Talk:Russia

Lead: "ongoing invasion"

What is the coy reference "ongoing invasion"? It should read: "the ongoing invasion of Ukraine" -- no unencyclopedic reductionism and without a concealed interior WP link. Grammar: "Ranks by per capita" is faulty English; the term "per" fully expresses the relationship. The added preposition "by" is simply painful. 71.255.77.207 (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

And “has been militarily involved” is a euphemism. Russia is violently violating the sovereignty of states in many or most of these cases.  —Michael Z. 17:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It does seem that the English Wikipedia article "Russia" is tainted with euphemism. French and German Wikipedia wouldn't allow such wobbly discourse, but English Wikipedia editors permit it. 71.255.77.207 (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Authoritarianism to totalitarianism?

Hello!

In the description of the government in the infobox, I think that we should replace "authoritarian" to "totalitarian". Through the years, Russia had a hybrid regime, then an authoritarian regime, and now, it is fully a totalitarian regime. I have sources explaining that. Here are examples : https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/03/14/from-authoritarianism-to-totalitarianism-how-the-war-has-changed-russia-a80413

https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/04/19/putin-s-war-has-moved-russia-from-authoritarianism-to-hybrid-totalitarianism-pub-86921

I wanted to made this edit and to include theses sources, but then I read that it is better to go to the discussion page to make a consensus, as it is obviously a contentious topic.

Thanks! FaChol (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

By Dahl's definition totalitarianism = dictatorship + forced ideology. So, I see dictatorship, I see censorship of dissenting opinions, but I do not see an ideology being forced upon unwilling Russian citizens. Do mind that propaganda that Russia is great, and that Putin is great do not amount to an ideology. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

One more important source regarding dictatorship

I think in the top-right sidebar where it says "Government Federal semi-presidential republic under an authoritarian dictatorship[8][9][10][11]" you should add the following page as an additional source: https://pace.coe.int/en/news/9254/pace-urges-the-international-community-no-longer-to-recognise-putin-s-legitimacy-as-president-beyond-2024 78.82.202.108 (talk) 13:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Almost all sources for this are from Western countries, and likely biased and propaganda. Undashing (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Please discuss and reach consensus for your removal of sourced info. I see no justification for it. Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

All material written in Western countries is likely biased and propaganda while everything ever written in Eastern countries is absolutely objective? Is that the premise you want us to buy into? Largoplazo (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Um yeah, West is very biased against Russia Undashing (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It's very biased of you to make a blanket statement like that about the entire West. Largoplazo (talk) 09:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Undashing This isn't a forum for your opinions on the West, you have been made aware of WP:ARBEE on your talk page and this article is part of it. Stop removing referenced content without gaining consensus and misusing this talk page as a forum for your personal blanket statements, it's WP:DISRUPTIVE. TylerBurden (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps Ruwiki is more for you than Wikipedia which at least still attempts to be an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. TylerBurden (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, a more common sense and NPOV rule approach should be to just say that Russia is Federal semi presidential republic under an authoritarian goverment, by the way, "authoritarian ditactorship" doesn't make sense as a combination of words 82.58.182.210 (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

"Federal" - is Russia really?

Since we already go by one de facto description, namely that Russia is a dictatorship and not a democracy, shouldn't we also note how it's not really federal? In fact it has never been a federal state in its entire history. Moscow is prime, even more than Paris is for France (a country which is still the very definition of a unitary state).

• I propose describing the system of Russia as de jure federal and de facto unitary. Or perhaps just that it's a unitary state outright.

79.191.227.130 (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that support this? Curbon7 (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

It depends on what "really federal" means, but since independence (and most especially since 2004) there has been a reduction in regional power and authority within the law, and a further distance still between that law and how rule functions in practice. This book from 2018 described the system as "politically centralized but administratively decentralized", noting "the practice of intergovernmental relations in Russia in the 2010s is similar to relations between national and regional governments in a unitary state". (I would be intrigued to read this book from 2020 by a law professor in Russia, which as chapter titles such as "Movement from Federalism to Unitarism".) CMD (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

That seems like a good enough source. HetmanWL (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2023

Replace in the first sentence " or the Russian Federation" with ", officially the Russian Federation" Swissairproud001 (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: What's wrong with the current wording? Liu1126 (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

In other country pages, the lede starts with e.g. "X, officially the Republic of X" etc. HetmanWL (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Both names are official.  —Michael Z. 17:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

War crimes should be mentioned in the lead

There is strong evidence that Russia has committed war crimes - not just in the recent war against Ukraine, but in the war against Chechnya and possibly against Georgia as well, in addition to war crimes overseas in Syria and Africa. This should be briefly covered in the lead.VR _talk 03:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I boldly added

Russia has reportedly committed war crimes in Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine and Syria.

. VR _talk 15:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

See MOS:LEAD. Mellk (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you clarify? VR _talk 01:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I think all world powers have committed war crimes. Are you saying all of them should have said info in their leads? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This looks more for the sake of an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument at Talk:Israel. Mellk (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

No, it looks more like a neutral point of view issue. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

If a significant number of reliable sources mention that a country has committed war crimes, then this should absolutely be mentioned in the lead. In the case of Russia this is true, and you can see the sources at Russian war crimes.VR _talk 03:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEAD, Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

A significant number of reliable sources mention that borscht is a well-known traditional soup in Russia. So borscht should absolutely be mentioned in the lead.

Have I successfully illustrated that more factors than coverage in reliable sources are involved in deciding whether something belongs in the lead? Largoplazo (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

So what in your view are those other factors? VR _talk 06:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

That’s too specific. The context of all of these atrocity crimes, including crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide, against Russia’s own subjects, neighbouring states, and newly subjugated nations, is an authoritarian state using oppression, foreign occupation, and wars of aggression. The lead should say that Russia has throughout its history and to this day been an expansive colonial power.  —Michael Z. 05:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Isn't this article about the post-1991 state? The USSR for example has its own article.VR _talk 00:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. For example, Vladislav Inozemtsev calls it “The Last Colonial Empire.” Timothy Snyder says “The War in Ukraine is a Colonial War.” Two scholars discuss “How Putin’s invasion of Ukraine connects to 19th-century Russian imperialism.” Botakoz Kassymbekova examines How Western scholars overlooked Russian imperialism.” Alasdair McCallum says “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is about imperialism, not NATO.” Volodymyr Yermolenko says Russian literature is “Full of Imperial Ideology” to this day. Lynne Hartnett describes “The long history of Russian imperialism shaping Putin’s war.” Olivia Durand published “An analysis of Putin's imperial ambitions and Ukraine's 300-year road to statehood.” Michael Hikari Cecire wrote a paper concerning “the inherently imperial motivations behind Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine.” Alexander Etkind says “the twenty-first century is watching the imperial resurgence of post-Soviet Russia” (p 4).

This is certainly notable. Much of the world failed to predict or adequately respond to every stage of the largest European war since WWII: the invasion and occupation of Crimea, Russia’s war against Ukraine in the Donbas, the huge escalation of 2022 (and Ukraine’s resistance), multiple “annexations” of occupied and unreachable Ukrainian territory, the continuing statements of the intention to occupy more of Ukraine.

Directly related to this and significant enough to include among the superlatives in the lead is that Russia is the first and only state to conduct a war of conquest using nuclear threats.  —Michael Z. 01:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

The first human settlement on Russia dates back to the Oldowan period in the early Lower Paleolithic. About 2 million years ago. No, it is not just about the post-1991 state. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 December 2023

Based on the sufficient source provided by User:Chipmunkdavis (above in the topic "Federal" - is Russia really?), replace the description of Russia's system in the infobox from "federal" to de jure federal de facto unitary HetmanWL (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead: Invaded Georgia and illegally annexed Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhia, and Kherson

"militarily involved" and "conflicts with neighboring countries" is euphemisms for the largest invasion of a European country since World War II and the annexations are internationally recognized as illegal this should be corrected in the lead. Monochromemelo1 (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

It already says "internationally unrecognised annexations" and "invasion". This is already a plenty strong treatment to supply in the lead, the purpose of which is to give a range of general background information on Russia, not to concentrate on condemning it in the strongest terms possible for its current actions. Largoplazo (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Nazi Germany is remembered not for its annexations but for its aggressive wars. Nuremberg trials . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Which, in the lead of Germany, are covered in half a sentence without superlatives. Largoplazo (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Germany is different from Nazi Germany and history describes recent and ongoing events more broadly. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

And the totalitarian russian dictatorship is not yet on the level of Nazi Germany. It’s simply a far-right dictatorship, and it isn’t the only one…. There are actually a bunch of far-left and far-right totalitarian propaganda-type states on the world, and currently none of them is to the level of those of the past. It just isn’t possible anymore. And besides, russians aren’t at fault, the far-right government is! And yet I bet some russians are patriotic. Nazi Germany is Germany, and Germany feels guilt, yet the lede isn’t going in depth. Encyclopédisme (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

A little beside the point, I suppose, but since you said it, I want to respond. I'm very concerned about the notion that "It just isn't possible anymore" to be to the level of Nazi Germany. That attitude, generally held, is a sure way to allow someone or somewhere to descend to that level, while we all deny it. I'm sure that in the 1930s, people would have thought that the Holocaust could not happen in the 20th century in western Europe. I happen to believe that something comparable to the Holocaust IS happening in the USA. I'm sure many people reading this would vehemently disagree (if I said what I'm referring to), and a lot of people would regard me as a wicked person--a monster--for even thinking that. If we're never allowed to compare anything to Nazi Germany's Holocaust, it follows that we're not allowed to learn from it. Uporządnicki (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The problem is international order, and nuclear weapons. It isn’t possible anymore. Plus Putin is still autocratizing his federation… so he’s far from finished yet. At least there hasn’t been something like it for a some time now. This is why I don’t like the comparison with Hitler’s invasion of Austria. Realistically, no one, not even Putin, wants that type of war again, simply because it isn’t possible anymore. Everyone is well fortified within they’re positions. Now I suggest we stop, and talk about the lede instead, because we’re making original research pure right now. Encyclopédisme (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's approach this from the direction we should have. Can you imagine any history book on Russia published after 2022 and not mentioning 2022 invasion? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

No I can’t. I just feel like it’s a little too much to post what was proposed in the lede. However I’m open to new suggestions! Going a little more in depth would be good. What I meant (I went a little far, a admit) is that it’s not world war 2, yet. Everything you mentioned is perfectly summarized in the article. Only the lede is a little short. Because that’s not all that happened in Russia since the 90s. Assuming the Russian federation lasts, we can’t compare it to nazi germany. Anyway, that was my point. Cheers, and happy new year. Encyclopédisme (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I vote that the very least the lead should mention 2014 Crimea invasion and annexation and the start of R-U war and the 2022 full-scale invasion. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to be a bit cautious of WP:RECENTISM - this is an article about a country with a thousand year history, a couple of sentences for Putin in a four-paragraph lead, as at present, seems about right. But the current wording is euphemistic - Russia was not "militarily involved in" the annexation of Crimea - Russia annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine, which the current wording entirely fails to communicate. I don't think we need to pontificate on exactly how condemnatory our language needs to be; just make sure we are actually stating the most important generally agreed facts. TSP (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

+ 1. I agree with the above comment. Encyclopédisme (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree its not a direct comparison its just the current lead is very euphemistic about Russia's invasions and occupations of post soviet states like Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine in both 2014 and 2022, i think it should also mention Russia's role in the War in Donbas 👍 Monochromemelo1 (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes these are recent, but they are also notable and warrant explicit, euphemism-free mention in the lead:

• The Russo-Ukrainian War, largest European war since WWII, largest war in Russia’s 33-year history, first war of aggression in which nuclear threats were used, in which Russia violated the Genocide Convention by inciting genocide and possibly committing genocide.
• Military and political interference with and dominance of neighbouring states including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine throughout the RF’s 33-year history, a continuation of Moscow’s imperialist conquests and maintenance of spheres of influence since the beginning of the history of Russia’s predecessors.

Keep in mind this is an article about a 33-year-old state. Events during its independent existence warrant more weight in the lead than events covered by main articles about its predecessors, the RSFSR (and its sovereign state, the USSR), Russian empire, and Muscovy.  —Michael Z. 22:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow. This is going a bit far (Although I already saw you prior to this). In a preamble I need to say that I am opposed to anything like WikiVoice. The current lead is euphemistic, but this is just too much. America’s politics can be qualified imperialism, but yet that’s not mentioned in that article. And Russia’s politics are definitely imperialism, but mentioning it would make it a news article, and really, really unbalanced. The thing is, no matter how much I agree and how much newspapers agree, I am opposed to WikiVoice, it’s wrong, let’s stay indifferent and do this like we do for any other article, the republic of Cuba isn’t mentioned as being a dictatorship in lede. I am for the proposition made by TSP, and not for the above. It just seems a little unfair to put all of that in the lede of a country which will continue to exist, and continue to terrorize its neighbors. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

In addition to this, the Russian Federation is the modern state of Russia, therefore, just like France has more history than the fifth republic in its intro, or Germany than the Federal Republic, Russia, in this article, is not just the Russian federation, but the state of Russia. The lede needs to mention Muscovy, the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and the current Russian Federation and its crimes and wars. Encyclopédisme (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

What would your proposal specifically be like? Let's process with the changes. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Russia annexed and invaded those territories, breaking international law, they weren’t "militarily involved". Encyclopédisme (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks everybody agrees on that so I made the change. We can discuss further changes however. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the subject of the sentence should be the encompassing event, the Russo-Ukrainian War, in the context of which the invasion of Crimea, its annexation, the 2014 de-facto occupation of part of eastern Ukraine, and the escalating 2022 invasion and claimed annexations in contested territory were committed.  —Michael Z. 23:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Not all of the conflicts in the post-Soviet states that Russia was involved in were invasions. For Ukraine, yes, but if we are talking about all of the conflicts broadly, then "militarily involved" or something along those lines would have to do. Mellk (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

But the current phrase only mentions Crimea and Ukraine. So "militarily involved" has no place there. Encyclopédisme (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t understand. It’s a vague phrase that needs improvement, but it is correct because it says “in a number of conflicts in neighbouring states, which have included . . . .”

Russia has conducted military operations in Moldova, Georgia, and Azerbaijan, through the territory and airspace of Belarus, and in Ukraine (with kinetic effects in Poland, Moldova, Romania, and Croatia). It also has troops stationed in Armenia, and I believe directly controls Armenian border crossings. It has used military force or military presence to violate or affect the sovereignty of each of these states, including, for example, applying pressure on Ukraine for concrete goals between 1991 and 2014. I’m less familiar with Central Asia, but probably there too.  —Michael Z. 17:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, my two points above are the reasons these things are notable and should be mentioned in the lead, not a proposed text.

The Soviet Union had 12 or 15 successor states, depending on whether you count the occupied Baltics, and was not the “state of Russia.” The RSFSR was not a continuator state of the empire, because the Bolsheviks refused to accept any continuation of rights and obligations, and the USSR was not the RSFSR but a union of several countries, only one of which being Russia. I certainly did not say the lead shouldn’t mention previous states on the RF’s territory.  —Michael Z. 23:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

We can use short summaries from after-2022 academic books as an inspiration for that. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mzajac: De Jure, no. De facto, yes. The Soviet Union came directly out of the Russian Empire and it’s capital was a Russian city, and a previous capital, Moscow. In, preamble, I hate national myth just as much as WikiVoice, no matter Ukrainian or Russian. I’m not saying your wrong, I’m saying the Soviet Union was predominantly Russian (I have no idea if Russian historians said some bullshit about this, and now it’s controversial, like many other things, but it is true, in a way). It’s most important region was Russia (not just because of the size) and most (not all, obviously) of its politicians were russian. Encyclopédisme (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Plus, in that case, Russia, within the Soviet Union, was a successor to the Russian Empire, and that to Moscovy (The city-state of Moscow, which through its conquests became the Tsardom of Russia, then Russian Empire, which had a revolution in 1917, which made it a communist state, in which russia was made one state among others, which were granted their independence, and that socialist state fell apart three decades ago, granting its states full independence, including Russia, which is now terrorizing its neighbors on the ground of retrograd passéiste imperialist arguments, even though these nations had their independence already in one time or another before, and have their own sovereign cultures). Encyclopédisme (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Let’s not pursue this line of thought in depth because it concerns principles, and not directly relevant to proposed text. But please keep in mind that Ukraine, etc. were colonies of Moscow régimes much like Canada and India were colonies of the UK, or like much of Romania was a colony of Hungary, except Western historiography has had a harder time coming to terms with it in the late twentieth century, and even up to today.[1]  —Michael Z. 23:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you imagine any history book on Russia published after 2022 and not mentioning 2022 invasion? In the first paragraph or two? Yes, absolutely. Unless the book's publication was triggered by the invasion, unless it was written as a sort of "how did we get here?" treatment, I would be surprised to find it given special attention in the lead. Largoplazo (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The wide-ranging introduction of Galeotti’s A Short History of Russia (2021)[2] seems to mention the annexation of Crimea before any other event in Russia’s post-Soviet history.  —Michael Z. 23:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The introduction to Figes’s The Story of Russia (2022, a history centred on historical memory)[3] starts with the 2016 unveiling of the Moscow statue of Volodymyr the great, a parable of Putin’s historical memory war with Ukraine, mentioning the annexation of Crimea early on and getting into the meat of it on the second page.

Both of these books show that the perennial “Ukrainian question” is a key part of Russian history, historical memory, and identity, and the current war innately intertwined with it.  —Michael Z. 00:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mellk, regarding your revert [4], what your proposal for the lead would be? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mellk, are you going to participate in finding new consensus? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Why did you remove illegal from the annexations? Russia's first invasion was in 2014 when they illegally Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and entered and armed their proxies in War in Donbas all Russian annexations are internationally unrecognized and contrary to international law and violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. Monochromemelo1 (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

And the proposed phrasing would be? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

this is my proposed phrasing

Russia has been militarily invaded and occupied a number of Post-Soviet states from Moldova, Georgia (country), and Ukraine. In 2014 Russia illegally annexed Crimea from neighboring Ukraine while supporting Russian proxies during the War in Donbas, followed by another Russian invasion of Ukraine in which they further annexed of four other regions which remains internationally unrecognized. Monochromemelo1 (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Get rid of the redundant "militarily". How else do you think readers might understand "invaded" and "occupied" if "military" isn't stated explicitly? Educationally? Artistically? Recreationally? Largoplazo (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

yeah the phrasing is a little wonky help with refusion is apricated Monochromemelo1 (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

didnt mean refusion i meant revision lol Monochromemelo1 (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Russia has invaded and occupied a number of post-soviet states including Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine. In 2014 Russia illegally annexed Crimea while supporting Russian proxies during the war in Donbas, and in 2022 Russia led a full scale invasion of Ukraine, annexing four regions of the country, which remain internationally unrecognized: How about that? Encyclopédisme (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

that sounds better Monochromemelo1 (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

It does not seem an improvement on the current text. The adding of chosen specifics shifts the impression from the much broader political/military adventurism during the 21st century, as well as flattening different situations. CMD (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok. But we need to specifically mention Crimea and Ukraine. Point. End. Finish. They are important enough. Largely. Russia has not been "militarily involved" in these conflicts we need to specifically mention due to the importance they have attained, and will keep for the rest of history, Russia was the only participant in its annexation of Crimea, and invasion of Ukraine, both of which are internationally unrecognized. The past text was euphemistic. While it is part of a general pattern of keeping a grip over its zone of influence, these conflicts above are important enough to be specifically mentioned (which they are) and to have their own phrase. As a sort of specific exemple. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you clarify what is the past text you refer to? Crimea and Ukraine have been specifically mentioned in the lead for at least the past 50 revisions. CMD (talk) 03:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

In their own sentence, separated from the "militarily involved". As in, annexed and invaded. We can separate the single sentence into 2 is what I mean. The new second sentence being specifically about Ukraine and Crimea. But the first part, now an individual phrase, simply limiting itself to state the broader scheme of military conflicts which Russia was involved since the 2000s. What I am saying is that the conflict with Ukraine is notable enough to be mentioned as a specific exemple. Encyclopédisme (talk) 04:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

As is for proposals. Really if we’re already done here, then why discuss anymore. You seemed to have indicated that the phrase should be just about the broader scheme. If you meant to say that, then the above comments are the reasons I would disagree. Cheers. Encyclopédisme (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The edits made were reverted, so no, the current version is not what was proposed (the "past version". Didn’t last long. Read the discussion please) Did you read the discussion? This is about Ukraine and Crimea having their own sentence, since Russia was not just militarily involved, it annexed and invaded. These conflicts are important enough to be mentioned separately from the general scheme of military involvement in post soviet states. Encyclopédisme (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we may be letting the perfect be the enemy of the good here. We're now a week into this conversation and the article still does not clearly say in the lead that Russia annexed Crimea or invaded Ukraine. Whether the annexation was internationally recognised, whether it was illegal, and whether they appear in separate sentences, are less important points than actually saying that Russia did these things (being "militarily involved in" in them doesn't clearly mean carrying them out - indeed, it could even mean being involved in opposing them). TSP (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The lead does states that annexations took place and that an invasion is happening. I find it hard to read it in a way that suggests it was another state carrying out these. Would changing "the internationally unrecognised" to "its internationally unrecognised" help? CMD (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

It says they are taking place, but not with any clarity who is doing them. "Russia has been militarily involved in a number of conflicts in neighbouring states, which have included the internationally unrecognised annexations of Crimea..." could mean a whole host of things - if I didn't already know, I would probably guess this meant Russia having a minor military involvement in an action by another nation (given the context of "conflicts in neighbouring states"). "Its" would be an improvement, but still feels an extremely indirect way to refer to the subject of the article carrying out the largest military invasion of the last 75 years. TSP (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Russia has done minor military involvements as well, electronic warfare, and other activity within a spectrum of boundary pushing, so it does cover what you guess. I have made the Crimea its tweak and slightly changed the language to be more active. CMD (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

“Unsourced changes”

Hi, @Mellk. Your revert with the summary “unsourced changes”[5]: what is unsourced? There is little substantial change, and I believe all the factual statements are either newly sourced or already sourced.  —Michael Z. 20:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

So which source says Russians used "руська земля" (a modern Ukrainian name) in the 15th–17th centuries? Mellk (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It says “often referred to by its inhabitants as Rus' or the Russian land.” I transcribed the OES from Kyivan Rus. Please correct the Russian spelling instead of nuking all improvements, including correcting misinterpretations from sources.  —Michael Z. 21:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I believe I had written руськая or русьская, my browser window crashed, and I got it wrong the second time. There were multiple improvements. Can you please try assuming good faith and taking a moment being constructive instead of always being obstructive with the revert button?  —Michael Z. 21:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The source says "Russian land" yet you removed this. I didn't revert your first edit because I did not see issues with it, so your claim that I am "nuking all improvements" is false, as is the claim that all your changes were improvements. I also asked you which source uses the Ukrainian name, but sure, I am used to your aspersions at this point. Mellk (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The way it’s now written “still” after 1387 implies that OES роусьскаѧ землѧ, rusĭskaę zemlę, “Rus’ Land” was “Russian Land.” It’s wrong.

It also refers to “The Finnish word for Swedes” implying modern Finnish which is not what the cited source says. It’s wrong.  —Michael Z. 21:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The source says "Russian land" and makes no mention of "роусьскаѧ землѧ" (which, by the way, was not how it was spelled in the 15th to 17th centuries). From the looks of it, you are just disagreeing with the source now. Mellk (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m disagreeing with the misleading text in this article.  —Michael Z. 22:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You quoted the source ("often referred to by its inhabitants as Rus' or the Russian land"), so tell me, how does the following accurately reflect the source: the country was often referred to by its inhabitants as Русь, Rus' or руська земля, ruska zemlya, 'Rus' land'. Mellk (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I found some of the sources.

A new form of the name Rus', Росия (Rosiya), was borrowed from the Greek term and first attested in 1387, – the source, Obolensky, Dimitri (1994),[6] Byzantium and the Slavs, doesn’t seem to say anything of the sort on page 17, and I can’t find “Rosiya,” “Rosiia,” nor “1387” using search inside. Failed verification.

. . . before coming into official use by the 15th century, though the country was still often referred to by its inhabitants as Rus' or the Russian land until the end of the 17th century. I found the 2001 1st edition of Langer (2021), Historical Dictionary of Medieval Russia (s.v. “RUSSIA (ROSSIIA),” p 186): “it appears in the late 15th century but the more accepted term was Rus’. Other terms were the Russian Land . . . Peter the Great renamed Rus’ the Russian Empire.”

And Hellberg-Hirn (1998), Soil and Soul, p 54: “In Russian historical sources, from the end of the 15th century onwards, the word Rossiia (Russia) is occasionally used to refer to the country. But the country was more frequently called Rus, the Russian land, Russkaia zemlia, or the Muscovite state, Moskovskoe gosudarstvo, up to the end of the 17th century.”

Not “by the 15th century.” Not “still,” implying something about earlier use of the other terms.

The current version doesn’t accurately reflect the sources, and I would change it accordingly.  —Michael Z. 04:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I will add that this is not the first time you've made unsourced changes to the etymology section.[7] Mellk (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Whut? My edit you linked to agrees with the current version of the article. The text I changed was wrong. What is your point?  —Michael Z. 22:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You added "indirectly" which is unsupported by the source. When you say the text was wrong, did you simply disagree with it? Mellk (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I made the article better by changing the text so it wasn’t wrong, without contradicting the source whose statement is vague. You’re defending your constant reverts by championing BBC Features correspondent Amy McPherson as a reliable source on etymology. Please cut it out.  —Michael Z. 22:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

If the source is not reliable, you don't add what you think is correct and not cite a different source. And this is coming from a sysop. Mellk (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

“Unsourced/undiscussed”

@Chipmunkdavis I hope you experience the same pleasure as I do in your ironically humourous reversion of my change as “Unsourced/undiscussed”[8] to your unsourced, undiscussed version. —Michael Z. 03:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Main problem with the current text in the lead: it’s all about a major war but, like the Russian government, it refuses to name the war or link to the article on it.  —Michael Z. 03:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)