Misplaced Pages

Talk:Russians: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:22, 18 June 2008 editMaIl89 (talk | contribs)77 edits →Help needed. Kuban Cossack, take a look← Previous edit Latest revision as of 08:02, 3 December 2024 edit undoRsk6400 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users15,278 edits →Semi-protected edit request 2 December 2024: DoneTag: 2017 wikitext editor 
(971 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header |search=yes }}
{{FailedGA|2007-11-20}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{Ethnic groups|class=B|importance=top}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 6
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 2
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Russians/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN
|action1date=20 November 2007
|action1result=not listed
|action1oldid=172771504
|currentstatus=FGAN
}}
{{Round in circles
|archivelink=/Archive index
|canvassing=yes
|topic=reintroducing an image gallery of notable Russians into infobox
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups |importance=high }}
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=top|ethno=yes}}
{{WikiProject Eastern Europe|importance=top}}
}}


== Russians are not Slavs. ==
{{WikiProject Russia|class=B|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Europe|class=B|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Central Asia|class=B|importance=top}}


Greetings ! I am not russian but russian speaking person. Contrasting their language with other Slavic languages I found that some words look different and and even Ukrainian share same lexicon with Czech. ] (]) 07:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
----
'''Archived discussions (oldest first): ] ... ]
----


:Interesting hypothesis, but you are definitely wrong. There are no any doubts between linguists that Russian language is Indo-European language, that belongs to the Slavic language family. The 'lexicon' is not criteria to make such conclusions, especially taking in account the fact that many words in Ukrainian and Czech language have Germanic origin not Slavic (e.g. 'Thank you' - German 'Danke' - Ukrainian 'djákovati'). Also, some words in Russian have Greek origin. So you cannot assume the language family by just comparing the words. In that case you could take Ukrainian 'djákovati' (Germanic origin) and compare with Russian 'spasibo' (Slavic origin) and make a conclusion that Ukrainian is not Slavic language. It is silly, but it makes as much sense as your comment.Interesting hypothesis, but you are definitely wrong. There is no any doubts for between lindquist that Russian language is Indo-European language, that belongs to the Slavic language family. The 'lexicon' is not criteria to make such conclusions, especially taking in account the fact that many words in Ukrainian and Czech language have germanic origin, neither slavic (e.g. 'Thank you' - German 'Danke' - Ukrainian 'djákovati'). Also some words in Russian have greek origin. So you cannot assume the language family by just comparing the words. In that case you could take Ukrainian 'djákovati' (germanic origin) and compare with Russian 'spasibo' (slavic origin) and make a conclusion that Ukrainian is not slavic language. It is silly, but it makes as much sense as your comment. ] (]) 23:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


::Essentially a ] thread that should have been reverted. - ] (]) 17:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
<!-- Please take material to archive from below this point - thanks -->
::As a person from Ukraine I'd question if Russians are really Slavic. This can be completely wrong so please no hate. But I clearly remember from History lessons that Russia is originally named Moscowia and came from Golden Horde. It got renamed as Russia only in October 22, 1721.
::"The tsars of Moscow and, later, Russia understood that without an imposing past it was impossible to create a great nation and empire. Therefore it was necessary to glorify their historical roots and even to hijack the history of other nations. So, starting with Ivan the Terrible (1533-1584) the tsars of Moscow applied all their efforts to appropriate the history of Kyivan Rus, its glorious past, and to create an official mythology for the Russian Empire." ] (]) 17:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
:::I would like to clarify that, regarding Kievan Rus, at least in the parts currently within the Russian Federation (including what are often referred to as Muscovy and other principalities, as well as the medieval republics of Novgorod and Pskov), these areas were never physically occupied by the Mongols. There were no Mongol garrisons, as demonstrated by historical accounts, archaeological evidence, and genetic studies. Instead, the princes were required to pay tribute by traveling to Sarai and acknowledging Mongol suzerainty. The Mongols established their state to the south of the Volga, approximately a thousand to two thousand kilometers away from Slavic settlements, in territories inhabited by nomadic tribes. This territory included present-day Kazakhstan, the southern Pontic steppes, and the southern Volga region in today’s Kalmykia, extending at one point as far as the Carpathians.
:::Furthermore, a study of autosomal markers indicates that northern Russians (from the region of present-day Saint Petersburg up to Veliky Ustyug) share genetic connections with other European populations, raising questions about the significance of the Finno-Ugric migratory layer within the genetic makeup of northern Russians. These findings support the notion that a paleo-European substratum from prehistoric times has been preserved in these territories, even amidst the significant migrations of Slavic tribes.
:::According to studies on Y-chromosome markers, the central-southern group, which encompasses the majority of Russian populations, is genetically aligned with Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Poles. In terms of mitochondrial markers and autosomal markers, Russians show similarities with other populations in Central and Eastern Europe. A notable genetic unity in autosomal markers has been found among East Slavic populations, along with distinct genetic differences from neighboring Finno-Ugric, Turkic, and North Caucasian peoples.
:::This has been confirmed by genogeographic expeditions conducted by the Scientific Center for Medical Genetics at the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, which collected and analyzed more than 10,000 DNA samples from individuals of Russian nationality between 2000 and 2008. All samples indicated a genetic profile that is fully European. Research by Malyarchuk et al. on mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomes in Russian populations supports this conclusion.
:::This finding aligns with scientific research on Russian anthropology and genetics, including recent studies on Russian patrilineal heritage and mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome differentiation. Studies led by various researchers have shown that ethnic Russians are genetically European, with negligible contributions from Turkic or Caucasian groups. The frequencies of East Eurasian genetic markers in Russians correspond with average markers found across the rest of Europe.
:::All existing biological and genetic studies have made previous hypotheses regarding the mixing between Russians and non-European ethnic groups obsolete. Among northern Russians, the contribution of Baltic genetic markers is now recognized to be more significant than that of Finno-Ugric markers, which are now understood to be lower than previously thought. ] (]) 13:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
::::{{Ping|125AB}} Misplaced Pages is based on reliable sources (see ]) and on consensus (see ]). That means that you have to stop reverting to your preferred version if you see that other editors disagree. There are no reliable sources supporting pseudo-scientific terms like ]. ] (]) 18:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:Ultimate original research fail ] (]) 01:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
:Interesting hypothesis, but Misplaced Pages isn't the place for spreading ] and ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


== Neutrality of section on Religions ==
==Reasoning for 125-135 million change==


Jews are not mentioned in that section, seemingly because they are not "ethnic Russians". Defining ethnic Russians in a way that excludes Jews seems to be original research based on an idea of ethnicity being determined primarily by a person's "blood" (or genetics). ] (]) 06:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Whether being "racy" or not, it is a fact that many of Russia's minority groups frequently register as Russians, and in addition to that many are overreported due to Russian estimates (it's not easy to take a census in Siberia). Here is some evidence online, though there are many better sources offline stating the same:


== Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2024 ==
'''According to this publication, the percentage of the population that is ethnically Russian has declined from 81.5 in 1989 to 71.7 in 2002.'''


{{edit semi-protected|Russians|answered=yes}}
Source: http://www.csis.org/ruseura/ponars/policymemos/pm_0319.pdf
Remove total population. It's misleading and unsourced. ] (]) 00:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
: ] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> It looks like all the population numbers are sourced. Please be specific about what you want changed. ] (]) 00:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


== Ethnic group ? ==
'''According to the census of the Russian Federation, the number of ethnic Russians was 104 million out of 144.2 million of the overall population in Russia. Considering the fact that demographic figures in Russia have always been considered to be a national security issue, then proceeding from Soviet/Russian practice of demographic overstatements, you can say for sure that the number of 104 ethnic Russians is set too high and it's already been quite a while since the real number of ethnic Russians sank under the psychological mark of 100 million.'''


Since ], there have been at least two definitions of Russians: Ethnic Russians and subjects / citizens of the Russian Empire. In Russian there are even two words: русские and another one (российский) derived from "Russia". There is no reason why this article should only be about ethnic Russians. The formula "are an East Slavic ethnic group native to Eastern Europe, who share a common Russian ancestry, culture, and history." is similar to many other articles, but there is no source for it, and it doesn't match the specific Russian history. ] (]) 06:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=IBR20050106&articleId=375


:{{Ping|Undashing}} Would you please take part in this discussion that I started two weeks ago before restoring claims that are totally unsourced ? ] (]) 12:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Please do not be foolish and stop reverting the edits. Thank you ] 23:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
::{{Ping|Rsk6400}} Other ethnic groups in Russia have their own separate articles e.g. ]. No reason to hijack this one and make it all about the "multiculturalism" and deny the existence of the East Slavic core population of Russia, who compose 80% of the total population of the federation. Unless you have an agenda. Then go forward because no one cares and no one will stop you anyway. ] (]) 19:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
:If so, add to the articles that official estimates are being criticized but do not remove them as a whole. --] 23:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
:::My edits had nothing to do with any of the things you accused me of. Can you give me a good source for the formula I mentioned in my post of 23 June ? Why should we not mention that "Russians" has two meanings? Russians are the only people I know of having two different words for the ethnicity and the citizenship. If this article is to deal with ethnic Russians only, it should be renamed "Ethnic Russians". ] (]) 07:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
::::There is a separate article named ]. This article should not be named "Ethnic Russians". That is utterly confusing. Secondly, most people in this world are ignorant i.e. they have little knowledge about geography, history, ethnic groups, cultures, social customs, classes etc. The word "Russian" was synonymous with the word "Slav" for a very long time in the West. I would say it was as such just before 2022 invasion of Ukraine. So, when people think about the word "Russian", they think about the Slavic ethnic group, that are the Russians, who compose the majority of Russia's population.


::::It is not very hard to grasp the fact that all ethnic groups in Russia are of Russian nationality but not of Russian ethnicity. And this might disappoint you, but people are not searching for Dagestanis or Yakuts when they search the word "Russians". ] (]) 09:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Why not? I'm still putting that 135 million is a possible statistics -- why do "official statistics" hold dominance over more obvious ones. The "official statistic" of English in America is 25 million, but CLEARLY that is an underestimate and so it is not presented.
:::::In English, the Russians is also how ] is translated to. ] (]) 09:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::This article was made for the Slavic Russians, whose namesake the federation uses. To omit the sections reserved for the ethnic Russians and make this article a multicultural salad like the article ] is pointless considering all of the minority ethnic groups in Russia have their own separate articles. So I do not support that.


::::::A point to be noted is that in Russia minority ethnic groups have their own separate identity and culture, which is distinct from the majority Slavic population. Such as the ], the Mongolic peoples who are the only Buddhist bunch in Europe. Peoples such as ] also do not identify as "Russian", but rather as their own separate identity and culture. The word "ethnic" itself is puzzling. It often refers to ]. Most readers would have 0 idea about what the supposed "ethnic" Russians are supposed to be. ] (]) 10:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Somebody reverted my edits that were alotted to me in the main text. This shows clear nationalistic bias. Any further edits of the like will be seen as "vandalism" or "coverup" and taken to the wikipedian authorities for analysis, for there is no reason why both are not allowed to be presented. ] 20:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::::It's sad that you didn't reply to my concerns regarding the missing sourcing for the formula "who share a common Russian ancestry, culture, and history". Also: To restrict this article to ethnic Russians only, we'd need good reasons based on reliable sources. Please make yourself familiar with ], ], and ].
:::::::Russian identity is linked to the justification of the war in Ukraine, therefore ] applies (see also ]), that means that you are not allowed to edit this article before becoming extended confirmed, while I'm allowed to revert you (Remedies C and D of WP:GS/RUSUKR). ] (]) 09:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|1=This article was made for the Slavic Russians}}<br>We can extend the body with regard to arguments above.{{pb}}{{tq|1=To omit the sections reserved for the ethnic Russians and make this article a multicultural salad like the article ] is pointless}}<br>You don't need to oppose that since nobody has this intention. See the actual argument above. ] (]) 10:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
:The article is currently categorized under ] and ], so please do not repeatedly restore contested edits. ] (]) 05:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
::Mellk, you surely are able to reply to my concerns, aren't you? ] (]) 06:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
:::It is strange for the lead to include both an ethnic group and nationality while the body refers to ethnic Russians specifically, including origins and history, genetics, geographic distribution etc. This has been discussed many times before, since the article has been referring to the ethnic group for 20 years. You may have noticed the archives on this talk page and other associated pages; ] does not even redirect here. I would suggest to gain consensus on the wording first before continually restoring your changes. ] (]) 06:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
::::"Rossiyane" translates to Russians. The article body can be extended to talk about both meanings but the lead should inform the reader that when they see the word "Russians", it may mean either ] or ] . ] (]) 11:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::The wording should be proposed here and then there should be clear consensus to change this. The wording in the edit by Rsk6400 is something akin to a dictionary definition. Misplaced Pages is ]. ] (]) 11:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::Everybody can improve it instead of deleting. ''... may also denote the people of the multi-ethnic Russian state'' , as it was, is a good start for me. ] (]) 12:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::The body already includes non- ethnic Russians: ], ], ] (father was no ethnic Russian). Shall we really discuss whether ] was an ethnic Russian and then delete him from the article? ] (]) 16:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::He was "hybrid" or something ethnicity (from Gogol article). ] (]) 17:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
The formula "who share a common Russian ancestry, culture, and history" was introduced by user Danloud in . That user has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. ] (]) 05:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)


:A similar sentence was present before that edit. This was four years ago and the same editor added the bulk of the culture section, so I am not sure how ] can be applied here.
:What do you propose should be changed in the lead? The other issue is that the population figures for example represent ethnic Russians (the population of Russia is over 140 million, not 105 million). Before there was ] but it was merged to ] (see ]). If nobody can agree on what the article should fundamentally be about, then this will only cause problems in the future. ] (]) 13:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
::I'd suggest we solve first the question whether the clause {{tq|who share a common Russian ancestry, culture, and history}} should be removed. It is completely unsourced, and so IMHO it has to be removed. Mellk, if you object to the removal, I think you should provide a source. ] (]) 09:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
::: No, instead of your opinion that it's "completely unsourced" it is necessary to refer to the definition of ]. One ethnic group by definition shares a common language, culture, traditions, heritage and history. Otherwise, it is not an ethnic group at all, and within such a group it is impossible to live in the same village, practice farming, craft and trade, communicate effectively with each other, practice a religion, support common traditions and superstitions, understand the context, use idioms and proverbs, make jokes and other things hundreds and thousands of years ago and for hundreds of years. This is the history of all of humankind. ]<sup>]</sup>&nbsp; 05:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)


* I proposed to restore the deleted article ]: ]. ]<sup>]</sup>&nbsp; 04:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Your first quote from the article you said is on this website : http://www.csis.org/ruseura/ponars/policymemos/pm_0319.pdf
** It appears that the article was deleted without proper discussion and against the rules. I now restored the article as ] (this is from the preamble to the ]). I invite to improve the article. ]<sup>]</sup>&nbsp; 06:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
says nothing about ethnic Russians being 71 % of Russian population instead of 80 %. Only some guesswork about official info being false. Your second article : http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=IBR20050106&articleId=375
**:That article was '''not''' deleted but merged after correct discussion, ]. <strike>The only problem that I found so far was that it should have been merged into this article.</strike> ] (]) 07:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
is obviously very biased. Its is written by a Chechen and is taken from extremist web-site Kavkaz org. As soon as you find a ''credible'' reference I'll agree to have both estimates here.
****The article was de facto deleted because the content of the article was lost, and the original topic of discussion was renaming, not deletion and it was against the rules. The notion of citizenship law and the notion of people are different things. These two notions are impossible to merge. An article such as ] exists separately from ] and ethnic ] for example. It's the same in the case of ] (with ]) and ], ] and ] (with ]), ] (with ]) and ], ] (with ]) and ], ] and ] (with ]). ]<sup>]</sup>&nbsp; 08:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
There are to factors I think you don't realize here :
****:{{Ping|RuASG}} WP is built on consensus, that means if a formal discussion reaches a result, a single editor must not revert that result without first gaining consensus in a new discussion. And you are also edit warring. I can't see that any rules have been broken in 2015. On English Misplaced Pages, "delete" has a special meaning. It needs an admin to perform a deletion. BTW: I'm not sure whether you grasp the difference between the two meanings of "people" in English. If the Russian word for "(Multiethnic) people" is narod, the article title you propose is probably wrong or at least misleading. Please self-revert. ] (]) 09:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
1) Ethnicity is based on people's self-identification and culture not just on genes and blood.
2) Illegal immigrants/temprorary residents are not counted in any census/official statistic.
] 21:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request 27 June 2024 ==
You're simply "dismissing" all sources that do not fit your view. I clearly quoted where it talked about the 71% on the first publication above. The second being bias or not is only your opinion. Your assumption that Russian-reported statistics aren't bias is as foolhardy as one can get. The fact that sources exist to the contrary of the 80% mark, and that people bother to publish analysis on the subject is good enough proof as it is. I will not step down until these facts are given a primary mention in the article. ] 22:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
{{Edit semi-protected|answered=yes}}
Revert to revision# 1230356292 from 22 June 2024, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Russians&oldid=1230356292


Edits on 23 June 2024 removed Brazil, Germany, United States, and Israel from the Russian Diaspora list, making it appear that no Russians live in those countries.
Once again the promblem is 1)Your first link re-directs to main CSIS website not to the article you quoted. 2)Your second article is taken from the same website as proclamations of "Holy War" by Basayev and other terrorists who think its nice and dandy to take hostage/rig with boms schools with Russian kids, etc. ] 01:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


I see the reasoning above, the editor removed those countries and population numbers as they included "russian jews" and "russian germans" which the editor does not believe belong in the russian ethnic group. However, it is more appropriate to keep these countries and the population number in the list, with the notation of who is included in that population number, so that readers can be informed. Additionally, this is already clarified in the article which states, "A large Russian diaspora (sometimes including Russian-speaking non-Russians), estimated at 25 million people, has developed all over the world, with notable numbers in the United States, Germany, Brazil, and Canada." Making it more misleading that three of the named countries, United States, Germany, and Brazil, are not in the list.
The first link is a PDF; that means you right click save as.


That's what I did. The same result. ] 04:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


] (]) 13:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Whether the second link is made by terrorists that does not automatically refure their claim...like it or not.


<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Yes it does. ] 04:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


:If we start this article with a certain definition (which I think is wrong), then we have to follow that definition. ] (]) 17:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
::] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] <small> (]) </small> 04:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request 2 December 2024 ==
Can we please come to a consensus? I hate revert wars. Is there any way you will include differing numbers in the population statistics? If no, then we will have to take this up the ladder. ] 15:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


{{Edit semi-protected|answered=yes}}
Please don't confuse "statistics" with "guessworks". One cannot sit in ] and count Russians. If there is a '''reputable''' reseacrh, ie., published in books or peer-reviewed articels, not just in someone's blogs or in ''Chattanooga Chronicler'', you are welcome to present the opposing views. But this can go only as a separate section. ] ] 22:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


In the lead paragraph, please edit:
==Images of Russians in colour photography==
{{textDiff
|The majority of Russians adhere to Orthodox Christianity, ever since the formation of the Russian identity in the Middle Ages.
|The majority of Russians adhere to Orthodox Christianity, ever since the Middle Ages.
}}


The statement that Russian identity formed in the Middle Ages is POV, fringe, or ] at best, and doesn’t belong in the lead (see for e.g. ). Russian identity didn’t suddenly materialize after a dunk in the Dnipro. ] as we generally understand them did not develop until long after the Middle Ages.] (]) 21:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Is it truly necessary to have those on this page? It's not like anyone doesn't know what Russians look like. Plus we already have an image of Russians in traditional dress. ] 00:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
:{{Done}} ] (]) 08:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

:Actually, I think I'd like to have more, better pictures in the various ethnic pages to help people get an understanding of the various physical features of ethnicities. I'm really interested in that kind of thing and I've always considered the Slavic people to be highly attractive in general, but it's hard to tell now because you can't find good enough pictures of the average Russian or Pole without finding a glamour shot of a model. We need more good pictures of the average people on all the ethnic pages, and more than one.

== Demographics Evolution ==

=== Demographics Evolution ===

>>>>>Until the late 19th century, ] was a relatively underpopulated nation, especially when compared to the size of the territory on which it resided. In ], Russia had a population a little over 35 million, of which about a fourth included foreign nationals. By ], Russia's population doubled mainly due to the annexation of new lands from ]'s warfare gains. By the ], Russia had the biggest population in Europe, as Tsarist Russia included many lands of Central Asia, the Caucasus, Eastern Europe, and Siberia. However, Russia's historically relative low population has revealed itself today in a new form. The fall of communism swung many Russians into poverty leading to a significant disparity between Russia's life expectancy and other Western countries'. In almost every area of Russia, death rates outcount birth rates, especially for ethnic Russians. The problem assessed today suggests a possible drop of almost a third of Russia's population in the next several decades.<<<<<

There is a number of problems with this new expansion of the article.

1) several historic inaccurancies , for example Russia could not possible double in size between 1800 and 1850 "mainly due to the annexation of new lands from ]'s warfare gains", for the number of reasons one of them is the fact that Catherine the Great died in 1796.

: One of the best things I have read in a while! :)))) ] 10:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

2)second problem the article talks about demographic situation in the Russian Federation, USSR, the Russian Empire in general and not about ethnic Russians.

I'm glad you like it Nikola, I figured it needed to be added. Anyway, the user who analyzed this was right. It was not Catherine the Great, but in fact, her successor, Alexander the first. I was not paying attention to the dates, as there have been many great land gains under many reigns. Secondly, the article does talk about ethnic Russians, though that is not as pronounced. It is still appropriate here because it reflects the population statistics. ] 03:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Please provide academic references for your population statistics. Some of your claims are very questionable. For example major territorial expansions of Russia were in 16th, 17th and 18th centuries not between 1800 and 1850. ] 21:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

::Hi. Here's one source for the numbers:
*Here's a map showing territorial gain from 1800 to showing gains JUST on the European side.
There's plenty more. ] 23:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The only population-wise significant gain for the Russian Empire between 1800 and 1850 was central Poland around Warsaw. That's about it, most major expansions of Russia were between 16th and late 18th century. Between 1800 and 1850 Russian population grew mostly because of Russian birth-rates not conquests. ] 05:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

== Requested move ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #eeffee; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #AAAAAA;"><!-- Template:polltop -->
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. <font color="red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

The result of the debate was '''to withdraw the proposed move''' --] (],]) 17:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
----

] → ] : To follow pattern of other articles about peoples. ] 14:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This is misleading, as a quick look at ] shows. ''—]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>2006-01-18&nbsp;23:38&nbsp;Z</small>''

===Voting===
:''Please add &nbsp;* '''Support'''&nbsp; or &nbsp;* '''Oppose'''&nbsp; followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>"''

* '''Oppose''' - There is no pattern, there are articles about ], ], ], ], ], ] etc. until there is a consensus to move every single article about an ethnic group simultaneously the article should stay under this name. ] 15:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
** '''Comment''' : Good point, Fisenko. I've moved ], ] and ] and requested moves for ] and ]. I created a typo moving ], so have had to request a move to have it corrected. I'm happy to begin searching for and moving (or requesting a move for) other articles, perhaps with your help? &nbsp;Best wishes, ] 19:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
*** You've renamed ], ] and ] without reaching the proper consensus on the name change before. I've moved ] back. --<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 21:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Support''' This is tricky, but since ], ] and ] all exist as articles, I support this move. --] (],]) 17:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)</s>
* '''Oppose''' per Philip's comment below, that suddenly makes sense! --] (],]) 14:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' Only need to use people if it is necessary for disambiguation with language hence "English people", "French people" and "Spanish people" and "English language" etc.
: The pages you have moved did not need this as Poles etc speak Polish etc. See ] "''Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.''" These pages do not need disambiguation so they should stay under national names most frequently used in English. --] 11:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
** '''Comment''' : I'm thinking of greater consistency within Misplaced Pages as well as "giv priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognise". I believe an "XXX people" template would provide that. Thinking of disambiguation, "Poles" is an unfortunate example. Thanks for your interest! ] 12:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
** '''Comment''' : While I think that bringing more structure and reciprocity into the ethnic article space is a worthwhile undertaking, I'm note sure if the proposed change is not going to create more confusion. My initial comments on ] were based on semantic concerns, since I believe that adding '''people''' to a name of a national group might condition readers to associate it with an ethnicity. I've witnessed these tendencies in ] vs. ], ] vs. ] etc. I think part of the problem is the definition of these groups. Many contributors from these countries assume that these articles pertain to their nation (see ]), which does not always equate to an separate ethnicity, although ideally it should. If disambiguation is a problem then adding (people) in parenthesis might be more appropriate, we could convert e.g. '''English people''' into '''English (people)''', '''Polish people''' into '''Poles (people)'''. See e.g.]. ] 15:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' The assertion in the request is misleading: a quick look at ] shows that most articles are ''not'' named this way, and the change will cause confusion between articles on ''a people'' and articles about ''several people'''s'''''. ''—]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>2006-01-18&nbsp;23:38&nbsp;Z</small>''
** I've now asked for more opinions via ]. ] 13:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. ] is much less ambiguous. --<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 21:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
----
* Further to ] and '']'''s comments above, I '''withdraw''' my suggestion and apologise for being too bold elsewhere too. I am glad to report that others have already reverted my renaming of the ], ] and ] articles. ] 00:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
----

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <font color="red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</font> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:pollbottom -->

== Maria Sharapova as one of the four most famous Russions? ==

Someone must be kidding. What kind of jokers work is that? Well if a woman should be included then surely Catherine the Great.
--] 20:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, but she was German. ] 23:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

::Wait, wasn't she ]? ;-) ] 00:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

:::No, even worse, the was Prussian :-) and protestant. --] 14:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

:::: See ] for complete info about her nationality ] 10:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Lucius. That's freaking ridiculous at best. Take it off and replace it with something serious....how about Anna Kournikova.(joking) but seriously change it. ] 00:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sharapova is the Russian whose name is mentioned by Western media most often. I'd replace her with ]. --] | ] 00:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Sharapova is probably not among four greatest Russians of all times, but I'd like her to stay to represent the beauty of Russian women ;) ] 00:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
:Well, I don't believe that image aims at representing the most "famous" Russians: otherwise, where is ]? Sharapova may be not the greatest, but certainly one of the most representative: a) of modern Russians; b) of Russian women; c) of numerous great Russian sportspeople. Additionally, she is a familiar face to all those MTV-watching cheeseburger-chewing Yankees (ok, Westerners) who form the target audience of this project.--] | ] 00:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
::Lenin is not an ethnic Russian, is he? His grandfather was an ethnic Chuvash. He also has Kalmuck, Jewish and German admixtures. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 20:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

I suggest taking her off and replacing her with Mikhail Gorbachev. Surely he's more important...ahem he pretty much changed the face of eastern europe. ]
:What about expanding the number of images from four to eight? --] | ] 00:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Works for me :) ]

1. The image was not created in order to represent "most famous Russians" 2. Mikhail Gorbachev is a very controversial figure deeply unpopular with many Russians I would not recommend to include him. Ghirla summarized best my reasons for incuding Sharapova in the picture. ] 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

:Practically all Russians hate Gorbachov, and they have a reason for that. He took everything they had and brought the whole country into poverty. Gorbochov and YTeltzin are two that in Russia are considered traiters. M.V.E.i. 11:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you say. But don't you find it slightly offensive that the picture of "Russians" shows Sharapova (who is great and all but not historically significant) among Peter the Great? I mean that's what it comes off as and it's silly. I think it's best to simply include more photos. ]

Believe me there would be more people offended by a picture of Gorbachev ...] 02:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
:He and Yeltzen are the two most hated people in Russia. M.V.E.i. 11:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually I agree it is not the point to include the most famous, or infamous persons. Rather the more positive people who made great achievements during history. I do not think that the tennis player did that. In hundred years no one will remember her. Well it is true that Catherine the Great was German, but so was William of Orange and he is included under the four greatest Dutch. Thats because he became a national hero of them. I find the suggestion of Juri Gagarin great. Do it. But i still believe Catherien the Great should be included as well. But, I believe the Russians on here should decide that. But, Sharapova is a joke. Sorry to say that. Might be eye candy, but apart from that. Otherwise Paris Hilton, god forbid, must be included under the four greatest Americans.
:Don't compare. Sharapova is in sports, she does somthing, Hilton is usless. P.S. I dont think we have place for a woman there, but if a woman should enter is Sharapova, she's a great tennis-player i don't see the problem with that. M.V.E.i. 11:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

--] 14:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

''Otherwise Paris Hilton, god forbid, must be included under the four greatest Americans.''

:I laughed hard to that one. ;) Anyway, I agree with removing Sharapova - but perhaps she can be replaced with another woman, a Russian artist maybe? ] 20:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If any changes should be made at all is replacement of Peter the Great with for example ] then we will have a more diverse range of Russians...one statesman from the middle ages, one scientist/educator from the 18th century, one writer from the end of 19th century and one modern female and sportsman. Two political leaders in the picture is the only downside I can see to a picture. The inspiration to this image was this one from the page on ] :
].
Although I think the picture looks good as it is. Presenting a charismatic image of the Russians to the English-speaking public is more important than presenting image of Russians with greatest achievment...and of course Catherine the Great's image would not be suitable becuase the article is about ethnic Russians. ] 00:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Peter the Great should stay. ]

:I would leave the picture as it is. Sharapov may give way to ]. Lomonosov is of secondary, not world-wide importance. --] | ] 10:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

::Lomonosov maybe is forgoten in the world-wide-fame subject, but he gave great contributions to world science, and Russian culture. read this http://en.wikipedia.org/Lomonosov#His_achievements and you'll understand how importent he is to the world. M.V.E.i. 17:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Maybe change Sharapova with ]? If more pictures allowed m/b add Gagarin, Pushkin, Akhmatova, Kovalevskaya, Lobachevsky, Tsolkovsky? ] 11:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
::::Let's get of this thing of inserting a woman in any cause, right now there just ain't no place. M.V.E.i. 11:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I can only say, "wow"! I've come across this image from a ] , and I mean, come on, this image is nothing but a joke! I thought it was a case of vandalism! (Although from this discussion, it appears that it's not.) Seriously, you don't put painted portraits of Russian rulers and writers next to a western photograph of an ethnically Russian tennis player in order to represent Russians! People just won't understand! Masses are just going to revert the "vandalism", I'm surprised no-one has done that for good so far. ] 01:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

] and ] have been removed from the main image, as the former is not of ethnic Russian ancestry (a fact that he himself acknowledged), whereas the portait of the latter mostly consists of his beard, which conceals his Russian facial features. Instead, ] and ] were added. Alexander Nevsky is supposed to represent the rich history of the Russian ethnicity and its historical roots, much in the same manner as the image of ] is used in the article on the ]. Anton Chekhov was chosen among the writers of the 19th century, as he is sufficiently famous throughout the world and has a very Russian appearance, which is quite evident in this particular portrait.

The size of the images has also been slightly modified.] 16:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

:: Tolstoy and Pushkin are Russians. A little of their blood is not Russian, yes, but that's how it gous with all noble families. But they have seen themselves as Russians, most of there blooad was Russian, i think it's a sin Not to consider themselves as Russians. M.V.E.i.

::: Tolstoy is certainly Russian. However, it's pointless to post his portait there, since his face is completely covered with a beard. Besides, 4 portraits is enough. I've noticed that it's mainly small ethnicities with a lack of confidence in their ethnic pride who post huge tables with like 16 faces. Pushkin is simply not a good example of an ethnic Russian. Why include a 1/4-Arab if there's a plenty of better examples? Seriously, it's an article about an ethnicity. ] 17:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::You cant have an image without Chaikovski, Tolstoi and Pushkin. Maybe they were not 100% ethnic Russians, but all aristocrats were mixed. Besides, most of their blod was Russian and they considered themselves Russian. Nevski doesnt fit, he might have fought against Tebtons but he was in favor of tatars against other Russian princes. Puter killed to much to enter here, just like Hittler couldnt enter the Germans image. AND WHY MOST HAVE 8 PEOPLE IMAGES, AND WE NEED TO HAVE 4? read back this conversation most supported the 8 people idea. Small ethnic groups?? are English, Italians and Ashkenazi Jews are "small ethnicities with a lack of confidence in their ethnic pride who post huge tables with like 16 faces"? All Ethnic Groups now created themselves high-level photos, uploading a weak photo and argument it as "were good anyway" is not serious. Being great and yet having a good photo is not a contrast you know. Pushkin was not 1/4 arab but 1/8 ARAP (which means slave), and the etnicity he was 1/8 was the black-African etnicity Eritrean. Why him? Because he's considered the greatest Russian poet?? And he was MOSTLY ethnic Russian. And you can't NOT put Dostoyevski, one of the greatest novelists. The trick is not to say "we are great so lets do a lousy photo", but to put a good photo! M.V.E.i. 22:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::The article is about an ethnic group. The pictures should represent ethnic Russians, and should be based on their ethnicity, as opposed to their role in the history of the Russian state. You can easily have an image without Tolstoy and Medeleev, because any Caucasian man with a large beard would look absolutely identical to them. Nevski has <i>the</i> classical Russian look. Besides, he is supposed to reflect the rich history of the ethnicity, whereas the current selection makes the Russians appear as if they didn't exist before the 19th century. Nevski is also well-known outside Russia because of the movie, and he's venerated as a saint. He's also used in the Russian wikipedia. Speaking of Peter the Great... if you're against butchers, why put Zhukov up there? Speaking of admixtures, there is a difference between being a German-Russian or a Polish-Russian (both are common), and a close relative of an exotic slave who was brought to the state as a curiousity. By the way, Pushkin isn't that well-known outside Russia. Now, I adore his poetry, but I'm against including him here. As far as aesthetic value is concerned, the larger the image size, the less lousy the overall impression. Besides, Mendeleev's tiny black-and-white portait is certainly not something to be used there... Well, it's practically impossible to make out their features on those tiny, square images. But if, for some reason, you believe that the image is supposed to represent some ethnic Russians from the list of great Russians, I'll make a new version with 8 portaits. The size shall be based on the Polish version, since it looks pretty decent for an 8-picture image. I would be interested in your opinion on the new version, just don't use all that caps-lock stuff and nervous questions, it's distressing. ] 16:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::I think the picture is too small to represent great Russians. Alexander Suvorov belongs there as he is undoubtedly the greatest Russian military commander of all time. A great naval commander would be also good. Some women are needed, and perhaps a great sports hero. I personally think Peter the Great should be put back there. ] 22:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::::We can't add all great Russians could we, and i judged by contribution not by sex in creating the photo, i think the paranoia for hacing woman (even if there contribution is minor) is redicilous. Jukov is much mor known then Suvorov. Offcourse we could do a 12 people photo adding Lomonosov (He deserves it), Sovorov, the first woman in space (dont remember her name now), Popov (inventor of the Radio) and Zworkin (inventor of the Television), but i thing that it will be to much already and the current 8-people photo is just fine and it should be left as it is. M.V.E.i.

:::::::::The new image has been uploaded. Although I wholeheartedly disagree with your sentiments regarding Aleksandr Nevsky and Peter the Great, I removed them from this new version. However, I believe that including Dostoevsky, Tolstoy and Chekhov on the same picture is a bit too much, and it's an overrepresentation of Russian prose. Instead, I added ], who is supposed to represent Russian art. The Russian poetry is now represented by ], who is about as famous as ], but is an ethnic Russian. I managed to find an excellent Misplaced Pages Commons picture for ], which is not protected by any of those ridiculous copyright laws. I also enhanced the design, as the old images used to be of different size. All the sizes were taken from the Polish version, which looks rather decent. All in all, the image just needs the most photogenic of famous ethnic Russians that would represent the most common phenotypes among the nation, and point towards its wide array of achievements at the same time. There's no point in posting all the famous Russians you know there, there is a separate list for that purpose.] 18:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::I returned the previous one. Russian literature is considered to be the best in the world, so it's not to much. You cant take out Mendeleyev, because his table was listed no1 in thi list of 10 greatest inventions released in an american newspapper that i don't remember it's name.. You cant not have Puwshkin, the one who started the whole thing of strong Russian literature. Dostoyevski and Tolstoy are the greatest novelists in the world, you can't take anyone from them out. About Zhukov or domskoy we still need to decide. But i have a seggestion, chose the one you like: 1. We create a 10 people photo (2 rows, 5 in each). 2. We create a 12 people photo (the more i think of it, the more i like the idea. 3 rows, 4 people in each). 3. We make a 15 people photo, 3 rows, 5 people in each. Your photo was really nice, but it was also to big, we need a size more nice for the eye (this one looks even nicer). M.V.E.i. 18:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::: Well, your choice is not bad. As to me, I'd add Suvorov instead of Zhukov. ] 19:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::::But the article is not about the history of culture in the Russian state, it's about ethnic Russians. There is a wide variety of famous ethnic Russians to represent the ethnicity, and there is no need in providing a picture with those who are in some way not representative of the Russian ethnicity. So please, let's keep Pushkin out of this, and let's not confuse ethnicity with nationality (as in citizenship). I'm not that sure about Donskoi myself, I would actually prefer Nevsky, as he is extremely famous (and not for his cooperation with the Golden Horde). However, you can offer some other medieval ruler, if you want. Or maybe a saint, like ], though his appearance is inconspicious, whereas it would certainly be proper to underline the rugged nature of Medieval Russians. The size of the image is slightly larger than the one used on the ] page, identical to the ] one, and smaller than the ] one. So it's okay, I think. Speaking of Mendeleev, the picture is simply not good. Besides, his periodic table isn't used in English-speaking countries, so he's not that famous abroad. At any rate, there is a huge variety of important Russian inventors, but I believe that Mikhail Lomonosov is an adequate representative of the whole Russian scientific community, a Renaissanse man as he was. I'm opposed to increasing the number of pictures on the image. It's an illustration, after all, and not a hall of fame. And we'll have to make the portraits really narrow, whereas at the moment they properly correspond with the proportions of an average human face. Will it be okay if I simply replace Vasnetsov with Dostoevsky?] 20:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::: Well, man, Pushkin was not ethnic Russian? Are you sane? ] 19:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: Well, man, read his biography. He even complained to his peers about his not fully European appearance. Would you include Viktor Tsoy in this selection, had he been alive 200 years ago? Let's not start this discussion about people belonging to the Russian ethnicity just because they 'feel Russian'. There's more than enough Russians to include here without touching that peculiar theme. Seriously, leave the poet be. ] 20:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::::::: Man, you are wrong. One of his grand-grandfathers was black. So what? Even if someone biologically(?) is half-Russian, he is RUSSIAN. ] 20:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::P.S. Tzoy is a saint. M.V.E.i. 11:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::: Uh-h, no? The page is about the Slavic group, not the amorphous identity. ] 21:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::: Just prove please that Pushkin was not Russian. I don't see your rationale at all. Yeah, again, one of his grand-grandfathers was black. So... what? What about other grandmas and grandpas? They can't be counted? Or what? :) ] 20:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Russian ethnicity physically manifests itself, among other things, in various European phenotypes, the most typical of which are the Baltid and the Nordid phenotypes. The selection is supposed to show that. European traits are recessive, therefore, a single black grandparent would severely influence several generations of his descendants. That is what happened to Pushkin, who retained specific traits that are extremely uncommon among Russians, and which he himself did not ignore. His African ancestry is widely referred to in Russian culture, for instance, take a look at this: http://hiero.ru/2028300 . In other words, a significant part of his ancestry does not have anything to do with the Slavic Russian ethnicity, which is described on this page. It is not plausible to use Pushkin's portrait to illustrate this ethnicity. In fact, it is pointless to use portraits of famous persons of noticeably mixed ancestry in any articles describing ethnicities, unless the said ethnicity was formed as the result of such a mixture. Which is definitely not Pushkin's case. ] 21:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

: Man, when someone starts measuring the size of Pushkin's skull, then he is just an illiterate fool at best. I'm sorry. ] 20:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

:: God forbid me from not liking Pushkin's poetry, but that doesn't mean that we should confuse the terms. Praise diversity, eh. ] 22:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

::: I'm not surprised that you proved nothing and gave only vague speculations like "a significant part of his ancestry does not have anything to do with the Slavic Russian ethnicity". What percentage of arian blood is needed to be Russian? Yes, he was ... black on ... 1/8(sooo much!). What about the remaining 7/8? Look at my previous message again. ] 21:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

:::: What was so vague about the answer? Yes, being 1/8 Black is more than enough not be cited as an example of a European ethnicity. ] 22:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

::::: I'm sorry, what you just said is absolute rubbish. Nothing personal. ] 21:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::He was mostly Ethnic Russian, he's still European. Look, with me you have reached a consencus, simply because i understand we all have to give up on somthing, but as you can see, other users protest against not puting Pushkin in, and all use the same arguments. M.V.E.i. 11:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, as i know, Maria Sharapova is tatarian. So she could represent tatarians;) ] 06:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

*What aboout ]? She can represent russian women.] 20:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

== 3 million of Russians in USA ? ==

http://factfinder.census.gov/ Reports people of Russian "ancestry" as more than 3 million people living in the US. To anyone familiar with the Russian-speaking community in North America it is clear what much smaller number would identify themselves as ethnic Russians in the USA.
U.S. Census Bereau in this survey does not even have a separate ancestry category as "Jewish". It is rather clear what this survey labeled most immigrants and their ancestors from Russia and former Soviet Union as having Russian ancestry. Russian Jews followed by people of mixed ancestry who reported one of their often multiple ancestry origins as Russian would make up the largest group in this survey. I restored the old estimate reported here and will look for a more specific reference about ethnic Russians in USA. ] 16:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I can argue against this statistic since U.S. Census Bureau uses different criteria in its "ancestry" data than other countries those ethnic statistics used in this article. For example statistic provided for Russia is based only on people's ethnic self-identification as Russians in recent census. US Census Bureau uses different criteria which includes both ethnic self-identification on survey and your ancestors place of birth, it also accepted multiple ancestry entries. . That's why there is 3 million of people with Russian ancestry in USA but only 700 000 for example speak Russian language at home . Even this 700 000 strong Russian-speaking community would be divided into ethnic Russians, Jews, Ukrainians, Tatars etc. in other statistic entries given for example for Kazakhstan or Latvia. ] 23:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again US Census Bureau accepts ''multiple'' entries in its ancestry date therefore person whose ethnicity would be "Jewish" or "German" in Russian or Kazakh census would call himself "Russian Jew" or "Russian German" in US Census would be entered separately under both Russian and for example Jewish ancestry numbers. Obviously it is well known fact ethnic Russian community in USA numbers in hundreds of thousands rather than millions. However, if you add to this all the people with partial Russian ancestry and all the people who would identify themselves as Russian Jews etc. and you have up to 3 million people. ] 03:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Living in North America, I can tell you the Russian community in the US is large, much larger than you think, and there is definitely somewhere close to 3 million with significant Russian heritage. Even if one includes Russian as a multiple entry, they still have Russian ethnic origin and you cant argue with that. If someone is Jewish then they usually select just Jewish, even if their Jewish ancestors came from Poland, Russia, wherever. Those who select Jewish or some other ethnicity along with Russian, are clearly stating they also have ethnic Russian origins as well. These people are deserve to be mentioned in the statistics and you cant claim the other statistics on this page exempt people who arent "pure" ethnic Russians. Im positive the other statistics include those who have some degree of non-Russian origins as well. I ask that you stop reverting this official census data. Thank you. ] 22:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking about ethnic "purity" or any of such nonsense here. The issue here is that US census bureau in its statistic uses ''multiple'' ethnic entries i.e. they will write a single person under different ancestry columns thus multiplying the number by several times compared to ethnic census in other countries, where the person would have no option but to state a single ancestry during the population census. . The issue here is a difference in methods between census in USA and elswhere , specifically in former Soviet Union. Not "ethnic purity" or any of such demagogy. The number for Russian-speaking community in USA is only 700 000 this number is much close to the real number of ethnic Russians in USA. I'm also very familiar with the Russian community in North America and its only significant in several major urban centres like New York, Toronto, Seattle, Boston, San-Francisco, Philadelphia and Miami. ] 16:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Im sorry to say but you are incorrect here, because there are significant Russian communities across Canada and the USA, not just in the largest urban centres. The number of people who speak Russian language is not the same thing as those who are of Russian ethnic origin. This article is about Russians as an ethnic group. Now because the responses include multiple origins, it does not mean they "multiply" their responses. Those who claim single Russian ancestry and those who claim Russian ancestry along with another (multiple) are added together to form the numbers. Therefore, these numbers do not exaggerate anything and are obviously quite accurate. I really think you might be confused with how the data is formulated. If someone says their ancestry is Russian only, then that is it, they are only counted once. When someone reports Russian and another ancestry, they are counted under both ancestry categories. When the numbers for each ancestry/ethnic category are accumulated, those who selected Russian and some other ancestry will be counted twice (for each ethnic category they reported) so that the total number of responses will obviously be more than the total number of those who took part in the census. This however does not mean that the numbers for each category are inflated and when 3 million report Russian ancestry, it means 3 million different people claim to have Russian ancestry either solely or along with another ancestry. So if say for example 700,000 reported Russian as a single ancestry, another 2 million or so would also be included who reported Russian along with another ancestry. So when there is 3 million people claiming Russian ancestry, it means there are 3 million different persons who claim to have Russian ethnic origins. I hope this helps clairfy some things, and if you already knew this, well then my apologies. ] 17:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


Yes you are correct absolutely correct, there is no argument here. However my point was that in all other censuses present in the article they use a different method. On Russian, Ukrainian, Kazakh, Latvian etc. censuses all people will have to choose and enter only a single ancestry. Therefore, the data used for all other countries would not use the same criteria as in USA.
BTW Any member of the Russian immigrant community in North America will tell you what the "Russian-speaking" community in USA is larger than “ethnic Russian” community not the other way around. ] 18:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well from personal experience growing up in North America, it is quite the contrary with most people who are European immigrants and their descendants. With most immigrant groups here unfortunately, there are more who are of the ethnic origin than those who can speak the language. The only exception may be Spanish as there is more people here who can speak it than can claim Spanish or mixed Spanish (Hispanic) ancestry. In Canada, multiculturalism and diversity is encouraged much more and with more cases here than in the US, the number of speakers is more than the number who can claim to be of the ethnicity. I see your point though that there are obviosuly millions more of Russian speakers in the world than ethnic Russians, but in the US, most of them have lost their knowledge of that language. At this point though, do you think the US census figure should be included or not ? ] 05:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You are not very familiar with the history of Russian immigration into North America. There were four waves so to speak of Russian immigrants into North America. First wave (1880-1910s) was relatively small and this were mostly peasants and religious minorities (like ] in Canada) and others from Russian Empire/Austro-Hungary and were just a small component of huge wave of East European migrants who mostly were Jews, Ukrainians, ], German ] (many of who were known as Russians at the time) etc. Second wave of Russian immigrants followed the ] of 1917-1921 consisted of anti-Bolshevik exiles the so-called ] immigrants and was still relatively small (initially they prefered places closer to home in Europe or China), as well as third wave which followed the Second World War and was even smaller (most third wave immigrants were actually second wave White immigrants moving from Europe/China into North America).
In the late 1980s and 1990s the largest influx of Russian immigrants came to North America (the breakdown of immigrants from former Soviet Union was still dominated by Jews, Ukrainians and other minorities), among recent immigrants many Russian Jews do very often identify themselves as simply Russians. It is also quiet clear what most of them have not yet forgotten their language. ] 11:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Most indeed have forgetten the language as with practically all other European migrant groups to the USA. The Russian Jews do cite Jewish ancestry for the most part, but it is impossible to tell how many non-Russians cite Russian or not. Either way, you cant debate and exempt official statistic data. If you like, you can put a note beside the reference to the data saying how the number may include some who possibly dont have any Russian ethnic origins. There is a separate category in the census for "Soviet Union" ancestry for those who are just putting where they came from geographically. You also underestimate the numbers of ethnic Russians who fled both during the great migrations to the Americas of the late 19th/early 20th centuries and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, The ethnic Russian communtiy is very large in America and Canada and these people very much are not simply Russian Jews. I am telling you from what can be read from history of Russian migration to the Americas and statistics about the ethnic Russian community here. Also, do not change the Canadian census data. Those who have Russian ancestry and another ancestry deserve to be included as well and it is ignorant POV in my opinion to say otherwise. ] 02:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to jump into an already-heated debate, but I feel it important to note that, despite what the U.S. census did a century ago, Jews are not an ethnic group - they're a religion. So it's probably not wise to use that as gauge of how many ethnic Russians live in the US. Seems to me the article has to more clearly define what does it mean by Russians living elsewhere. Perhaps "people born in Russia"? ] 17:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have made this photo http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Russfamo2.JPG
It's here for almost a month already, but i still decided to explain how i made it here on the debate. I judged by contribution and not by sex. I entered those people who are most recognizable in the world, and whose contribution is most known in the world. There are many great Russians, so it was not easy to chose, but i thing i chose the once whose faces are the faces of the nation. I'm sorry no woman entered here, but i judged by contribution and not by sex. Offcourse a could take any woman and enter it here, but it would be obvious thats a populistic act of co-equality. M.V.E.i. 17:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

==there are no 1M russians in israel==

there are only 100000 russian citizens in israel, most of them are jewish!
you can not clam russian ethnicity! giving the fact that most of the "russians" in israel are jewish and only speak in russian.
i would put the real number on 50000 ethnic russians only!
the major part of the russian speakers in israel came from ukraine, moldova and belarus.
about 1/4 of the so called "russians" in israel came from central asia.
--] 22:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:Don't mistake ethnicity for nationality, that's something that happens way too often and it's quite annoying, actually. You can be ethnic Russian without being from Russia or speaking the Russian language. You can speak whatever language you want, follow whatever religion you want, and be whatever nationality you want, but nothing can change your ethnicity.
:: no no, you mistake by considering jews as a religous group ONLY, NOW THAT'S something that happens way too often and it's REALLY REALLY REALLY annoying, actually.] 19:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Please don't try to insult my understanding of ethnicity—it is one of the only things I do understand. I know what Judaism is, and I know what qualifies as a Jew and what doesn't. I'm also aware that you have mistaken ethnicity to mean that they act Russian, speak Russian, and identify as Russian. All of these are highly doubtful, and I would appreciate it if you wouldn't make assumptions about what I do and do not know. — Hizrael

:::In case of Judaism, ethnicity is flexible. According to quite a lot of people, someone who changes his religion to Judaism, becomes an ethnic Jew.
:::A considerable number of Israeli citizens who were born in the former SU are ethnic Russians according to themselves and/or to legal definitions. It is a controversial issue in Israel - some consider themselves Jewish, but are defined as Russians by the Israeli law and vice-versa. I don't have any numbers, though and 50,000 is dubious.
:::What no-one can really change is the place where a person was born. Correct me if i am wrong, but that is called "nationality". Most of the people in question were born in Russia/Ukraine/Belarus/Moldova, although i don't have the exact numbers for that too. --] 06:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

::::"A considerable number of Israeli citizens who were born in the former SU are ethnic Russians" - i doubt it considerably. i think that out of the 100K russian citizens in israel (those are the people who immigrated after 1997) there are about 50% NON-jews as the israel statistics show. and so the number 50K might be very accurate. others out of the 300K non jews in israel mostly are ukrainians. oohh... really who gives a damn?--] 19:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::Personally i don't give a damn, but some people do give a damn, and thats what encyclopedias are for.
:::::As i said, i don't have the numbers myself, and i don't have the time and the mood to look for them. If you find any numbers, please ''give the source''. Thanks for your efforts! --] 08:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::I was born in Israel and lived there for 5 years, and I can tell you that there were a significant amount of ethnic Russians, as well as people of mixed Slavic-Russian/Jewish-Russian heritage. After the USSR opened up it's borders, Israel was one of the easiest places to get to which is why many Soviets, be they Jewish or not, migrated to Israel.--] 11:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::In the 2004 article, BBC puts the number of Russians in Israel at 1 million http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/4038859.stm. Not listing Russians in Israel at all in the Distribution column appears to be a POV. Could this number (or any other for that reason) be added to the Distribution? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Infobox ==
I drastically shortened the infobox by conflating the population figures into 3 categories (Russia, other ex-USSR, non-USSR). This unfortunately involved adding up census figures from different years in different countries undoubtedly gathered by different methodologies (the source data are still available in the footnotes); if you object, please suggest another way to shorten the infobox, since the length was getting pretty ridiculous. Thanks! ] 13:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

== Religion... ==

A very large number of Russians are atheists. I think it would be right to mention this in the article. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 18:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned

It is. And alsou many follows agnostic believs.


Its large but its not significant enough <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I think that most of russians are agnostic too, though they're rather unpracticing orthodox. I know that there is a minority of russian muslims. I think this also should be noted in the article. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== ] 06:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC) ==

The 2001 census of Uzbekistan puts the Russian population at 1,092,000. Is it possible to reduce the figure to 620,000 in 2005??????

== Russians in Israel ==

Is there any way to derive the number of ethnic Russians in Israel? The Israeli census lists 291,700 "Others" (non-Jews and non-Arabs), but it is unclear as to how many of these are ethnic Russians (as opposed to other Christian ethnicities). ] 14:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

== Chinese Russians ==

Am I the only one to find it most unusual that there should be a whole separate section in the article describing the Russian diaspora in China? It is, after all, rather insignificant in comparison to the rest. I suggest fully merging it with "Russians outside Russia". ] 20:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

== Contribution to humanity ==

I wonder whether Russian "contributors to humanity" of last 90 years are omitted on purpose or by some mistake? No any single Nobel prize winner, no writers, only few composers. Probably not all the famous Soviet artists, authors and scientists were ethnically Russian, but still there are quite a few. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 00:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

''Response'':
I gave there names of Scientists/Inventors who have made some of the most importent discoveries in Science, some of the most importent inventions. The Noble Prise is a very controversial thing. Tolstoy, the greatest novelist was nominated but didn't win, while hundreeds of writers who are week and forgotten, won it. Dostoyevski, Pushkin, and many others didnt have it, so what?
Russian composers: Chikovski is one of the greatest (If not the greatest) composers ever. Many other composers (Rachmaninoff, Rimski-Korsakov, Shostakovich, Prokofiev) are among the best ever in the world.
Dont forget that the Noble-prize thing is very politicised.
Quite a few? Almost all the great Russian people were Ethnic Russians, all the names i gave are Ethnic Russians (And i just gave the chosen once). Ofcourse some great people from Russia were not Ethnic Russians (Jews played an importent role in Russia), but in every country there are many Jews who made great achievments in the name of that counry. In conclusion, Russians are one of the most importent and contrebuting nations in the world. M.V.E.i.

Pushkin wasn't russian;) And many of mentioned above actualy are jewish.

Russian contributions to humanity: 1.) Lapti 2.) Ushanki 3.) Vodka

M.V.E.i- i don't understand why you think Lev Landau doesn't fit the russian category- because he was jewish?? Um, so then by that argument Trotsky isn't Russian either. True, Landau was born in Baku not Russia, but at that time it was part of the Russian empire. If Russian citizens who consider themselve part of the Russian people also happen to be Jewish, who are you to condescendingly dictate they are not?]

:I agree with Ateapotist.--] 07:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

==Happy 9th May==
Tommorow it's a holy day, day of victory on the Nazis, the victory in which Russian played the biggest role, more then everybody together played. M.V.E.i. 13:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC) And first half of WW2 war fight in nazi side. But then Hitler betraied Soviet Union and Molotov - Ribentrop pact.

== Russians in Brazil and USA ==

Both numbers are very inflated. In USA population census everyone who claimed even partial Russian ancestry is recorded as Russian, while many do not consider ancestry as ethnic origin but rather as a place of origin, therefore, many Russian Jews and others with roots from Russia/USSR/Russian Empire claim Russian ancestry.

Brazil only has 4 Russian churches and Russian language is only spoken by a few thousand people and not mention anywhere as a minority language unlike Polish, Italian or German. Obviously there are no 500, 000 ethnic Russians in Brazil. The same is true about Argentina.] 22:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
:That's true. Ethnic Russians in Brazil could count 100,000 at most. The source given is not reliable (they also claim that Walt Disney's real name was ''Vladimir Disniov'', an ethnic Russian!). ] 13:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

== Why the Mongol Invasion didn't impact the Russian ethnic & language? ==

The Mongol Invasion led by Batu Khan and his Blue Horde, conquered and ruled Russia for about 250 years.
Many cities and towns were destroyed during that time. Why is that today the Russians still look caucasian and the Russian language is still an indo-european language? Didn't the mongol invaders impact the Russian language and ethnicity? Homer33 04:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
:No, there are no words in Russian from mongolian. The mongols didn't influence in any way on Russian culture, it just hurted it during the occupation time. If anybody influenced anybody, it's actually the Russian language on the Mongolian Language, which since 1943 uses Russian the Russian ABC. M.V.E.i.

If russians look partly mongoloid (and most did), it is becouse of asimilation of eastern finno-ugres not becouse of mongols. Most of Batu Khan army was ethnicaly turkic not mongols. Still, western mongols - kalmiks have influenced russians. For example Lenin was 1/2 kalmik. In russian there are many turkic and finno-ugric words, but all indo-european langues have many non indo-european words. So it is Indo-european langue. ] 06:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

:Do most Russians look partly Mongoloid? That is an... unusual observation, one has to note. ] 14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
::Hhhh i think that what our friend tryed to say is that many look. Infacy a few look, and it's in South Russia, but thats because the Finic tribes mostly settled their. ] 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that you should listen to that guy, considering the fact that his ip is from Latvia, and we know how balts feel about Russians. The most ''asian'' europeans are the finno-ugric group, which includes finns and estonians. --] 10:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
:Correct! Theres a big population of Finic tribes in Russia, there use to be even more. Where have they gone? Mixed with the Russians. ] 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

== Image ==

Lets discuss the image that should be in the top right corner. I think if we go for the eight people then at least one should be a woman, otherwise it is simply ridicoulus. Also there should be somebody before the 19th century. For woman maybe ] (see ] or ]? ] 08:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
:This photo is exelent, theres no one we can take out. BUT, if you want, lets make a 10 people photo, and add Lomonosov (fact, his contribution to science is no less then Newtons) and Valentina Telishkova (The first woman in space). But i think this thing of "there should be people from both sexes" is stupid, judje by contribution not by sex. The trick about the photo is that if anybody who see the people on it will recognize them, he will say: "Ooo i know that one, he have done that, that and that". M.V.E.i.

==Alex Bakharev, there are no 2 million Ethnic Russians in the USA==
The census talks about Russian citizens, while the article is only about ethnic Russians. Most of the Russian citizens living in the USA, infact, almost all, are Jewish. Ancenstry here means the country the man came from. For exemplem Israeli 106,839. But there aint such a nationality Israely isn't it (they are Jews)? This census is NOT ethnic. M.V.E.i. 21:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
:Please check discussion ] ] 03:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
::And it proves my point, that the "Russians" of USA are mosstly Jews, and there are also other Soviet minorities identified as Russians. Again, the article is about Ethnic Russians. M.V.E.i.
A lot of jews and ethic groups from the SU, are usually classified as russians by the american society, which has not even the singlets clues about who russians are, what they know about them they learned from anti-soviet cold-war propaganda movies. Their idea is that everything that comes out of Russia, is russian.--] 10:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

== Editing problems: ==

I am sorry. I seem to be having problems editing the popultion comlumn: I try to put in that 15, 000 ethnic Russians live in Poland, but it won't let me. Could someone please help?
With respect.
--] 20:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Sergei



== "Moldova" - Russian population figures ==
Are those figures for actual Moldova, or for separatist republic of ]? Just wandering, because I always knew most Russian people in Moldova lived in Transnistria.
'''''Valeriy.'''''

:Transistria was syntheticaly created. Transistria was created in the Soviet time, but it always had a big Russian population because most of the cities in that area were created by the Russian Empire/USSR (for example the city Tiraspol was founded by Alexander Suvorov). Moldovia was a republic in the middle ages (Russia added this area only in 1812). M.V.E.i. 14:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

==Sourcing question==
Summary of this article say: "According to 2002 census, ethnic Russians make up about 80% of the population of Russia ." But I could not find this number in reference . Can anyone copy and paste the corresponding segment or provide a better reference?] 15:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

<blockquote>
Ethnic groups:
Russian 79.8%, Tatar 3.8%, Ukrainian 2%, Bashkir 1.2%, Chuvash 1.1%, other or unspecified 12.1% (2002 census)
</blockquote>
Search for "ethnic groups" on the corresponding page. ] 12:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Statistics isn't accurate. Realy most of jews and tatars (becouse of fear of xenophobia) in Russia is counted as russians. In Russia there realy are more than 2% jewish.

: Well, that's true, but that's the only statistics we have. Would you like it to be removed altogether? At any rate, the same applies to a number of other states as well, so one would suggest subtracting several percents from the dominant ethnicity when confronted by statistics of this nature. ]

== Great russians? ==
<Ethnic Russians known as Great Russians (as oppose to White Russians and Little Russians) began to be recognized as a distinct ethnic group in the 15th century, when they were referred to as Muscovite Russians, during the consolidation of Muscovy Tsardom as a regional power.>
Actualy when Ruthenia state joyned Muscovy, tzars started to call themselves great russians nad rusyns (ukrainians) small russians.
So many ukrainians believe, that russians stolen they hystorical name.

==A proposal to expand the image==
We cant remove anyon from the current image because: 1. All of them are importent. 2. They were chosen by a long discussion and are a concensus. Nevertheless, i thing we should add another 4 people, which means, addinganother line . I've experimented it on my computer, and it looks just beautiful. The 4 people i propose are: ], ], ], ].

There's another proposal to turn it into a 4 line image, which means adding another 4 to the previous four offered (i propose: ], ], ], ]). This will look even better but i'm afraid many might say it's to much. Nevertheless, i experimented with this version to and it looks exelent (4 lines with 4 people on each line). Infact, it looks the best an image for an ethnic froup article could be.

If you agree to expand but have other ideas for the people needed here, please, No ] or ]. All kings, leaders and all that has to do with politics should be left out.

Please state your opinion on the expansion idea, on how much to expand if expand, and what do you say about my people proposal.

REMEMBER, no changes should be done on the current image due to the fact that this selection was chosen as a consencus. Most of those i offered to add i offered because it seems they have place to be though they were not agreed by the consencus that agreed on the 8 that eventually were entered to the current image. ] 16:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

:I hear there are women in Russia too. What about ]? ] 17:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
::The Russian women are the most beautiful in the world, no doube. But, i chose by contribution and recognisation, not by sex. With all this polit-correctness look what they have in the ] image, it's really not nice. Offcourse i really respect Valentina Tereshkova, but we already have Gagarin here. He was the first man in space. And all that came later... first woman, first red-haired, first wearing green socks, it doesnt stand the competition to enter the image. All Soviet cosmonauts are great people that deserve alot of respect but for this image enough Yuri Gagarin. ] 17:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
:::]? ] 18:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
::::The idea is nice but we are not shure she's an ethnic Russian. Her lastname, Litvak, means Latvian. Thats mostly a Jewish lastname, and sometimes Belarusian. If her mother is Russian then yes she's exelent for here (doesn't metter from what side, but to enter the image the candidate needs to have Russian blood), and no licence problem, but where is a link? If i could at least have the surname of her mother before marrige i could tell. ] 18:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::] is shurely Russian, but we dont have an image of her. if we had an image of her that would be nice. Anyway, as i can see, by proposing woman you support expansion. Please tell how much do you think should be added, 4 or 8. ] 18:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Political correctness would expect 50/50. But that's not that important. Atleast one for two would add a bit of colour. :) ] <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::::]? ]? I'm not particular about the number of people, nor do I absolutely insist on a 50/50 gender spread but something close to it is surely reasonable. After all, every other Russian is a woman. ] 18:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Kollontai doesn't fit, as i said previously, no politics. Tsveteva... What about ]? ] 19:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Hhh you are probablly right. I proposed Akhmatova. ] 19:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Akhmatova is good. ] 19:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::::]? ] 19:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Ok, i offer to put Akhmatova instead of, and it's not easy for me, Yesenin. They contribute the same to the image. Pavlova is great but i wont support that because ballet, theater, stage will be exelently represented by Stanislavski, which we get in case we get to expand it into a four-row image (which means, we add 8 people). Ok... mmm so we have a woman candidate? Looks nice. ] 20:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
OK, i have finished the new version. I have uploaded it here and then reverted it back so we will have a discussion first, and so it will be saved in the history so you could see how it may look. So guys, how it may look. I worked hard on the thing and if you'll enter the image page you will see that there are no licence problems. ] 14:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)</div>
:P.S. I entered ] and not ] because i found out that Akhmatova was Ukrainian and not Russian, while Tsvetaeva is Russian. ] 15:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
:: You could have used Anna Pavlova aswell, as she is much prettier than most other people on the picture. And also she seems to be quite notable. Because me with very little knowledge of famous people even know about her. :) ] 15:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
:::I agree with Suva. But the new collage is certainly no worse than the current one so I don't object to you putting it in the article. ] 15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
::::Guys but, what makes Pavlova unique? Shes not the only ballerina in the world. I chose those who are irreplacable. Anyway, i wanted to insert her and for that i played a little more and made a 16 people image but it looked streched and horrible. About beauty, Tzvetaeve is beautiful. It was Haukurth who offered her so great idea! It was really hard to chose the people (i have 4 versions of that image on my computer with different people selections). P.S. Sova, you problly have more knowledge on famous people then you think, i haven't known Pavlova before. ] 17:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::P.S. It seems Stanislavski greatly represents the whole stage thing. ] 17:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is limited space on the image and we cannot infinitely extend it. It is not suppose to show all the world-famous Russians. M.V.E.i. did the last version of the image and he has some artistic license on who is on this image. If you will extend the image, I would consider ] (as a matter of fact as an Australian citizen I would even consider to put her instead of a "dead old white man" on the current image; how many other foreigners gave their name to national foods like ]), ], ], ] (well I know he was a politician, but he lived 300 years ago), ], ], ], ]... The list really can unroll infinitely ] 00:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
:As you said, we can't put all Russians in it. Pavlova is only a Ballerina, she's not the first she didn't stamp anything new, unlike Stanislavski for example who made alot of new things. There were people who just must be thats why i extanded it. I wanted Mendeleyev but i figured Lomonosov represents the whole science thing nicely. ] 09:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, but I don't quite understand why there should be so many pictures at all. The image is quite huge, and the old pictures were more than sufficient to represent the folk. Seriously, why put every famous Russian in here? Anyone who would fancy using famous Russian links may find them in the appropriate section, namely the one on their contributions to humanity. This image is basically an illustration to an anthropological article on the Russian ethnicity. I'd say it should present those Russians who are supposed to look Russian, not mere representatives of the Russian culture or famous Russians with highly exotic features. In addition to that, what's Pushkin doing there again? Hasn't that already been discussed?.. Oh, and speaking of the contribution section. Am I the only one who finds it weird that the part about WWII is larger than the part on all famous Russians altogether? It also contains highly subjective information, and the overly enthusiastic tone strikes me as unencyclopedic. The article projects the image of a folk with a huge array of complexes, with its representatives trying to make a point using Misplaced Pages. Well, the image is truthful, but at least we could try to act in a more discreet manner... ] 01:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
:I think 12 images is too much, and I agree with Humanophaege, the pictures <b>should be Russians that look Russian</b>, not necessarily representatives of Russian culture or famous Russians with exotic features. Which is why I think that someone like ] should be included. Also, I strongly object to ] being removed, he looks very Russian and he is probably the only young Russian there.--] 01:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
::: Those who have the classical Russian appearance without any traits that would be classified as uncharacteristic of the ethnicity, and without traits apparently obtained through admixtures of those who have little to do with the Russians, or Eastern Europeans altogether, like North Africans, Western Asians or Mongoloids. Mostly of the Baltid phenotype, if you need a precise description, but East Nordids wouldn't hurt either. ] 09:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
::::My friend i cant say your wrong. Nevertheless, most of Russians or at least half have those elements (some have Finic, some Turk), and we cant cancel those. ] 10:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::Well, if someone has foreign admixtures, then certainly he cannot adequately represent an ethnicity. I mean, a partly Tatar Russian, for instance, cannot be a fine example of either the Russians or the Tatars, and should not be used as an illustration to anthropological articles about either of them. The same can be said about anyone with considerable admixtures of physical traits that are not characteristic of the original Russians. Why use examples that aren't fully illustrative of the ethnicity itself? In addition to that, it is an exaggeration to imply that most Russians have either Turkic or noticeable Finno-Ugric admixtures. Well, actually, there's nothing wrong with Finno-Ugric admixtures, as long as they don't add a Mongoloid strain, which would make them different from the original Russians, and thus improper for the article. ] 16:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Many, maybe more then half of the Russian have mixed with finic tribes. Many Russian woman were raped by mongolo-tatars and some had children from them. Those parts should be represented to. Those are Russians to. They are many, and thats why they cant be ignored. P.S. I wanted to add Rachmaninov but i havent, thought i wanted. He is mostly Russian but his family-root was Tatarian. I dont see that important but i havent entered because i figured that you will object. ] 22:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
::Sharapova was in and old image and that was heavily critisized. She has nothing special and many took it as vandalizm. And what do you mean "looks Russian"? Every Oblast in Russia has it's own look, features. There's no such thing as a "Russian look". Yesenin looks like the north-west Russian yes, but really not like a South-Russian. Tzvetaeva has the same features as Yesenin. ] 09:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
:::P.S. In every ethnic groups image what they did is taking the most historicaly famous and recognizable once, and not just temporary celebraties (like Sharapova). The trick is to take those who are number one, irreplacable. ] 09:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
:I think that it's nice expanding. I havent made it 16, just 12 (a luky number by the way, not that i'm supersticious). I'm not trying to represent all the famous Russians in the world, we would have to do a 1000 people image for that. But yet, this expanding was needed. ] 09:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
What first comes into my head is:
*] should be added into the image with no doubts.
*The art and literature in particular seem to be dominant now on the image. I think, we should not forget about other branches of culture as well. for a sportsman I'd suggest ].
*Due to my personal view I'd replace ] with ]
] 14:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
**For one more female famous Russian I'd suggest ].] 15:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
:But we have no-one we could remove from the image, and expanding more will not look good. ] 18:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
::I suppose, it's better to remove someone from already represented branch of culture, than to leave huge branches uncovered.] 19:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
:::The trick is not to cover branches but to put those who are most recognized for a long perioud of time. P.S. We already had the discussion about Donskoy and Ivan the 3, but only me and Humanophage took part in that discussion. I think that your suggestion here is good so i will start the discussion here bellow again. ] 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK guys, Cmapm suggested a proposal to replace Donskoy with Ivan the Third. It's really hard to decide beetwen them, so state your opinions on that. ] 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I am quite surprised that no-one has yet suggested ] --] 23:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
:That ugly Popsa cow? No way! She is hated by to much! ] 17:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We (the dutch), have been working on our own article of the ] and we have been able to supply only ethnic Dutch people, with minimal admixture of foreign ethnic qualities to our collage; making it completely Dutch. When will you Russians start placing only ethnic Russians in your collage? I see that your greatest poet is a negro? He has no place in your collage. Neither do Germans or Jews. You don't see use placing the Dutch-German royalty or the Jewish Spinoza in our collage do you? ] (]) 17:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
:You actually seem to want to make a point about the issue of Dutch ethnicity. I would suggest you do this at ]. ] (]) 06:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
:Hhhhh Pushkin was only s 1/8 negro. The rest of him was Russian. Once a person has a majority of Russian blood, and he consideres him Russian, he can enter him. You cant enter Schpinoza because he didnt have any Dutch blood. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Mmkay, I've gotten a message from someone accusing me of a hurting a consensus, so I've read this section very very carefully and... I don't see it. Does anyone other than ] have a problem with my replacing the single-file picture collage with a wiki-code multi-file collage? ] (]) 03:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

==Russian art==
Is their any chance someone who understands writes a few lines about a few Russian painters who influenced on the world of art alot in the Contribution to humanity section? Thank you. ] 18:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

==Failed "good article" nomination==
Per the ] of the GA process, any article that obviously violates a neutral point of view should be failed immediately. The section "Contribution to humanity" reads like propaganda; a separate section just to chronicle the positive contributions of ethnic russians is not acceptable. Other very serious issues present in the article include, but are not limited to: the ] is far too short, there are multiple sections that are completely without ], and the improper formatting of many of the references (just a numbered url is not sufficient to ] the ] of a source). If you feel this decision was in error, you may seek a ]. Thank you for your work so far, ] <sup>]</sup> 18:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

==Guys, a constant act of vandalizm occures here==
Someone who obviously hates himself and his nation, tries to feel better by constantly vandalizing this page. While people work hard on the article, someone vandalizes it. The user has a variety of IP numbers and nicknames. My request is: Check the history of this page frequently and see what the change which was done is. Also, an administrator might think of doing some long term IP ranges blocks.

Examples:

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

As you can see this user has many nicknames and IP's, but does the same thing. We were patient to much just reverting him back. I dont care if he feels the nation he came from is small and not important so he vandalizes the Russians page, i dont care if his bored. This must stop. We were quite about it to much. ] (]) 20:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

== The section "Contribution to humanity" and the section "Culture" is disputed ==
(Note: someone else brought up the matter above under the section "Failed "good article" nomination")

''Russian Literature is considered to be among the most influential literature in the world'', sounds very much like propaganda. Considered by whom? Influential in what way?

''Tolstoy and Dostoevsky in particular were titanic figures, and have remained internationally renowned, to the point that many scholars have described one or the other as the greatest novelist ever.''

''Titanic figures'' sounds like the writer tries to prove they were not merely great authors, but gods. Bad choice of words, and might have been written just to make them shine more than any other great author from any other country. '''One''' scholar (referenced) is far from ''many'' scholars, which the text asserts.

The information on World War II contains information which is POV and particularly difficult to verify;

''A fact which the Russian people are proud of is the large part, larger than anybody elses part...'', well, obviously the writer seems to be proud, but is the entire Russian people as proud as h/she is? And far worse, ''larger than anybody elses part'' is really a blatant POV. Sounds like the writer likes to downplay every other country involved in the Second World War. It was not only the SU fighting Germany, was it?

''It was on the Eastern Front that <b>the war was won or lost</b>, for if the Red Army had not succeeded against <b>all the odds</b> in halting the Germans in 1941 and then inflicting the first major defeats at Stalingrad and Kursk in 1943, <b>it is difficult to see how the western democracies</b>, Britain and the US, could have expelled Germany from its new empire.''

Well, '''one''' historian may have written this, but to present this particular historian's POV only (and not other historians) is violating ]. It seems to have been written just to prove the point ''larger than anybody elses part...'', does it not?

Hope this helps ya all.
No need to think I'm anti-Russian here; I love Tchaikovsky and whatever, but the section needs to be rewritten in order to conform to Misplaced Pages standards. --] (]) 19:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

:More here: The section "Culture" is full of useless peacocking. Please see ].--] (]) 20:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


The section contribution to humanity is referenced, so you cant tag "dubious" in a middle of a sentence that gives you references. The Contributaion to humanity section exists also in the English people,Italians and Bulgarians. Jews have an Achievments section, which is pretty much the same. This section was created and edited by many people, and it's just fine the way it is. M.V.E.i., Fisenko, Miyokan and me are just 4 of alot of people who have written it and and belive it's juust fine.

The Culture section is needed, but it needs to be written and expanded. ] (]) 18:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
:This is vandalizm. You are worned. A majority already decided long before you came that the Contribution To Humanity section is needed and that it is written just fine. Being a sock pupett doesn't give you the right to edit war and to decide for everybody how it would look. Stop. ] (]) 18:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

::Nope, it's not fine, and stop accusing me of vandalism (]) - I haven't changed any text - I have only marked stuff that needs to be addressed. It's simple; the article is lacking, as another editor mentioned above under "Failed "good article" nomination". Sorry, but the things I've marked ''are'' either dubious/peacock tems/questionable and/or lacking in quality and/or failing to live up to Misplaced Pages standards. I would suggest you read ], ] and ], and alter/rewrite the disputed texts in this article accordingly. It's quite easy - it just takes a serious editor to do it. --] (]) 18:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

:::Those stuff are adressed. Thats the wehole point you enter tages in the middle of a sentence that was referenced. You are a vandal, simply because you edit war with people who have already had those arguments and found a concensus. You cant reveryt things and add tags when alot of people are against it. So stop. Since you are in a minority, what you can do is write a new version of the section, and not insert it into the text, but upload it here on the talk page, and people here decide wheather there will be a change or not. Thats the maximum you can do. You cant do changes on your own. ] (]) 19:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

::::If you decide to ignore the stuff which I have seriously and in good faith mentioned above, and try to play this by your very own rules (please see ]), this will likely go to a neutral ] and perhaps an arbitration case. Should we do do this, or would you please revert yourself, readd the tags and answer to each of my concerns above? Or even better, rewrite the disputed texts? --] (]) 19:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::], no doubt. The texts are not disputed. If you have a new version of them upload them here on the talk page. ] (]) 19:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::Well, first, please answer this simple question: do you know what ] are? --] (]) 19:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, and this in not the case. You are now trying to change the case on purpouse, not to honest of you. You started adding idiotic tags and continued doing it even after you were told by few: The text is alright and referenced. Anyway, what those who will come here should do is check and link to see that what i have reverted was vandalizm. As i said, if you have suggestions how to revrite it without hurting the content, please. Upload your suggestion here and we all could discuss it. If not, you cant go against a majority that already has a concensus for a long time. ] (]) 19:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, wrong again, I'm not changing the case. ''That is <u>precisely</u> the case.'' You claim you know what peacock terms are, but still you don't see them. Therefore I will spell them out for you, slowly, one by one:
*''Russian art is '''very important''' and considered by many to be '''unique''' and some of the '''most important''' painters in the world are Russian'',
*''is considered to be among the '''most influential''''',
*'''''titanic''' figures'',
*''larger than '''anybody elses''' part''
* etc. etc. etc.
are all peaock terms by pure definition (actually perfect examples which would fit on the very page ] itself as examples). Simply rewrite them to non-peacock versions, it's as simple as that, and I'll make no fuss. Please, where is your claimed majority or "consensus" which have discussed and suggested these particular wordings? Please show me, it would be interesting to see that previous discussion with other editors. --] (]) 20:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

* etc. etc. etc.

::You vandalized the artricle with tags that are much beyong what you stated now. Now lets go thru what you brought up:

**''is considered to be among the '''most influential''''' - It really is and the reference was given.
**'''''titanic''' figures'' - Well, when they are rated as the greatest novelists ever, they really are.
**''larger than '''anybody elses''' part'' - 2/3 of the murdered at WW2 were Russian, and 85% of the German forces were destroyed in Russia by Russians. And this was referenced. So i dont see anything wrong with that statement.
**''Russian art is '''very important''' and considered by many to be '''unique''' and some of the '''most important''' painters in the world are Russian'' - About Russian art it's enough to place a needed to be written template. Vorontsov, Rublov, Repin were Russian so some of the most importent painters really were Russian. If you want ad the names to the section. We need a Russian who understands in art to write about it. The culture sectin really needs to be edited. Written i would say.

::Again, go to English people, Italians, and have this argument there. ] (]) 05:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

:::Thanks for mentioning other pages (English/Italian) - actually I might go there and check if things live up to wikistandards. But now, let's stick to the subject and consider this particular page and these particular statements. But, first just a note: this will be the <u>last time</u> that I accept that you accuse me of vandalism. Please read ], and stop that behavior; otherwise I will take appropriate measures. Now, back to the subject...

:::It is quite obvious that you believe the wordings are true and fine the way they are, but this is not relevant. Actually, I ''might'' even agree with you on some points, but neither my opinion is relevant. What's relevant is that the two sections are full of ], and reads very much like propaganda, like ] has stated above. Now, these things have to be fixed, and I will add the tags to the statements until they are properly addressed. If you are serious about fixing it, here's a very good advice (from the peacock page): '''Instead of telling the reader that a subject is important, use facts to show the subject's importance'''. That is, don't draw conclusions for the reader; let the reader draw his own. Here are some examples on how to do it (for instance):

:::*''Russian art is '''very important''' and considered by many to be '''unique''' and some of the '''most important''' painters in the world are Russian'' - the peacock terms here are actually just stupid; ''important'' - important to whom, considered by whom? Instead of saying it '''is''' important, tell '''why''' it is important. ''Unique'' - bad word, all art is more or less unique. Scrap it. In fact, scrap the entire sentence and replace it with mentioning appropriate painters and use terms like ''widely known'', ''famous''. Don't draw subjective conclusions on who or what is important or influential.

:::*''Russian Literature is considered to be among the most influential literature in the world.'' Same thing here; influential to whom? Considered by whom? Advice: scrap this sentence completely - instead, mention appropriate authors and use terms like ''widely known'', ''widely read'' or ''famous''.

:::*''...many scholars have described one or the other as the greatest novelist ever'' - quite unnecessary, every scholar has his/her favorites. Scrap it. Use facts, not opinions.

:::*''titanic figures'' - this has been changed and that's good. Maybe not perfect, but better.

:::*Second World War: ''larger than anybody elses part''. Plain peacocking, scrap it. Advice: rewrite the entire first sentence to, for instance ''The Soviet Union was a major participant in the Second World War, and played a big role in defeating Nazi Germany in World War II.'' (maybe not perfect language, but better, I think you get my point). Then, afterwards, mention the facts as is, but remove the last cite ''It was on the Eastern Front...'' referenced to one single historian. This is quite unnecessary, as it is opinion and not fact. Again, let the '''facts''' speak for themselves.

:::In the meantime, I will add the tags to all disputed statements until they are properly addressed. --] (]) 14:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
::::What you do is edit waring and inserting tags which you were told were already discussed and dont fir here, and this is vandalizm since you were warned for a few times. What you do is called Sneaky vandalism and Abuse of tags. You can read about it at the same page you gave. No about what you wrote:
::::*''...many scholars have described one or the other as the greatest novelist ever'' - It's a fact that many scholars... this is a complitely NPOV and fine statement that anderlines the fact that it's a n opinion of a number of scolars, but we want that opinion to be in the text.
::::*''Russian Literature is considered to be among the most influential literature in the world.'' We said '''among''' the most influencial, to keep the NPOV. About that you can find information in a seperate article about Russian literature.
::::*''Russian art is '''very important''' and considered by many to be '''unique''' and some of the '''most important''' painters in the world are Russian'' - Among the most important simply because painters like Repin, and many more, are comsidered by many to be among the greatest painters in the world andf the most influencial. Were not touching Russian art because we want a specialist who could write it in a major way.
::::*Second World War: ''larger than anybody elses part''. Whan most of the German forces were destroyed in the USSR, and most of the murdered were Soviet people, it shows that the soviet union had the largest part.

::::Everything you refered to was answared. ] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

:::::Aha, I see, I might have guessed this. You refuse to see the problems, and you obviously think that you define the rules. Please note that this was the last time I accept that you refer to my edits as vandalism. My edits are not ''Abuse of tags'', since they are not put here in bad faith, but in order to improve the quality of this article. I have thoroughly explained here on the talk page why and how the things have to be fixed. My edits are neither ''Sneaky vandalism'', since I don't hide them, I don't say they're minor, I don't hinder the improvement of pages and I do not use misleading edit summaries. But I'm sorry to say that you continually do so; I quote the page ]: ''Some vandals even use edit summaries such as "rv vandalism" to mask their changes''; since you do this and falsely accuse me of vandalism, you are by definition yourself guilty of ''sneaky vandalism''. I sense that we have a slight case of ] here, and I actually don't think we can come to any constructive compromise here, as you still refuse to see the ]. Still, I will give this another chance, and allow other editors (including you) to address the disputed contents. I will readd the tags, and if you bluntly remove them without addressing the disputed contents constructively, i.e. ignoring my points, I will take this one step further and take appropriate measures. --] (]) 21:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::I dont think i falsely call you a vandal. I also dont think that if you'll say it ain't true it will make it not true. A concensus was reached here long ago, i'm not the first one who tells you to stop, yet you ignore what you've been told and ask questions without expecting an answer. You abuse tags. You use them in places with references and a nutral point of view. I wouldn't say i refuse to see the problem, but reather you refusing to see answers to your claims. '''You were offered a solution long ago''': Dont revert but show an example, here, ON THE TALK PAGE, on what refrasing you want to be there. I already went on 2 compromises in the text, while you simply keep on taging. If you'll compere the CTH section before you started fighting about it, and now, you'll see i have done changes as a compromise, while you ignored them. Again, you act as if you are being ignored, and you are not. Offer the changes on the talk page, and we will talk about them. , for example, is an accepted change. ] (]) 21:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::This part of the article is far from neutral, quite POV, and sounds like it could possibly be nationalistic propaganda using these peacock terms. I want to see statistics, I bet you they don't match up to the claims, especially regarding WWII. ] (]) 15:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Go to the ] article and see for yourself. First, we mentioned it's OVERYS OPINION. ? Soviet Union lost more people than anybody else. Now read . Is it so hard for you to find the article and check it yourself before blaming people?? Read. ] (]) 17:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Wrong again, mister. As I said before (my very last repeat): <u>(1) My edits are ''not'' vandalism. (2) I do ''not'' abuse tags.</u> If you continue with false accusations, it might soon be time for an ] on this for you. You say ''Offer the changes on the talk page, and we will talk about them.'' I have already done so, on numerous occasions. I have described how to do it. I have given my advice. I have given examples. No, sorry, but I do feel that whatever I say you will disagree with, if you haven't yet understood the obvious ] which harms the ] of this article. And the cite of the '''single''' historian's POV seems (now more than before) to be put there only to support a POV. And, your idea of a "compromise" seems to be trying to keep a status quo - that's not a compromise when the section is full of POV. A compromise is to rephrase ''every'' disputed phrase, so the tags can be removed, and on that I will not compromise. Don't worry mister, I will patiently keep tagging until I see that the needs have been met. Anyone else supporting/opposed to this? --] (]) 17:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::1. Yoy are a vandal, you have a revert war while your the only one on your side. 2. You are abusing tags, and i'm not the first one reverting you over that. You havent given one example. O, you have given one, with canging "Nore then anybody elso" to "big part", and that was made as you offered. It's not like were showing Overys view as the only one, but we have underlined that it's his opinion. So a tag is really not needed, because it was noted in the text that its an opinion. About what do you want to discuss?? About the fact is it here opinion or no?? The page, and everything, was given to you. "Mister", pans on. Make a table here. Every line you dont agree with, and how do you suggest to change it. It's the 4th time i offer that. ] (]) 18:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::That's definitely the last time you call me a vandal, this goes to RFC and ] right now. I'm not alone - ] and ] agrees with me above. I'm keeping the tags until a <u>really</u> serious editor can address the problems. If you have trouble understanding, ], read this <u>entire</u> talk page section <u>from the start </u> again. Then you might understand - but I can't help doubting it. --] (]) 18:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::As i said: 1. In Culture there is no use of taging, since you have puted this tag: The quality of this article or section may be compromised by "peacock terms". It already makes it clear that the section needs to be written. 2. In CTH we need to have: Russian contribution to sciense, literature, music, and the role the Russian people play in WW2. If what you try is to reach a situation one of those parts will be deleted, forget it. If you have a suggestion how to change it, write it hear. You clame you want the section to be more nutral, so already nor for the first time i re-write it to make it more nutral. All you do is placing tags. ] (]) 18:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


== Russians in Israel ==

There are at least 300, 000 Russians in Israel, that I know of. Russian is one of the most common European languages used there. In Tel-Aviv many ATM and bank machines offer service in Russian along with English and Hebrew as third most spoken language. Why is this not mentioned in the info box? --]. 02:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)- Sergei

There's actually about 1.5 million Russian-speakers in Israel, far more than 300,000. How many of them are ethnically Russian is debatable. 300,000 is the figure of non-Jews from the former Soviet Union. Funnily, many of those people would be Jewish by Misplaced Pages standards (Jewish father) but not by Halacha and Israeli law (ethnically Slavic, non-Jewish mother). Though either way, an ethnic Russian mother (or maternal grandmother in my case) is sufficient for the Ethnic Russian category in my opinion. But of course, plenty of these non-Jews could have Ukrainian or Belorussian mothers, but we just don't know for sure. ] (]) 09:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

== Population section is completely out of whack ==
I don't even care which numbers are correct, but it contradicts the article itself!
* population of about 260 million people worldwide, on the right we read: Total population 137 million (what year, btw?)
* 130 million ethnic Russians live in Russia, on the right we read: Russia: 115,889,000
* 50 million more live in the neighboring countries, 70 million live elsewhere in the world, on the right we read: 137-115=22 million outside of Russia total! ] (]) 23:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

==GO the Ruskis. You guys rock==

==Removed the Disputed tag in the Contribution To Humanity section==
The section is fine. What's disputed? If Overy have said it or not? Or the fact that the first man in space was Gagarin? About literature. He said they are CONSIDERED, and gave links showing they are widely regarded as the best novelists ever. The section is written nutraly and gives referenced facts. ] (]) 23:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

== Russians in Canada ==

The real number of ethnic Russians in Canada is logically somewhere between 500,600 and 98,245. 500, 600 is totaly unrealistic and can mislead readers who are unfamiliar with a differences between methods used in cenus data on "ancestry" in Canada and methods used to collect ethnic statistics in former Soviet states and most other nations. Using number of "multiple responses" from Canadian census is obviously leads to an overestimation. 500, 600 includes all Canadians who said that they have any ancestors who are either ethnically Russians as well as in many cases simply those who have any ancestors who originally came from the either Russia, Soviet Union or Russian Empire. Ethnic Russian diaspora in Canada even if we include Russian Jews, Russophone Ukrainians and people of mixed origin who consider themselves culturally Russian would number may be 200, 000 + but clearly not 500, 000 ] (]) 21:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
:It really is a matter of definition. If you're talking about Russian Canadians as defined in the English language ("those who self-identify as such" or "immigrants from Russia (the country) and their descendants"), then it is half a mil. If you're talking about Russians as defined in '''this article''' ("east slavic ethnic group", different from ukranians and belorussians) who happen to live in Canada, then, come to think of it, I agree with 98,245. But for this article only, not for ]. --] (]) 06:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

==A vote==
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
Guys, since there are problem's on this topic, decide. Do you want a one-piece image, like , or seperated, like .

'''note:the vote is on a certain question, once-piece or not-a-one-piece image. dont use the vote for other questions because that will confuse the whole case.'''
</div>
Your Votes:
* '''One piece.''' Much more esthetical. First, the sizes of all people's images are the same size. Second, they were edited so all faces would be almost the same size, and not one image completely showing face and another the whole body. ] (]) 11:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
*'''One-piece''' Looks nicer, less attractive for edit warriors. ] (]) 12:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
** '''comment''' Please assume good faith - most editors work for the benefit of the encyclopedia, very few set out to start an edit war. Preventing an edit war isn't a good justification for making a task (i.e. changing a photo) more difficult for everyone. ] (]) 09:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
*** Sorry to break it but you cant ignore that "most" are not "all". It would be really nice to make those who are left as weaker as possible. Dont tel me there ain't vandalism on Misplaced Pages. Maybe only few come with bad intentions, but they do alot damage. Another argument is that it took to much time to get as close as posible to a concensus about who should be on the image. Many images together would make it to easy to change people. Someone might change it not because of bad intentionts, the intention will be good, but because of not knowing that the case is to gentle and as someone who worked alot on images i know that it brings to ugly wars. ] (]) 10:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
*'''One-piece''' per above. ] (]) 14:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
*'''comment''' The separated image block has some obvious problems - the dimensions of the images used are not in proportion, so there are gaps between images vertically, and each row is a different length. It would be nice to clean up these images up, and then discuss the merits when the aesthetic problems have been removed. ] (]) 09:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
**You ignored the vandalism problam. It's to easy for vandals. And about what you said, why working so hard if it's much more easier and esthetical to have a one piece? There are more arguments for a one piece. We done seek here for a compromise, and thats what you seek for, but for the better solution. Another argument is that it took to much time to get as close as posible to a concensus about who should be on the image. Many images together would make it to easy to change people. Someone might change it not because of bad intentionts, the intention will be good, but because of not knowing that the case is to gentle and as someone who worked alot on images i know that it brings to ugly wars. ] (]) 10:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
*** I'm well aware that there are many problems regarding vandalism, but there are better ways of dealing with the issue. The image collage can go in a sub-page such as ], which can be transcluded in the article. If persistent vandalism occurs, then the sub-page can be semi-protected. This would allow established editors to modify and improve parts of the collage with ease, but make it completely impossible for vandals. Surely this is better than making it slightly difficult for everyone? ] (]) 12:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
**** I'm not shure were talking on the same issue. Your right that her offer, and your improvment of her offer, are possible. But why do all that if a one piece solves many of those problems with less work? A one piece solves many possible problems from the start. A collection is too liqued. ] (]) 18:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
***** The single image solution has a number of serious problems. For a start, what happens if one of the constituent images has a license problem? At the moment the entire image is deleted. What if you want to change one of the constituent images? At the moment, you have to go to the trouble of editing the composite image, which also results in progressive loss of quality through JPEG compression. The only tangible argument I've heard against using an image table is to reduce vandalism... but you can actually achieve ''better'' protection against vandalism by transcluding another protected page than by using an editable image. Please could you clearly define exactly why you object to a collage? ] (]) 19:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
****** This image does not have license problems. The discription page has a link and license type to every image used there. You speak in general, and again, it's not the place for it. Here we talk about a specific image. It's not a problem to change one of the persons there, it's just "cut" in paint, and then some paint games to fit the new person in. You didnt realy think that what you see is what was from the start. And no it makes no problem with the quality. you can alow yourself to cut a piece of an image so it would fit the others. Infact, if somethings makes quality problems is in a collection of images where you have to strech and torture images so they would get close to each other by size. Some people were changed till the concensus was found, or more preciesley the closest as possible to a concensus. I have nothing against collection of images, but i still prefer a one piece. ] (]) 17:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
*'''One-piece''' if necessary alter the image itself, but keep it as one image. --] 10:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

== Russians in Finland ==
Article states that there are 33,000 russians living in Finland. However, this is 2002 information and recently there has been in news that the number has risen to 45,000, including (Finnish). This has been reported in various sources in Finnish media. More and more russians flood in our country and therefore this article needs to be updated to the latest information. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Russians-only East Slavic? ==



I have created a user account and noticed that someone keeps changing Russians as back to an ethnic group of only East Slavic origins. Why-is he denying that the Mongols had a large impact on Russia. There are many articles proving that Russians have Mongol genes and their culture was influenced by the Mongols. I recommend saying that Russians are of "Slavic and Mongol origin." Here are some links:
http://www.sras.org/the_effects_of_the_mongol_empire_on_russia
http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/360/11931_alcoholism.html -no, I don't think that Russians are alcoholics, but the article just shows that they have mongol genes, and pravda is a fairly respectable newspaper. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:So you are saying that people of Pskov, Novgorod, Vologda, Arkhangelsk, Vladimir and many other regions of northwestern Russia where Mongols never got to are '''not''' Slavic??? Also I would like you to have a look at this: genetic study which says all about the different genes and spices. True there have been non Slavic influences in some groups, but on the whole if the closest to Russia genetically, it would be Komi and Mordva, Finno-Urgic peoples not mongols. Internationally Russians are recognised as East Slavs. --] 07:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

== Help needed. Kuban Cossack, take a look ==
This article has '''no''' information about the Slivic tribes that eventually formed the Russian nation. The genetic study should be given here, and offcourse a few words about Russians having some Finno-Ugric blood. I except the Slavic tribes ], ], ] and ], and the Finno-Ugric ] and ], dont know any other tribes that fit here.

Someone told me Russians also have some Iranian nomand tribes in them, but i havent found information about it. ], ] (]) and a few more were mentioned but again, no links were given to me about it so i dont even know if it's true. In a book called Rebirth of Perun (''Voskresheniye Peruna'') by Klein it was said that the Slavic Mythology has many incommon things with the Iranian one and that might speak of some connections.

If someone can, please write about it.

P.S. No one think of entering the Mongols and Turks here. Since the genetic study showed that Russians dont have that blood, it is totally useless in entering them here. ] (]) 10:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
:Well I agree the article is in a sorry state, and could use a major expansion, but honestly I am focused on other areas now, and my time is scarce. --] 11:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:02, 3 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russians article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

Former good article nomineeRussians was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 20, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated, especially about reintroducing an image gallery of notable Russians into infobox. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting on that topic.
Restarting a debate that has already been settled constitutes disruptive editing, tendentious editing, and "asking the other parent", unless consensus changes.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconEthnic groups High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

WikiProject iconRussia: Demographics & ethnography Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages.
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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the demographics and ethnography of Russia task force.
WikiProject iconEastern Europe (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Eastern EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern EuropeTemplate:WikiProject Eastern EuropeEastern Europe

Russians are not Slavs.

Greetings ! I am not russian but russian speaking person. Contrasting their language with other Slavic languages I found that some words look different and and even Ukrainian share same lexicon with Czech. 2.133.211.65 (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Interesting hypothesis, but you are definitely wrong. There are no any doubts between linguists that Russian language is Indo-European language, that belongs to the Slavic language family. The 'lexicon' is not criteria to make such conclusions, especially taking in account the fact that many words in Ukrainian and Czech language have Germanic origin not Slavic (e.g. 'Thank you' - German 'Danke' - Ukrainian 'djákovati'). Also, some words in Russian have Greek origin. So you cannot assume the language family by just comparing the words. In that case you could take Ukrainian 'djákovati' (Germanic origin) and compare with Russian 'spasibo' (Slavic origin) and make a conclusion that Ukrainian is not Slavic language. It is silly, but it makes as much sense as your comment.Interesting hypothesis, but you are definitely wrong. There is no any doubts for between lindquist that Russian language is Indo-European language, that belongs to the Slavic language family. The 'lexicon' is not criteria to make such conclusions, especially taking in account the fact that many words in Ukrainian and Czech language have germanic origin, neither slavic (e.g. 'Thank you' - German 'Danke' - Ukrainian 'djákovati'). Also some words in Russian have greek origin. So you cannot assume the language family by just comparing the words. In that case you could take Ukrainian 'djákovati' (germanic origin) and compare with Russian 'spasibo' (slavic origin) and make a conclusion that Ukrainian is not slavic language. It is silly, but it makes as much sense as your comment. 91.123.65.221 (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Essentially a WP:FORUM thread that should have been reverted. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
As a person from Ukraine I'd question if Russians are really Slavic. This can be completely wrong so please no hate. But I clearly remember from History lessons that Russia is originally named Moscowia and came from Golden Horde. It got renamed as Russia only in October 22, 1721.
"The tsars of Moscow and, later, Russia understood that without an imposing past it was impossible to create a great nation and empire. Therefore it was necessary to glorify their historical roots and even to hijack the history of other nations. So, starting with Ivan the Terrible (1533-1584) the tsars of Moscow applied all their efforts to appropriate the history of Kyivan Rus, its glorious past, and to create an official mythology for the Russian Empire." 185.94.219.13 (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I would like to clarify that, regarding Kievan Rus, at least in the parts currently within the Russian Federation (including what are often referred to as Muscovy and other principalities, as well as the medieval republics of Novgorod and Pskov), these areas were never physically occupied by the Mongols. There were no Mongol garrisons, as demonstrated by historical accounts, archaeological evidence, and genetic studies. Instead, the princes were required to pay tribute by traveling to Sarai and acknowledging Mongol suzerainty. The Mongols established their state to the south of the Volga, approximately a thousand to two thousand kilometers away from Slavic settlements, in territories inhabited by nomadic tribes. This territory included present-day Kazakhstan, the southern Pontic steppes, and the southern Volga region in today’s Kalmykia, extending at one point as far as the Carpathians.
Furthermore, a study of autosomal markers indicates that northern Russians (from the region of present-day Saint Petersburg up to Veliky Ustyug) share genetic connections with other European populations, raising questions about the significance of the Finno-Ugric migratory layer within the genetic makeup of northern Russians. These findings support the notion that a paleo-European substratum from prehistoric times has been preserved in these territories, even amidst the significant migrations of Slavic tribes.
According to studies on Y-chromosome markers, the central-southern group, which encompasses the majority of Russian populations, is genetically aligned with Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Poles. In terms of mitochondrial markers and autosomal markers, Russians show similarities with other populations in Central and Eastern Europe. A notable genetic unity in autosomal markers has been found among East Slavic populations, along with distinct genetic differences from neighboring Finno-Ugric, Turkic, and North Caucasian peoples.
This has been confirmed by genogeographic expeditions conducted by the Scientific Center for Medical Genetics at the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, which collected and analyzed more than 10,000 DNA samples from individuals of Russian nationality between 2000 and 2008. All samples indicated a genetic profile that is fully European. Research by Malyarchuk et al. on mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomes in Russian populations supports this conclusion.
This finding aligns with scientific research on Russian anthropology and genetics, including recent studies on Russian patrilineal heritage and mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome differentiation. Studies led by various researchers have shown that ethnic Russians are genetically European, with negligible contributions from Turkic or Caucasian groups. The frequencies of East Eurasian genetic markers in Russians correspond with average markers found across the rest of Europe.
All existing biological and genetic studies have made previous hypotheses regarding the mixing between Russians and non-European ethnic groups obsolete. Among northern Russians, the contribution of Baltic genetic markers is now recognized to be more significant than that of Finno-Ugric markers, which are now understood to be lower than previously thought. 125AB (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
@125AB: Misplaced Pages is based on reliable sources (see WP:RS) and on consensus (see WP:CONSENSUS). That means that you have to stop reverting to your preferred version if you see that other editors disagree. There are no reliable sources supporting pseudo-scientific terms like Europoid. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Ultimate original research fail 2603:6011:9600:52C0:645E:6895:7583:F219 (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Interesting hypothesis, but Misplaced Pages isn't the place for spreading original research and fringe theories. Summer 14:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality of section on Religions

Jews are not mentioned in that section, seemingly because they are not "ethnic Russians". Defining ethnic Russians in a way that excludes Jews seems to be original research based on an idea of ethnicity being determined primarily by a person's "blood" (or genetics). Rsk6400 (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2024

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

Remove total population. It's misleading and unsourced. 193.187.88.197 (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. It looks like all the population numbers are sourced. Please be specific about what you want changed. RudolfRed (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Ethnic group ?

Since Ivan Grozny, there have been at least two definitions of Russians: Ethnic Russians and subjects / citizens of the Russian Empire. In Russian there are even two words: русские and another one (российский) derived from "Russia". There is no reason why this article should only be about ethnic Russians. The formula "are an East Slavic ethnic group native to Eastern Europe, who share a common Russian ancestry, culture, and history." is similar to many other articles, but there is no source for it, and it doesn't match the specific Russian history. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Undashing: Would you please take part in this discussion that I started two weeks ago before restoring claims that are totally unsourced ? Rsk6400 (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
@Rsk6400: Other ethnic groups in Russia have their own separate articles e.g. Buryats. No reason to hijack this one and make it all about the "multiculturalism" and deny the existence of the East Slavic core population of Russia, who compose 80% of the total population of the federation. Unless you have an agenda. Then go forward because no one cares and no one will stop you anyway. Swoonfed (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
My edits had nothing to do with any of the things you accused me of. Can you give me a good source for the formula I mentioned in my post of 23 June ? Why should we not mention that "Russians" has two meanings? Russians are the only people I know of having two different words for the ethnicity and the citizenship. If this article is to deal with ethnic Russians only, it should be renamed "Ethnic Russians". Rsk6400 (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
There is a separate article named Ethnic groups in Russia. This article should not be named "Ethnic Russians". That is utterly confusing. Secondly, most people in this world are ignorant i.e. they have little knowledge about geography, history, ethnic groups, cultures, social customs, classes etc. The word "Russian" was synonymous with the word "Slav" for a very long time in the West. I would say it was as such just before 2022 invasion of Ukraine. So, when people think about the word "Russian", they think about the Slavic ethnic group, that are the Russians, who compose the majority of Russia's population.
It is not very hard to grasp the fact that all ethnic groups in Russia are of Russian nationality but not of Russian ethnicity. And this might disappoint you, but people are not searching for Dagestanis or Yakuts when they search the word "Russians". Swoonfed (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
In English, the Russians is also how Россияне — Википедия (wikipedia.org) is translated to. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
This article was made for the Slavic Russians, whose namesake the federation uses. To omit the sections reserved for the ethnic Russians and make this article a multicultural salad like the article Germans is pointless considering all of the minority ethnic groups in Russia have their own separate articles. So I do not support that.
A point to be noted is that in Russia minority ethnic groups have their own separate identity and culture, which is distinct from the majority Slavic population. Such as the Kalmyks, the Mongolic peoples who are the only Buddhist bunch in Europe. Peoples such as Chechens also do not identify as "Russian", but rather as their own separate identity and culture. The word "ethnic" itself is puzzling. It often refers to people of color. Most readers would have 0 idea about what the supposed "ethnic" Russians are supposed to be. Swoonfed (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
It's sad that you didn't reply to my concerns regarding the missing sourcing for the formula "who share a common Russian ancestry, culture, and history". Also: To restrict this article to ethnic Russians only, we'd need good reasons based on reliable sources. Please make yourself familiar with WP:TPG, WP:RS, and WP:OR.
Russian identity is linked to the justification of the war in Ukraine, therefore WP:GS/RUSUKR applies (see also WP:BROADLY), that means that you are not allowed to edit this article before becoming extended confirmed, while I'm allowed to revert you (Remedies C and D of WP:GS/RUSUKR). Rsk6400 (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
This article was made for the Slavic Russians
We can extend the body with regard to arguments above.To omit the sections reserved for the ethnic Russians and make this article a multicultural salad like the article Germans is pointless
You don't need to oppose that since nobody has this intention. See the actual argument above. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
The article is currently categorized under Category:Ethnic groups in Europe and Category:East Slavs, so please do not repeatedly restore contested edits. Mellk (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Mellk, you surely are able to reply to my concerns, aren't you? Rsk6400 (talk) 06:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
It is strange for the lead to include both an ethnic group and nationality while the body refers to ethnic Russians specifically, including origins and history, genetics, geographic distribution etc. This has been discussed many times before, since the article has been referring to the ethnic group for 20 years. You may have noticed the archives on this talk page and other associated pages; rossiyane does not even redirect here. I would suggest to gain consensus on the wording first before continually restoring your changes. Mellk (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
"Rossiyane" translates to Russians. The article body can be extended to talk about both meanings but the lead should inform the reader that when they see the word "Russians", it may mean either Русские — Википедия (wikipedia.org) or Россияне — Википедия (wikipedia.org) . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The wording should be proposed here and then there should be clear consensus to change this. The wording in the edit by Rsk6400 is something akin to a dictionary definition. Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. Mellk (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Everybody can improve it instead of deleting. ... may also denote the people of the multi-ethnic Russian state , as it was, is a good start for me. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
The body already includes non- ethnic Russians: Osip Mandelstam, Grigori Perelman, Sergei Eisenstein (father was no ethnic Russian). Shall we really discuss whether Gogol was an ethnic Russian and then delete him from the article? Rsk6400 (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
He was "hybrid" or something ethnicity (from Gogol article). ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The formula "who share a common Russian ancestry, culture, and history" was introduced by user Danloud in this edit. That user has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

A similar sentence was present before that edit. This was four years ago and the same editor added the bulk of the culture section, so I am not sure how WP:BE can be applied here.
What do you propose should be changed in the lead? The other issue is that the population figures for example represent ethnic Russians (the population of Russia is over 140 million, not 105 million). Before there was Rossiyane but it was merged to Russian citizenship law (see Talk:Rossiyane). If nobody can agree on what the article should fundamentally be about, then this will only cause problems in the future. Mellk (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I'd suggest we solve first the question whether the clause who share a common Russian ancestry, culture, and history should be removed. It is completely unsourced, and so IMHO it has to be removed. Mellk, if you object to the removal, I think you should provide a source. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
No, instead of your opinion that it's "completely unsourced" it is necessary to refer to the definition of ethnic group. One ethnic group by definition shares a common language, culture, traditions, heritage and history. Otherwise, it is not an ethnic group at all, and within such a group it is impossible to live in the same village, practice farming, craft and trade, communicate effectively with each other, practice a religion, support common traditions and superstitions, understand the context, use idioms and proverbs, make jokes and other things hundreds and thousands of years ago and for hundreds of years. This is the history of all of humankind. ruASG  05:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 27 June 2024

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

Revert to revision# 1230356292 from 22 June 2024, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Russians&oldid=1230356292

Edits on 23 June 2024 removed Brazil, Germany, United States, and Israel from the Russian Diaspora list, making it appear that no Russians live in those countries.

I see the reasoning above, the editor removed those countries and population numbers as they included "russian jews" and "russian germans" which the editor does not believe belong in the russian ethnic group. However, it is more appropriate to keep these countries and the population number in the list, with the notation of who is included in that population number, so that readers can be informed. Additionally, this is already clarified in the article which states, "A large Russian diaspora (sometimes including Russian-speaking non-Russians), estimated at 25 million people, has developed all over the world, with notable numbers in the United States, Germany, Brazil, and Canada." Making it more misleading that three of the named countries, United States, Germany, and Brazil, are not in the list.


74.218.78.226 (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.78.226 (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

If we start this article with a certain definition (which I think is wrong), then we have to follow that definition. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 2 December 2024

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

In the lead paragraph, please edit:

−The majority of Russians adhere to Orthodox Christianity, ever since the formation of the Russian identity in the Middle Ages. +The majority of Russians adhere to Orthodox Christianity, ever since the Middle Ages.

The statement that Russian identity formed in the Middle Ages is POV, fringe, or non-mainstream at best, and doesn’t belong in the lead (see for e.g. The Origins of the Slavic Nations). Russian identity didn’t suddenly materialize after a dunk in the Dnipro. National identities as we generally understand them did not develop until long after the Middle Ages.142.160.96.197 (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Rsk6400 (talk) 08:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: