:3B39:2CF2:B234:801F:18EC (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, try running for president and speaking against the war or against Putin, you will experience the non-dictatorship firsthand and then you can cite that as a source in your argument here. Until then, it's a dictatorship. 219.90.189.144 (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't use your anecdotal hypothetical as a source. Russia is a democracy and anyone can run for President if they fulfill the requirements, just because the President is popular and easily wins every election and has stayed in power for a long time doesn't mean it's a dictatorship (Before Angela Merkel resigned as Chancellor of Germany she had been in power longer than Putin). Third party western friendly opinion polls even show that Putin is very popular. Any argument you use to argue for it being labeled a "dictatorship" can be used for a western country as well. Grifspdax (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are tons of cases about people going to jail for speaking up against the war. It is literally a dictatorship where Putin does whatever he wants. Last elections were fabricated, putin is not loved in Russia and he scores 90%+ on every election. Sure, there are western countries with dictatorship, but I doubt that this is USA or Britain or France... 178.223.30.222 (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is judged on improving the article based on reliable sources and guidelines, not general discussion. Are you saying what is taking place here is not general discussion? TylerBurden (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this should be a high-level overview of the country, I am not convinced that resolutions passed by parliaments of countries allied to Ukraine declaring Russia to be a state sponsor of terrorism is notable enough for inclusion here. Ideally, the invasion section should only briefly mention the key points about the war. Is this really one of the most important details about the war? The invasion was widely condemned, that much is clear, but also mentioning such resolutions that serve mainly symbolic purposes seems undue IMO. I also see no good reason to single out the Baltic states.
A notable exception would be something like the U.S. State Sponsors of Terrorism list, which although is a geopolitical tool, would impose maximum sanctions and so be far more notable than these resolutions. That is why it is no surprise that only a handful of countries have been included in that list. Does anyone even refer to these parliamentary resolutions when giving an overview of the conflict? As a result, I would suggest to remove this completely. If Russia was included in the U.S. designation, then I think this would be notable enough to mention. Mellk (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The good reason to "single out" Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia is that they have actually declared Russia a terrorist state. Not a sponsor of terrorism. A country being declared a terrorist state by multiple other independent countries is pretty unprecedented. And if the US adds Russia to its list then we'll add it here too, until then I'm not sure why we're talking about hypotheticals. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia may not have the geopolitical pull of the US, but apparently enough for it to be noted by WP:RS that this is the stance taken by them. TylerBurden (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS. Just because a news outlet reports something, does not mean it belongs here. These are all parliamentary statements/resolutions that were adopted. You also did not address the other points. Even the Reuters article says: "The move is largely symbolic, as the European Union does not have a legal framework in place to back it up". Mellk (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is being declared a terrorist state by three countries not enduring information? WP:NOTNEWS addresses trivial updates that do not have lasting value, Russia being declared a terrorist state is not trivial and will be relevant in the future as well. You're talking as if this is a normal thing that happens. If you want to add something about it being symbolic, then knock yourself out. TylerBurden (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I have just stated, these are parliamentary statements. These are not official designations or anything that have any consequences. These parliaments have also adopted plenty of resolutions about the war. If you believe that these parliamentary statements are one of the most important points about the war that they should be mentioned in the article about the country, we can remove the recent addition you made to address the problem with undue weight. Otherwise, we can remove the mention about the statements/resolutions so that the article can focus on more important details about the war. Mellk (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be specific, you're saying if the content is to stay we are to remove the fact that Russia has been accused of numerous war crimes in the invasion? TylerBurden (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I do not see any good reason to mention the parliaments of the Baltic states specifically adopting such resolutions/statements when the preceding sentence already says that a number of parliaments have already adopted such resolutions. There is no difference. Mellk (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To you there is no difference between being a sponsor of terrorism and a terrorist, you've made that clear, yet if they're the same thing then I wonder why the wording in these resolutions is not the same, but evidently there is no point going back and forth when there is such a fundamental disagreement on the basics, perhaps it's better to let other editors weigh in.
Yes, there is no difference because they are simply statements of condemnation with no consequences. As the Politico article says: "The Estonian parliament is only the third national one to condemn the Kremlin in such strong terms, following its two Baltic neighbors Lithuania and Latvia". Yet you take this as some kind of official designation. The problem here is that the condemnation of the invasion is already mentioned, hence the problem with undue weight.
I have also not changed my position. I did not say I think the content should stay there. I have just said that I do not think the mention of the Baltic states should be there in any case. Mellk (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your response speaks for itself, like I said let someone else weigh in, because it seems at this point you're just trying to put words into my mouth. Russia acts like a terrorist state, gets declared a terrorist state by multiple countries, this is covered by WP:RS, this is added to the article. It's that simple, there is no "official designation" whatever that means in this scenario.
So it seems you want to avoid the question, I think it's pretty important both for this discussion and insight into your wider conduct on this site, you said "If you believe that these parliamentary statements are one of the most important points about the war that they should be mentioned in the article about the country, we can remove the recent addition you made to address the problem with undue weight". The only content I have recently added was in this diff, about the very much established and notable fact that Russia has been accused of committing numerous war crimes. Obviously I'm not sure about the sincerity in your "proposal", but sure seems to me like you're implying choosing between the two.
I have no idea how removing content that is clearly WP:DUE to keep content you strongly argue is not would be a sensible solution in any way shape or form. But I would love to see you try to make the same arguments about Russian war crimes in Ukraine, are you going to call those WP:UNDUE too? TylerBurden (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a waste of time because you cannot interpret the sources correctly. There are far more important developments in the war (that are not even mentioned) and the section needs to be a reasonable size, but you believe that parliamentary statements are among the most important details. Mellk (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I explained my reasons for removing this particular part. But, yes, your aspersions are not shocking. Tell me more about your concerns about conduct. Mellk (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather use this venue for the article, you still have not answered the question about your "recent addition" proposal, ignoring things don't make them go away. Should I take your silence as you backtracking then? TylerBurden (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was sarcasm. But as you have already said, let somebody else weigh in. I have no interest in discussing this further with you. Mellk (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mellk here; these declarations are entirely symbolic and have little real meaning; additionally, something being WP:DUE or enduring information is not determined by how important a user thinks something is, but how much weight it is given by reliable sources; and thus far evidence that these resolutions (and as Mellk said, just government statements, not events of the war itself) are due in the top-level article has not been given. Having around a third to a half of the text on the invasion about solely reactions to it and the following events is far too much, and the content in question here (from [1]) should definitely go unless other concise overviews of the invasion include the resolutions (which so far I have not seen). Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was also going to suggest mentioning the ICC arrest warrants and Ukrainian incursion into the Kursk region instead, since I think these are very significant for obvious reasons. But I figured it would be a good idea to have a discussion about the content that currently exists before adding more. Mellk (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we're not removing Russian war crimes, which no one other than you have made even the implication of doing, I would agree with this. TylerBurden (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is this sentence: "Russia, as one of the world's only three countries bordering three oceans...", but the hyperlink under "bordering three oceans" leads to a chart that states there are only two countries which definitely border three oceans (Russia and Canada) and up to four more that might border three depending on how you divide the oceans.
Or just "Russia borders three oceans." Why does it matter if Canada, US, or anyone else also border three oceans, it's irrelevant to this page. Also, the next sentence mentions Russia's many links to many seas, but doesn't actually list any seas at all. 100.2.216.242 (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the situation between China and Taiwan where China claims Taiwan but does not control Taiwan, Russia controls Crimea. Therefore, Crimea is claimed by Ukraine, controlled by Russia. The Russian official map shows Crimea as part of Russia.
China also claims all of Fujian; France claims Champagne. It is perfectly explicable what the article means with this verbiage; a concerted attempt to switch it in this manner would be utterly tendentious. Remsense ‥ 论17:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Claim means nothing. Any country can claim any part of the world at any time. It doesn't mean the said country has the means to take it and defend it.
That's a little silly: any country can claim something, but this only happens in very specific situations. China doesn't claim Champagne. Remsense ‥ 论17:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is claimed by Russia, which is at odds with the view of the international community, such as it is. That is obviously why the distinction is being made, and it is clear from the prose what is meant here—especially given the detailed footnote. The other option would be using three shades of green for claimed but uncontrolled, controlled, and internationally recognized, which is disastrous for visualizing information. Remsense ‥ 论17:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the correct wording should be occupied territories. For example, on the wikipedia Israel map, Golan is referred to as occupied territory despite Trumpf recognized it as Israeli territory in 2019.
Again, that would not be correct, because Russia does not presently occupy the entirety of the Donbas (or Kursk Oblast, for that matter). Remsense ‥ 论17:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, in the case of Crimea, Russia controls the entire Crimea. So I think the correct term should be occupied territory, to be consistent with the wikipedia Israel map.
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
